Exhibit B Solicitation Questions and Answers W911RX25RA006.pdf

III Armored Corps Agricultural Sanitation Services

W911RX-25-R-A006

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers

Q1: I was reviewing the Solicitation Notice released on May 7, 2025, and I am attempting to find out if this is a new opportunity or if there is an incumbent contractor. If there is an incumbent, can you please send me the previous contract information/incumbent info?

A1: This is a new requirement, there is no incumbent contractor. There have been multiple single award Agricultural Sanitization contracts performed by III Armored Corps units in the recent past. Additionally, XVIII Airborne Corps maintains an existing Blanket Purchase Agreement for Agricultural Wash and Sanitation Services.

Q2: Can you share the equipment break down by location?

A2: There are a total of 11 possible locations for performance. The primary locations are the Army Forts. The subsequent Request for Task Order Proposals (RTOP) will identify the location and the unit equipment list by location. For the Notional Task Order, FT Riley, KS was selected. The equipment list incorporated into the Notional Task Order is representative of a Brigade Combat Team (BCT), which is a typical sized unit for this requirement. However, both smaller and larger equipment densities are expected throughout the lifecycle of this requirement.

Q3: Is site visit available?

A3: No site visit will be available for the designated 11 locations. IAW PWS 1.6.6, “the work to be performed under this contract will be performed primarily at Fort Cavazos TX, Fort Carson CO, Fort Bliss TX, Fort Riley KS, and Fort Sill, OK. Contingency locations may include Port of Beaumont, TX, Port of Corpus Christie, TX, Port of Galveston, TX, Port Arthur, TX, Port of Charleston, SC, and Port of Tacoma, WA. The specific locations will be designated at the task order level. If an alternate work site, the Government will coordinate with the contractor to identify the location.”

Q4: In section Instructions to Offerors A. Proposal Preparation Instruction, it states “(6) The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft Office which includes software programs such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.”

We typically do not submit source document files; would the government accept a PDF of the entire proposal or individual PDFs of each Part?

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers A4: PDF’s are acceptable. Four separate parts, as PDFs is preferred, but one PDF with a linked Table of Contents (TOC) is acceptable, as long as all other requirements are met, e.g. page limit (see question 5).

Q5: In section Instructions to Offerors A. In Proposal Preparation Instruction it states “(9) Within the proposal use separate files and folders to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits and attachments, if any. Each Part shall be complete in itself and shall not reference information contained in other Parts.

Page 1 of a Part is defined as the first page after the Table of Contents. All pages shall be numbered.” Is the government wanting the proposal in four separate files? Or can a pdf with a link TOC be acceptable?

A5: A PDF with a linked table of contents is acceptable.

Q6: We do not see a defined PoP for the field duration for the cost level of efforts.

The callout to field durations expected is within Exhibit A July 7th through the 18th 2025. Are these the dates we should utilize of estimating field work level of effort?

A6: Upon award, RTOPs will be issued to the MATOC Awardees. The RTOP will identify the location, equipment density list, and the Period of Performance. For the Notional Task Order, 07JUL25 to 18JUL25 was selected as the PoP. Each subsequent RTOP will be different based on time available, the equipment list, and timelines for Strategic Assets.

Q7: What is the percentage of Virkon S to be utilized?

A7: IAW PWS 5.1.3 “Agricultural sanitation chemical blend as specified in Armed Forces Pest Management Board Technical Guide No. 31, and the locally assigned Veterinary Corps officer and Border clearance policies and procedures will dictate which chemical solution will be used.” Additionally, PWS 5.1.3.1, “The chemical solution will be identified at the Task Order-level.”

Historically the sanitation solution is a 1% solution of Virkon-S for a 10-minute wet contact time.

1%Virkon-S solution is required for the Notional Task Order, as identified by the Amended Exhibit A (TE1).

Q8: Will the government provide MHE? (In the PWS it states 4.2.3.2 Contractor may need to provide MHE, but in Exhibit A and in PWS section 3.2.2 it is noted that the government will provide MHE).

A8: Per PWS 4.2.3.1, “The Contractor shall provide materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to meet the requirements under this PWS.” PWS 4.2.3.2 states, “The Contractor may be required to provide Material Handling Equipment (MHE) to move Contractor owned or rented property in support of AGSAN activities. Specific instructions shall be provided at the task order level.”

PWS section 3.2.2 relates to Emergency and Rescue services provided by the government installation.

Exhibit A (TE1) states that the Government will provide MHE for lifting Containers in support of AGSAN activities.

Q9: PWS section 6.5 states Hours of operation 0600-1800. Is it the intent of the government to have the contractors utilize 12-hour days?

A9: The Contractor determines their employees’ work shift. The identified hours at PWS 6.5 are the window for operations. Contractor’s actual work hours will vary based on each RTOP, the PoP, etc. The RTOPs will identify the hours the Government requires Contractor staff on site. Contractors will determine their staffing to meet the identified hours in the RTOP, ensuring they adhere to the identified Wage Determination.

For the Notional Task Order, IAW Exhibit A (TE1), as amended, the hours of operations are 0700 to 1700. The Government requires sufficient Contractor manpower to be on-site at each of the identified locations to process vehicles between those hours.

Q10: Will site-specific information (points of contact, gate access procedures, etc.) be included in each RTOP?

A10: Yes, each Request Task Order Proposal will have site-specific details and information. For the Notional Task Order, Exhibit A, RTOP, as amended lists the points of contact. Exhibit D, Federal Installation Access Procedures is added and describes the procedures to access FT Riley, KS.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Q11: Are there any known site-specific hazards (biohazards, restricted access, environmental sensitivities)?

A11: Outside of the Ports (shipping container cranes, watercraft, etc) there are no known site-specific hazards. Each RTOP will identify any environmental sensitivities.

Q12: Will military escorts or supervision be required at all locations?

A12: Military Escorts are not required for the Primary locations (Army Forts). If and when Secondary Sites are used (Ports), additional information will be provided in the

RTOP.

Q13: Will contractors be required to obtain military base access credentials or CAC cards?

A13: IAW PWS 1.6.8.6.1.1 “Federal Installation/Facility Access: Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall comply with applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative). The employee performing services under this contract shall also provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services, Security Office or the host nation equivalent.”

IAW PWS 1.6.8.6.2, “Contractor Non CAC Eligible Requirements for DOD Facility and Installation Access: Contractor and all associated sub-contractors employees shall comply with adjudication standards and procedures using the National Crime Information Center Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III) and Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) (Army Directive 2014-05/AR 190-13), applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative), or, at OCONUS locations, in accordance with status of forces agreements and other theater regulations.”

Contractors are not authorized Common Access Cards (CAC) as a result of this Contract.

Q14: Is there a preferred format for documentation or service reports post-performance?

A14: Portable Document File (PDF) or MS Word

Q15: What is the expectation for response times or mobilization windows once an RTOP is awarded?

A15: Response/mobilization time will vary depending upon the task order location and the equipment numbers of the requesting units. The goal is to provide a minimum of 10-days between Task Order Award and the start of the PoP.

Q16: Are prime-sub agreements required to be submitted with the proposal or upon task order award?

A16: Prime-sub agreements are not required to be submitted with the proposal.

However, discussing the prime-sub agreement within the proposal could alleviate any clarifications or questions that may arise during proposal evaluation.

Q17: The PWS §5.1.1 requires the Contractor to remove all debris, but PWS §5.2.4 states that Soldiers "will wash" military equipment prior to sanitization. Can the agency clarify if it intends to re-wash or re-clean any visibly contaminated equipment but has passed the veterinarian inspection, or does the Contractor become solely responsible for the cleanliness of the unit equipment after the veterinarian inspection, if the Government’s wash is incomplete or leaves dirt and debris on the military equipment?

A17: IAW PWS 5.2.4 US Soldiers will clean military equipment to remove debris, dirt, and agricultural matter IAW AFMB TG31. US Government assigned Veterinary Corps officer, or appointee will accept or reject presented equipment based on observation of general exterior cleanliness (including undercarriages and bottoms of containers), prior to Contractor initiating sanitation. Note: USG will provide forklifts and licensed operators to support container inspection and treatment operations." At no point will the contractor be “solely responsible” for the cleanliness of the military unit’s equipment.

Q18: PWS §§1.3.1, 1.4, and 5.1.1 speak to sanitizing ‘unit equipment,’ while PWS §5.2.4 refers to Soldiers washing some ‘military equipment.’ Could the agency please confirm whether these terms apply to the same sets of rolling stock/tracked vehicles/containers/UAS & Rotary Wing, or if they are different equipment categories that represent the ‘military equipment’ not mentioned in the unit density list? If so, how are responsibilities allocated if certain items require both steps?

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers A18: The terms “unit equipment” is synonymous with “military equipment” in this requirement. Per Exhibit A (TE1) RTOP-Notional Task Order the Rolling Stock, Tracked Vehicles, Containers & Misc. Equipment and Rotory Wing & UAS is the referenced unit equipment or military equipment.

The word “military” at PWS 5.2.4 is replaced with “unit.”.

Q19: The PWS states that the Government will not provide property/services for contract performance (PWS §3.1.1), yet also assigns ‘washing’ to Soldiers (PWS § 5.2.4). Since washing is a cleaning method, the representation that soldiers wash the equipment overlaps with the contractor's sanitization responsibilities (cleaning + disinfecting = sanitizing). It may contradict § 3.1.1, as the government washing may "service" the contractor's sanitization activities.

Under these terms, does the agency plan to provide troop labor for the ‘washing’ step (like in W9115125Q0005 / W9115125F0010 under SFC Royall in November 2024), and how will that be coordinated so the Contractor can rely on sufficiently cleaned equipment and sufficient troop labor for the cleaning of the contractor sanitization?

A19: US Government personnel with ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

The Government cleaning/washing the equipment does equate to a government service. AFPMB TG 31 does not define the process as “cleaning, disinfecting=sanitation” In fact, it uses the term disinfecting and sanitation interchangeably.

The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for the required amount of time to clean equipment provided by the Government IAW the

PWS.

Q20: TG-31 §8.7 outlines detailed cleaning steps (e.g., removing debris from wheel wells, panel seams, etc.). Will Soldiers fully perform all detailing consistent with TG-31, is it the Contractor’s obligation to do final detailing as part of its sanitization tasks if debris remains?

A20: US Government personnel will ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for

Q21: (a) If an item arrives at the sanitization site with significant soil or debris (i.e., not meeting ‘general exterior cleanliness’), will the Government take it back for additional washing—or is the Contractor expected to provide re-cleaning under the ‘Agricultural Sanitation’ scope?

(b) Is the military equipment being washed is part of the unit density list?

A21: (a) US Government personnel with ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for the required amount of time to clean equipment provided by the Government IAW the

PWS.

(b) The unit equipment is the equipment identified on the various Tabs of Exhibit A (TE1)

RTOP.

Q22: PWS §5.2.4 mentions an Army veterinarian can ‘accept or reject’ equipment based on cleanliness. If the veterinarian rejects an item for insufficient pre-cleanliness, how will the agency handle re-washing—especially if that item belongs to the ‘unit equipment’ portion of the contract scope?

A22: US Government personnel with ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

If the Veterinarian rejects a piece of equipment for cleanliness, it is the Government’s responsibility to re-clean/re-wash the equipment to standard.

All “equipment” is the equipment that is identified on Exhibit A (TE1).

Q23: We understand that this requirement is for “Sanitization Only,” as PWS §2.1.1 indicates “Agricultural Sanitation does not include the tasks identified in AFPMB TG-31 as washing.” Upon reviewing TG-31, however, we see that “washing” is mainly referenced on page 13 for laundry/clothing tasks, whereas vehicle-related high-pressure water or steam (p. 26) is labeled “cleaning” rather than “washing.”

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers At the same time, the PWS includes references to “washing” certain "military equipment", which may not necessarily represent “unit equipment” assigned to the contractor, and activity wise, the “washing” appear to overlap with the “cleaning” steps in TG-31 that many would view as “washing.” We note, for example:

• PWS calls it “washing.”

• TG-31 calls functionally similar steps “cleaning.”

Because these terms can be interpreted in multiple ways, we seek clarification on how the agency distinguishes “washing” from “cleaning.” Specifically, could you please guide us on:

1. Whether high-pressure water or steam application for vehicles is considered “washing” (and thus excluded from Agricultural Sanitation) or “cleaning” (which might be the Contractor’s responsibility)?

1. How to reconcile the references to government-performed “washing” in the PWS with TG-31’s focus on “cleaning” for similar tasks?

A23: US Government personnel will ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

High pressure water or steam application for the purposes of cleaning is the responsibility of the Government.

The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for the required amount of time to clean equipment provided by the Government IAW the

PWS.

The word “wash” was replaced with the word “clean” in the PWS.

Q24: PWS §2.1.1 references pre-wash activities, which we usually associate with a staging step—such as what TG-31 §§8.6.2 and 8.6.3 describe. However, PWS §5.2.4 discusses washing certain “military equipment,” which is a broader definition for any equipment used by soldiers and may not be the same items the Contractor is responsible for sanitizing (“unit equipment”). Additionally, PWS §3.1.1 states the Government will not furnish any services, so it is unclear if the washing by soldiers in §5.2.4 applies to equipment under the Contractor’s scope.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Because “pre-wash” could be interpreted as staging, washing, or other tasks, we are seeking further guidance on:

1. Which specific activities relevant to the unit equipment will the Government perform before sanitization starts? For clarity and simplicity, please refer to the relevant TG31 sections in your answer.

2. Whether the Government’s “washing” in §5.2.4 applies to the same equipment the Contractor must clean and disinfect (sanitize)—or if it refers to unrelated military equipment, not within the unit equipment assigned to the contractor.

A24: The word “pre-wash” was removed from the PWS.

US Government personnel will ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

US Government assigned Veterinary Corps officer, or appointee will accept or reject presented equipment based on observation of general exterior cleanliness (including undercarriages and bottoms of containers), prior to Contractor initiating sanitation.

Q25: We recall that under Solicitation W9115125Q0005 in November 2024, the agency noted troop labor would wash equipment, which led to some uncertainty about the contractor’s scope. Subsequently, W9115125F0010 proceeded with a similar “sanitization-only” approach—paralleling what appears to be the current solicitation structure. You may already be familiar with these details.

We simply wish to confirm whether Solicitation W911RX25RA006 intends to follow the same model (i.e., Soldiers washing and the Contractor sanitizing), as this approach has been discussed at the GAO under B-XXXXXX with Mr. XXXX.

Our understanding is that the GAO recognized the agency’s position and closed the record prior to an agency report, avoiding further administrative steps regarding “chemical sanitization only after ensuring cleanliness.”

A25: This office did not write nor was it involved with Solicitation W9115125Q0005.

Comments about that Solicitation will not be provided. Solicitation W911RX25RA006 clearly identifies that the Government is responsible for cleaning the unit equipment identified in Exhibit A (TE1) to a sufficient level as to allow a Veterinary Corps officer, or

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers appointee to accept presented equipment based on observation of general exterior cleanliness (including undercarriages and bottoms of containers), prior to Contractor initiating sanitation.

The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for

Q26: According to the PWS, the contractor must remove debris and dirt from the unit equipment prior to disinfection (including any pressurized water steps per TG-31, identified as cleaning). However, the notional task order only mentions Camp Funston, which can be used for disinfecting rather than the initial cleaning stage. We also note that the Government’s washing of certain military equipment may be separate from the contractor’s cleaning requirements under TG-31 for the unit equipment.

Could the agency please clarify where the contractor is expected to perform the required cleaning for the notional task order?

A26: The PWS does not require the Contactor to remove debris and dirt from the equipment prior to sanitizing. As stated, multiple times above, “5.2.4 Equipment Cleaning and acceptance Prior to Sanitization. US Soldiers will clean unit equipment to remove debris, dirt, and agricultural matter IAW AFMB TG31. US Government assigned Veterinary Corps officer, or appointee will accept or reject presented equipment based on observation of general exterior cleanliness (including undercarriages and bottoms of containers), prior to Contractor initiating sanitation. Note:

USG will provide forklifts and licensed operators to support container inspection and treatment operations."

The Contractor is responsible for properly applying the approved chemical solution for the required amount of time to clean equipment provided by the Government IAW the PWS. The locations for providing Sanitation services are identified in Exhibit A (TE1) labeled “Location 1” & “Location 2.”

Q27: In the event the Government’s washing process remains ongoing or delayed, could the agency clarify how that affects the Contractor’s performance timeline and deliverable schedule under the PWS? How would this affect liquidated damages that might be imposed (solicitation, p. 2, § h)?

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers A27: There are too many possible variables to accurately describe what Liquidated Damages might be imposed in the referenced scenario above.

Generally speaking, the Contractor is responsible for sanitizing the amount of equipment listed in Exhibit A within the specified Period of Performance identified in Exhibit A. If the Government cannot produce the equipment in an acceptable state of cleanliness with sufficient time for the Contractor to sanitize said equipment, the Contractor cannot be held accountable.

Q28: Under the solicitation’s “Mobilization CLINs” (CLINs 0001, 10001, 20001, 30001, 40001), we understand that a single quoted price is required for mobilizing to all eleven locations listed (e.g., Corpus Christi, TX vs. Tacoma, WA). Given the significantly different distances and travel times involved, we are seeking guidance on how best to formulate a single mobilization price that the Government will consider reasonable for all these sites under one CLIN.

In particular, we note that “XXX” is only about 2.5 hours from our primary warehouse, while “XXX” is approximately 38 hours away. The resulting variation in travel costs and the multiple interpretations for pricing (single figure vs.

multiple location-specific rates) suggests that the solicitation may be subject to ambiguity on this point. Could the contracting officer please clarify its expectation regarding how we should compile these widely divergent mobilization costs into a single quote for each Mobilization CLIN that will remain reasonably priced?

A28: Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, para B(2)(g) “Offerors should use Exhibit A, Request for Task Order Proposal as the basis for Pricing. h) For Pricing Purposes- plan to capture costs for four (4) identical Task Orders (Exhibit A) for the Base Period and each of the four Option Periods. This will establish the overall Ceiling for the Contracts. i) Subsequent Task Orders will capture the actual requirements needed at the time of Task Order.

(pg.33)

Q29: We note that the solicitation’s “AGSAN CLINs” require a single quoted price for both the notional Task Order and any future Task Orders, even though the scope and number of units requiring sanitization could differ significantly. For example, in December, only a few dozen vehicles required agricultural sanitization at Fort Riley (Ref. W911RX25QA0006), whereas a future brigade combat team movement could involve over 2,000 pieces of equipment.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Because the magnitude of such tasks varies widely, and the final scope of future Task Orders is unknown when we submit our quote, we seek guidance on how best to formulate one AGSAN price that the Government will consider reasonable for all potential job sizes. The difference between smaller jobs and large-scale brigade equipment deployment creates multiple interpretations of how pricing can (or should) be calculated. This suggests the solicitation may be ambiguous on that point.

Could the agency please clarify its expectations regarding how to blend these widely divergent quantities into a single, all-encompassing quote while still ensuring the resulting price is deemed fair and reasonable under all future scenarios?

A29: Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, para B(2)(g) “Offerors should use Exhibit A, Request for Task Order Proposal as the basis for Pricing. h) For Pricing Purposes- plan to capture costs for four (4) identical Task Orders (Exhibit A) for the Base Period and each of the four Option Periods. This will establish the overall Ceiling for the Contracts. i) Subsequent Task Orders will capture the actual requirements needed at the time of Task Order.

(pg.33)

Fair and Reasonable Prices for future Task Orders will be determined utilizing one of the seven Price Analysis Techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Competition amongst the MATOC Awardees is the primary method of determining fair and reasonable prices of future Task Orders

Q30: We note that the “ODC CLINs” require a single quoted price for all allowable Other Direct Costs (ODCs) at the Task Order level. Since the magnitude, duration, and equipment requirements (e.g., forklift rentals ranging from one week to 2.5 months) can vary significantly among future Task Orders, it is unclear how to consolidate these potentially wide-ranging cost scenarios into a single, all-encompassing price.

In effect, we must develop assumptions now for tasks that might materialize at unknown future dates and under unknown conditions—which naturally leads to multiple interpretations. We seek the agency’s guidance on how best to blend these disparate scenarios into a single ODC quote that remains fair and reasonable across various potential Task Orders.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Thank you for clarifying how we can structure our proposal to align properly with the Government’s expectations. We would appreciate any additional insight you could provide.

A30: Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, para B(2)(g) “Offerors should use Exhibit A, Request for Task Order Proposal as the basis for Pricing. h) For Pricing Purposes- plan to capture costs for four (4) identical Task Orders (Exhibit A) for the Base Period and each of the four Option Periods. This will establish the overall Ceiling for the Contracts. i) Subsequent Task Orders will capture the actual requirements needed at the time of Task Order.

(pg.33)

Q31: We note that the solicitation specifies a 36-month recency requirement for past performance. May we respectfully inquire if there is formal guidance or a policy basis that led to setting this three-year window? In previous exchanges, we have encountered different rationales for applying this recency limit, which leaves us uncertain about the requirement’s origin.

We wish to ensure that our proposal fully aligns with the agency’s standards and supports full and open competition, as recommended by GAO. We would greatly appreciate any insight you can provide into how the 36-month timeframe was established and aligned with full and open competition under the spirit of CICA and the intention to develop competition among qualified vendors.

A31: The FAR does not specify the length of time or definition for Past Performance Recency. In accordance with the FAR conventions, if the FAR does not explicitly prohibit an action or state a threshold, it is the Contracting Officer’s discretion.

I selected 36-months as the definition of recency because that is the length that I typically use for acquisitions that exceed the dollar threshold of FAR Part 13 and utilizes FAR Part 15.

Q32: We observe that Subfactor 1 (Management Approach) and Subfactor 2 (Staffing Approach) focus on ensuring appropriately qualified personnel, effective staffing methods, and overall resource management. Because they share many related elements (e.g., recruiting and retention, labor category alignment, and ensuring sufficient staffing), we want to avoid duplicating the same information in our proposal due to the overlapping requirements of these subfactors.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Could the agency clarify how it envisions offerors should address these two subfactors distinctly? For instance, is there a preferred way to present our management processes (Subfactor 1) versus our detailed staffing structure (Subfactor 2) so that each subfactor is fully addressed without repeating identical content?

A32: The Government acknowledges the overlap between the Management Element and the Staffing Element. The Management element may address Staffing as a sub-set, but primarily its addressed in the Staffing element. Offerors are not restricted from providing additional elements of their proposal, as long as the page limit is maintained.

There is not a preferred way to present your management processes. Ensure that the correct data is located in the required sections IAW the Instructions to Offerors.

Q33: We note that on page 39 of the solicitation, under Factor 2, it states:

"The Technical Acceptability Factor evaluation shall provide an assessment of the offeror's capability to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements."

However, we do not see a specific definition or listing of these minimum requirements elsewhere in the document. Could the Contracting Officer please clarify or direct us to where these minimum standards are outlined so we can ensure our proposal aligns fully with the Government’s expectations?

A33: The minimum requirements are the requirements listed in the PWS.

Q34: In reviewing the PWS, we note the following references:

• PWS §4.2.3.2: Mentions the possibility that the Contractor may need to provide Material Handling Equipment (MHE) at the task order level.

• PWS §3.1.1: Indicates the Government will furnish no property or services.

• PWS §5.2.4: States the Government will provide forklifts and operators for container treatment operations.

We would appreciate guidance on how these provisions work together, as the references could suggest different responsibilities for MHE and forklift support.

Specifically, should we assume the Contractor must furnish all MHE, or is forklift support from the Government consistently available as stated in §5.2.4?

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers Can you please identify PWS §4.2.3.2 MHE ordering mechanism? Would it be during the task order quote submission, or would it accommodate, on an ad-hoc basis, during the task order performance, alerting the contractor to be on standby for any agency's incoming requirements?

A34: IAW PWS 4.2.3.2 “The Contractor may be required to provide Material Handling Equipment (MHE) to move Contractor owned or rented property in support of AGSAN activities. Specific instructions shall be provided at the task order level.”

PWS 3.1.1 The Government is not providing property to the Contractor for use during the performance of the contract.

PWS 5.2.4 The Government is providing the forklifts to maneuver containers and secondary loads to allow for sanitation operations of all exterior square footage.

As stated in PWS 4.2.3.2, the Contractor maybe required to provide MHE to move Contractor owned, rented or leased property. The Government will not provide MHE for Contractor property. When Contractor’s decide to order MHE or if it’s needed at all is a Contractor decision and had no bearing on the Government.

Q35: We note that in a prior decision (dated November 22, 2024), the agency remarked that agricultural sanitization posed “low technical risk” and thus placed relatively higher emphasis on cost. Since then, however, the solicitation and future Task Orders now include a potential liquidated damages provision, typically used to address higher performance levels or schedule risk.

Could the agency please clarify whether its risk assessment has evolved since November or explain how the new liquidated damages provision aligns with its earlier view of low risk? Did the agency consider other means to lower risks and costs and increase mission readiness? We raised some suggestions in our letter dated November 1, 2024, to which the KO responded that there is a low risk, which seems inconsistent with the current representation.

Understanding this perspective will help us address risk in our technical proposal more effectively and the shift or contradiction in the agency's approach.

A35: The requirement remains a low risk.

Q36: We note from page 2 of the solicitation that initial “admission” quotes appear non-binding, since contractors may accept Task Orders exceeding the

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers contract’s stated maximums. Simultaneously, references to the CLIN structures seem to raise multiple interpretations and may be open-ended, which raises questions about how prices will be assessed for reasonableness under these terms. In light of this:

1. Are the CLINs used only as a ceiling price for establishing contract vehicles?

2. Would the same CLINs quoted be used at the task order level?

Would price reasonableness be carried out separately for: Disinfecting jobs?

Cleaning + Disinfecting Jobs?

Government Washing and Contractor Sanitizing Jobs?

Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (p. 33, section b): The solicitation requires certain information to establish fair and reasonable pricing. Would the agency specify the particular data and the format it seeks to obtain so that we can provide it with our quote, or was it previously collected during W911RX24R0011 and will be reused also in this solicitation?

Does the agency have historical data to benchmark against, or would comparisons be made only to vendor-supplied data/narrative, quotes, and government estimates?

A36: Page 2 of the Solicitation DOES NOT state that contractors may except Task Orders that exceed the ceiling.

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, para B(2)(g) “Offerors should use Exhibit A, Request for Task Order Proposal as the basis for Pricing. h) For Pricing Purposes- plan to capture costs for four (4) identical Task Orders (Exhibit A) for the Base Period and each of the four Option Periods. This will establish the overall Ceiling for the Contracts. i) Subsequent Task Orders will capture the actual requirements needed at the time of Task Order. (pg.33)

The same CLINs will be used at the Task Order-level. However, as stated on page 33 Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, para B(2)(i) subsequent Task Orders will capture the actual requirements needed at the time of Task Order.

Exhibit B, Solicitation Questions and Answers As stated, multiple times before, US Government personnel will ensure the identified unit equipment is cleaned sufficiently to receive the sanitation services IAW PWS 5.2.4.

US Government assigned Veterinary Corps officer, or appointee will accept or reject presented equipment based on observation of general exterior cleanliness (including undercarriages and bottoms of containers), prior to Contractor initiating sanitation.

Contractors are required to perform sanitation services as stated in the PWS, particularly 5.1.1 The contractor shall provide services for sanitizing unit equipment by spraying the equipment with specified chemical solution and ensuring a minimum of a 10-minute solution contact time after all dirt, debris, and biological matter has been removed from the equipment in accordance with this PWS. There are not separate types of jobs. Only varying equipment amounts, PoPs, and locations. The Tasks remain the same.

Solicitation (page 33, Section b) states “b) Certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of contracts as a result of this Solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary IAW FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing. Data other than certified cost or pricing data are required to determine the proposed price fair and reasonable.”

No portion of any proposal from any previous solicitation was retain for reuse on tis solicitation. Evaluations will be made IAW the solicitation and the proposals submitted for this solicitation.

Fair and Reasonable Prices will be determined utilizing one of the seven Price Analysis Techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Competition amongst Offerors is the primary method of determining fair and reasonable prices for MATOC Awardees.

Likewise, for future Task Orders, the same seven Price Analysis Techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) will be utilized. Competition amongst the MATOC Awardees will be the primary method of determining fair and reasonable prices of future Task Orders