Attachment 17 - Fort Gordon RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP
- Solicitation number
- W911S021R0017
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 52 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Section | Reference | Question | Answer | |
| L.2.(i) | Table of Contents, Summary Section, List of Key Terms/Definitions, List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, List of Tables and Drawings | Will the Government confirm, the Table of Contents, the Summary Section, the List of Key Terms/Definitions, the List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, and the List of Tables and Drawings are not excluded from the 70 page limit for Volume I - Mission Capability. | Will be included in page count which has been increased to 75 pages for Volume 1. | |
| L.2.a | Proposal Files - Format | Is 11x17 and acceptable page size? If so, will 11x17s count as two pages? | 11x17 is not an acceptable page size. | |
| Volume II - Past Performance | Past Performance Questionnaire | Will the Government consider accepting CPARs in place of PPQs? | We will accept either. | |
| L.2(i)(3) - Volume I - Mission Capability, Subfactor 3 - Staffing and Workflow Process | Manpower Matrices | RFP states: "The offeror shall depict staffing for performance by providing manpower matrices for each functional area…" Can the Government confirm that the referenced Manpower Matrices is Attachment 7 - Staffing Matrix? | Yes, see revised RFP. | |
| L.2.a | Position Descriptions | Subfactor 2 requirements state (pg. 85): "Offerors shall provide key management position descriptions." Subfactor 3 requirements state (pg. 87): The offeror shall not include resumes for this area, only position descriptions as stated above." Will the Government clarify/confirm, identical position descriptions for key personnel are required in both subfactors 2 & 3? | Subfactor 2 evaluates the Management and Organizational Plan which will include the review of the resumes of proposed Key Personnel. Subfactor 3 will evaluate the Staffing and Workflow Process without evaluating resumes. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.4.3.1 | PM Requirements | Would the government consider modifying the final sentence of the first paragraph to read, "The PM shall be a certified Facility Manager or have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Facility Management or a related field of education." | Yes, see revised PWS. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.5.3.2 | Records | Please confirm that contractor employees record their work on paper forms and then data from these forms is entered into GFEBS by the work order reception desk. | Language will stand. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.9.6 | PWO Estimating | Is the contractor required to utilize a particular industry standard estimating publication for generating PWO estimates/proposals? | The KTR must meet the PWS requirement. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.9.9.10.1.2 | Security | Do all contract positions require a security clearance, and if so what level of clearance? | No, all positions do not require a security clearance. | |
| Annex F, Section 2.1.13.15 | Approved Chemicals | Understanding that the DPW Environmental Division must approve chemical applications; is there an approved list of chemicals that can be utilized once approval is received? | Yes | |
| Annex F, Section 2.2.13.16 | Soil Samples | Are soil samples required to be taken annually? | Yes | |
| Annex F, Section 2.1.13.24 | item a. on-site supervisor | Please clarify if the contractor is required to provide at least one (1) on-site supervisor during work performance for all tasks outlined in Annex F or if this requirement only applies to Tree Removal Services. | Requirement is specfic to 2.1.13.24. | |
| Annex F, Section 2.1.13.36 & 2.2.9.3 | Tree Fertilization | It states that trees and shrubs which should not be fertilized include newly planted specimens as well as older, established trees do not need to be fertilized every year. However in section 2.2.9.3 (Tree Fertilization) it states, "Contractor shall fertilize all trees, including saplings, medium to mature trees, and other trees. The Contractor shall apply sufficient fertilizer to maintain the health of the trees". Does the application for tree fertilization within site specific areas have different requirements? | No, site specific areas do not have different requirements. | |
| Annex H, Section 2.56 | Painting | Will painting services fall under the Davis Bacon Act? | It depends on the scope of each specific project. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.4.7.1 | Materials | Are there satellite locations and warehouse space for contractor supplied materials? | See 7.4.1.3 Government Furnished Facilities. | |
| Annex A, Section 1.5 | Traffic Flow | Is there an outage page on a Intranet system that is utilized for this requirement to notify the COR in writing 14 days in advance. For all outages? | No, not for all outages. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.2.3.2 | Hours of operation | Is the 24/7 contractor reception just for accepting calls or is there a monitoring of the campus through the EMS a part of this function as well? | The Contractor shall provide a staffed work reception section to be operated twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.6.1 | Contractor work reception | Must have 1 year experience in GFEBS. Would this requirement also consider years of experience in other CMMS programs (e.g. MAXIMO)? | No, must have the experience IAW the PWS. | |
| Annex A Section 2.10 | Warranty program | Who is responsible for providing warranty information to the contractor for project work not performed by the contractor? | Government will provide. | |
| Annex A, Section 2.14.5.1 | Contractor and Vendor Access | Will personnel with a CAC need to enter through the visitor center daily or just for visitors? | CAC holders can enter through any access control point. | |
| Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Banding | Capability Levels | The pricing matrix references Capability Levels 1, 2, & 3. Are these the same as the Priority Levels (1 - Emergency, 2 - Urgent, & 3 - Routine)? | No, Capability Levels are different than Priority Levels. | |
| Attachment 9, Pricing Matrix LCAT | Formulas | Each CLIN has a column for OT Hours, but there is no column for an OT Hrly Loaded Rate which would then sum with the Reg Hrly Loaded Rate for a Grand Total Price. Are we able to modify the spreadsheet, or will a revised version be distributed? | See revised Pricing Matrix LCAT. | |
| Attachment 9, Pricing Matrix LCAT | Provision for OT hours in Column F in worksheets Base thru Opt Yr 4 is provided however, no column for OT Hrly Rate is included. 1) Please confirm Grand Total Column will include cost/price for OT hours (calculated), and/or 2) is it permissible to add a column for OT Hrly Rate? | See revised Pricing Matrix LCAT. | ||
| Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix | Please provide clarification for providing the Total Labor Costs for each CLIN, specifically for CLINS x004, x006 and x009. For stated CLINS, please confirm the Total Labor Costs include only the Bands provided for in Attachment 8, X004 Band 1, X006 Band 5, and X009 Band 3? | The bands (X004 Band 1, X006 Band 5, and X009 Band 3) highlighted in RED font on Attachment 8 will be used to develop Attachment 9 with regards to Labor Rates. | ||
| Section L-5 | 91 | Regarding the past performance questionnaire, are we able to use CPARS in lieu of PPQ, due to turnaround time of RFP response? | We will accept either. | |
| Section L-Subfactor 2 | 86 | “The offeror shall submit a detailed organizational chart that depicts its proposed organizational structure.” | This is an accurate statement. | |
| Section L 1. Proposal Submission Requirements | 84 | Can the government confirm that the level of service the contractor should expect and then depict in its organizational chart is X004 Band 1, X006 Band 5, and X009 Band 3? | Yes, the proposal should depict the level of servive noted in CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3. However, the KTR must have the ability to scale performance as required. | |
| Section L 2. Proposal Files Paragraph a. Format. | 84 | Will the Government please confirm that Cover Pages, Table of Contents, List of Key Terms and Definitions, Acronym List, Glossary, List of Tables and Drawings are excluded from page limitations? | Will be included in page count which has been increased to 75 pages for Volume 1. | |
| What is the current dollar amount of the existing contract? Per Year (Base and Options) and what is the Total Contract Amount. | A cost reimbursible contract was awarded to TSAY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC. with a total NTE amount of $84,723,389.00. | |||
| What is the current staffing for this contract? Please breakdown staffing per Trades. | Staffing is considered Proprietary Information. | |||
| If we already have on base privilege's, and due to the fact that we were not able to attend the site- visit, can we tour the facilities and grounds mentioned in the solicitation? | A site visit opportunity was provided on 17DEC2022. No additional site visits are planned. | |||
| Who was the last company to hold the award and what was the dollar amount of their contract award? | A cost reimbursible contract was awarded to TSAY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC. with a total NTE amount of $84,723,389.00. | |||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN TS | |||
| Page 83 | The RFP states that “A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.” Will the government allow headers and footers to be exempt from the 12-point font limitations and be submitted in 8- or 9- point font? | No, the required one inch top and bottom margins provide adequate space for 12-point font for headers and footers. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN TS | |||
| Page 83 | The RFP states that “A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.” Will the government allow company logos to be exempt from the font limitations and be submitted in their native fonts? | Yes, company logos can be exempt from the font limitations and be submitted in their native fonts. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN TS | |||
| Page 83 | The RFP states that “A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.” Will the government exclude screenshots from this font requirement so they may be submitted in their native screen capture font? | Screenshots used as illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN TS | |||
| Page 83 | For Volume I Mission Capability and Volume II Past Performance, the Government has given page limitations in a table on page 81. Will the Government allow the Cover page, Table of Contents, list of tables and drawings, and list of acronyms and abbreviations to be excluded from these page limitations? | Will be included in page count which has been increased to 75 pages for Volume 1. | ||
| Annex A - | ||||
| Overarching Base Operations PWS | PWS 2.5.7.11.6 | Since the contract is Firm Fixed Price why is there a requirement for a monthly report showing shortfalls and under runs? | Removed. See revised PWS. | |
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | PWS 2.4.3.3 | The list of GFEBS roles required for the GFEBS Coordinator has two roles which have a Segregation Of Duties conflict. Should the person have the Physical Inventory Maintainer Role or the Goods Receipt Processor Role? | Physical Inventory Maintainer Role. See revised PWS. | |
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | PWS 2.5.7.12.1.1 | Exactly what is meant by closing out the reimbursable customer's account? | The language was updated. See revised PWS 2.5.7.12.1.1. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | (ii) Volume II Past Performance, (5) Section 5 – Specific Relevant Contract | |||
| Reference Sheet, Pages 83 and 84. | The RFP states “The offeror shall submit a minimum of five (5) but no more than a total of eight (8) Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheets.” But it also limits references to: “Three (3) sheets … for the prime, team, and/or joint venture. -Two (2) sheets from each subcontractor who will be completing 20% or more of the technical work.” A prime offeror with no 20%+ subcontractors therefore cannot meet the minimum five (5) required references. We request the Government revise the RFP to require a minimum of three (3) but no more than a total of eight (8) reference sheets. | See revised Section L. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | (ii) Volume II Past Performance, (5) Section 5 – Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet, Pages 83 and 84. | Please clarify what the Government means by the word "team" in the statement that “Three (3) sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for the prime, team, and/or joint venture”? Did the Government mean to include "affiliate" instead of "team" so that 3 sheets would be submitted by the prime, affiliate, and/or joint venture? | The word "team" applies to any company performing as part of the prime. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | (ii) Volume II Past Performance, (5) Section 5 – Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet, Pages 83 and 84. | Would the Government consider allowing the offeror to submit at least one Contract Reference Sheet from a subcontractor that has less than 20% of the technical work but is performing a critical function or task? | No | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | (ii) VOLUME II |
– Past Performance. Table of page limits on Page
| 81 | Would the Government increase the number of pages for each Specific Relevant Contract Reference Sheet to six (6) pages? | The Government will not increase the page count to six. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L.1.c (p. 81) and | |||
| L.2.c.ii (p. 86) | The table on p. 83 lists 50 pages as the page limit for Volume II. The table on p. 88-89 lists page limits per section, rather than an overall page limit. Can the government please clarify the actual page limit for Volume II? | Volume II is limited to 50 pages. The table on 88-89 limits the individual sections within the 50 page limit. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | CLAUSES INCORPORAT ED BY FULL TEXT, p. 95-97 | Per 252.237-7023 & 252.237-7024 a mission essential plan is required as specified in attachment 1 of this solicitation. However, there are no references to mission essential services in attachment 1 (Overarching PWS). Is the government requiring a mission essential plan and if so, will the Gov't provide the list of Mission Essential Services? | Mission Essential Services are referenced in the PWS, Annex A. It notes that all Annexes are considered essential (see 2.19.4.3). | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | CLAUSES INCORPORAT ED BY FULL | |||
| TEXT, p. 95-97 | In which volume should the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan be included? Will it be included in the page limit? | The Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan (MECSP) will be included in Volume IV - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications/Representations IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and 252.237-7024. The MECSP will be limited to 5 pages. | ||
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | PWS: 2.4.7.1 & | |||
| .2 | Due to supply chain extraordinary conditions, many materials, parts and components are either temporarily unavailable or subject to delays in delivery. What are the govt. expectations for the contractor to overcome this issue in regards to the possible negative impact that this will have in the performance of this contract? | The expectation is the PWS requirements will be met. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Section L - page 84 | |||
| Subsection: 2. Proposal Files | RFP requires pages to be 11 x 8.5. Do the requirement pertain to the pricing matrices (Attachment 8 and 9) and any other pricing related files in MS Excel? | No, MS Excel worksheets are excluded. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Section L - page 84 | |||
| Subsection: 2. Proposal Files | It is stated multiple times that Section B Supplies and Services and Prices table is required to be completed. There is only 1 line per CLIN to enter a price, however, CLINs x004, x006, and x009 require multiple bands with individual and separate prices. What price should the | |||
| contractor enter for each CLIN? Highest Band? Lowest Band? | CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3 (depicted in RED font) will be used to input pricing into Schedule B. | |||
| Attachment 8 Pricing Matrix | CLIN x014 - PWOs: The contractor is required to submit a mark up percentage for CLIN x014 which would be applied to the amount provided by the government and to all future PWO's. PWO's can include labor, materials, ODCs, etc. Most contractors burden their costs differently between labor and non-labor. Providing a fixed mark-up percentage for all future PWO's could result in excess cost to the government or loss to the contractor. Would the Government consider a mark up percentage on a Task by task basis? If not, should the | |||
| contractor assume all labor or a specified mix of labor and non-labor when calculating the mark-up? | No. The Government requires a pre-determined mark-up for future tasks/requirements. It is the KTR's responsibility to determine their proposed mark-up. | |||
| Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix Labor Category | For CLINs x004, x006, and x009, where different band pricing is required, there doesn't seem to be a way to identify the staffing of the different bands within those CLINs. Also, the "Summary" tab only shows once cell for a price for each clin. Should the contractor modify the spreadsheet to show the pricing for each band? Or should we enter the highest or lowest priced band? | CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3 (depicted in RED font) will be used to input pricing into Schedule B. | ||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | The RFP states in several places that those companies a prime offeror uses to furnish past performance citations also will provide “meaningful participation” in contract performance. See, e.g., RFP at 87 (“Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners and/or affiliates that provide a meaningful participation in the performance of this requirement”). We appreciate the Government recognizing that the past performance of affiliates warrants evaluation credit. We would like to clarify that, for affiliates in particular, the “participation” of the affiliate also includes the contribution of resources from the affiliate to contract performance. |
The procurement rules specifically endorse the Government crediting an offeror with APP where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliated company (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See, e.g., GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6, B- 414591.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018). As GAO held in the Bulltrack case: …[A]n agency properly may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror’s affiliated companies where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror…. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of an affiliated company - its workforce, management, facilities or other resources - will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.
The following is language from a recent Government RFP specifically addressing affiliate past performance (emphasis added):
If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.
Under the procurement rules, the “participation” of the affiliate company may involve the affiliate giving tools, resources -- or even personnel -- to the prime offeror for that prime offeror to use in contract performance, and with affiliate personnel becoming employees of the prime offeror. In that case, the affiliate’s past performance is attributed to the prime offeror as the prime offeror’s past performance.
This background leads to a request for clarification:
a. Would the Government’s please clarify that an affiliate of a prime offeror may meet the “participation” requirements in RFP Sections L and M by demonstrating that it will contribute resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, other resources) to the prime offeror for this acquisition? Crediting affiliate past performance in this manner increases competition and makes available to the Government the broadest range of capabilities from an offeror’s enterprise. IAW Section L and M, offerors shall define the relationship of the company whose past performance is submitted for evaluation to the performance of this requirement in the offeror’s response in Attachment 6. The Government will not consider experience of subcontractors and/or subordinate or affiliated offices of the offeror, unless the offeror clearly demonstrates the proposed involvement of the subcontractors and/or the offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement.
A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including subcontractor(s), joint venture partner(s), and affiliate(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, or degree of meaningful participation in the performance of this requirement being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, subcontractor, and/or affiliates whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | “The Program Manager (PM) shall be a Certified Facility Manager or have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Facility Management.” Will the Government consider an equivalent Bachelor of Administration degree, Operations Management and Administration since both programs have courses in finance, marketing, management, economics, staff management, facility maintenance, and processes that solve problems | ||
| that can affect significant business decisions? | See revised PWS. | ||
| Annex A - Overarching Base | |||
| Operations PWS | Must proposed PMs be a Certified Facility Manager at time of proposal submission or can they be certified prior to contract start? | Key personnel must meet qualification standards at time proposal submission. | |
| W911S021R0017 | |||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)2, 5th bullet | Does the Government require that a complete Property Management | |
| Plan (PMP) be submitted with the proposal, or just an overview of the PMP? | The offeror shall provide an overview of its plan for government‐furnished and contractor |
acquired property management.
| W911S021R0017 | |||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)2, 5th bullet | If a complete PMP must be submitted with the proposal, can the PMP be excluded from the Technical Volume page count? A complete PMP is dozens of pages long and would detract from offerors’ ability to fully address the RFP and PWS requirements. | The offeror shall provide an overview of its plan for government‐furnished and contractor |
acquired property management.
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Pg 84 | The RFP requires a page size of “Width – 8.5”” and “Height – 11””. Will the Government allow the usage of 11x17 pages for tables and graphics? | No, see Section L of the PWS. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)3 | The Government describes requirements to submit both a Manpower Matrix (see Bullet 1) to show staffing, and a Staffing Plan (see Bullet 2) to describe the Organizational Structure being Proposed. In Bullet 3, there is a stated requirement to ensure that the staffing and manpower matrices be consistent with the staffing addressed in the Price Volume. Is the Staffing Plan required in Bullet 2 also called the Staffing Matrix? | The Staffing Matrix is the document that details proposed FTEs by LCAT and Annex. Staffing Plan is a narrative of how the Staffing and Workflow process comes together. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)3 | Are the terms "Manpower" and "Staffing" used interchangeably in the requirements stated in L 2(i)3: for example the description of the matrix in Bullet 3 could be rewritten as the "Staffing/Manpower Matrix"? | See revised Section L. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)3 | Is the "Staffing Matrix" and the "Manpower Matrix" the same Matrix as required by Bullet 1? | See revised Section L. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)3 | If the Staffing Matrix and the Manpower Matrix are different, what are the specific requirements for each? | See revised Section L. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | L 2(i)3 | Can the Staffing Matrix required by Bullet 4 be used to also satisfy the requirements of Bullet 1 and Bullet 3? | See revised Section L. | |
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | 2.4.1.2 | Section L makes no mention of the requirement to provide a Management Plan (Deliverable A0004) with our proposal response as mentioned in Annex A, PWS 2.4.1.2. Is it the Government's intention that each Offeror submits a Management Plan with the proposal? | See Section L. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Past Performance Section 2 – Performance Summary Page | Section 2 – Performance Summary Page states, “Offerors shall describe the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or affiliates for each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description. | ||
| Please confirm that the Government wants the Offeror to describe the role (prime, subcontractor) that the entity performed on the contract citation listed in Section 1, Contract Description | See RFP 2.ii.(2). | |||
| Attachment 7, Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet | Attachment 7 | Attachment 7, Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet states, “Note: This document may be altered but the required information listed below MUST be included or it will not be considered for evaluation.” | ||
| Attachment 7 uses both 11 and 12 point font. Please confirm that 10 point font is acceptable for this document which is a table provided we include the required information per the Note. | Revised attachment to 12-font. 12-font will be required for this document. Additionally, revised the header to reflect attachment 6. | |||
| Attachment 2, Annex A | Attachment 2, Annex A | Reference 52.245-2: Since the contractor is responsible for replacement of unusable property, please provide the estimated price and condition of all property listed in Attachment 2, Annex A. | IAW PWS Annex A 7.4.1.2 - All property is being provided as-is and without charge. The KTR will have the ability to inspect the property during the Phase-In. Condition will be noted during KTR acceptance of the property. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Section L | Surplus - area designation – is the contractor expected to provide a response (if applicable) of data available on Richmond County, GA only or also of the adjacent counties, e.g., Columbia County, Aiken County? | The post resides in Richmond and Colombia County. | |
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Section L - Page 93 | |||
| Subsection: (4) Price Volume Content | The RFP provided format of the price volume includes: |
a. Table of Contents, Glossary, and Definitions
b. Supporting Information
c. Supporting Detail
d. Additional Information The subsections listed below provide detail for:
a. Table of Contents, Glossary and Definitions
b. Pricing Matrix - Banding Instructions
c. Pricing Matrix – LCAT
| Can you please clarify which information the Government is looking for in the Price Volume Content? | See revised Section L.2.(iii)(4). | |||
| W911S021R0017 | ||||
| Fort Gordon BASOPS RFP | Section M – Page 108 Volume III – Price Instructions Subsection: 5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) | Per RFP, “Thus, the offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the 60 month contract term and 1/2 of the last Option Year. The offeror will not propose a price for the six-month period.” | ||
| Can you please confirm that the Government does not want the six- month period of the last Option Year as part of TEP? | The offeror will not propose (enter or attempt to enter) on the six-month possible extension. | |||
| Annex A - Overarching Base Operations PWS | 2.5.7.13.8 | Was the Government’s intent to remove the BUILDER PWS section | ||
| 2.5.7.13.8 – 25.7.13.8.221 from the final RFP? | No, see revised PWS (Section 2.5.7.13.8). | |||
| Given that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) included in the solicitation appears to expire on 3/31/2022, will the government consider future pricing adjustments to offset unforeseen labor cost increases? | No, but other adjustments related to the Construction Wage Rate, Service Contract Labor Standards, and Collective Bargaining Agreement will be applied IAW the appropiate clauses in the solicitation. | |||
| Does the government participate in collective bargaining negotiations? | No, the negotiations are between the KTR and their employee's labor union. | |||
| The PWS outlines the allowable completion times for various DMO priorities; does failure to meet these deadlines result in liquidated damages? | Yes, see revised PWS. | |||
| What are the liquidated damages’ rates? | Identified in Section 4.0 of the revised PWS. | |||
| Is there a contractual mechanism for documenting unforeseen or unavoidable delays to DMO completion times such as shipping delays or logistics impacted by Covid-19? | No, not at this time. | |||
| Many installations are utilizing armymaintenance.com (ARMA) for maintenance requests and an “ARMA Clerk User Guide” is included in the solicitation documents; will work control utilize GFEBs or ARMA? | Both systems are required to meet requirements. See revised PWS. | |||
| Will training for mandated software be provided? | No, training will be the responsibility of the KTR. | |||
| The technical exhibits include a listing of components for preventive maintenance; does the DPW have a historical database of preventive maintenance? | Yes, all data is stored in GFEBS. | |||
| Can the DPW provide any infrastructure condition analyses? | No, all information was provided. | |||
| The PWS defines DMOs as being less that 32 manhours or less than $10,000; Is there additional information that can be provided regarding historical average DMO costs? | No additional information available. See revised PWS for language change. | |||
| Is the use of government furnished equipment (GFE) mandated and if so, will condition reporting be required? | No, see PWS 7.4.1.2.1 Equipment. | |||
| Is there a schedule of government furnished equipment replenishment? | No, not at this time. | |||
| Is there a contractually defined process to request additional GFE? | No additional GFE will be provided. | |||
| Do formal maps and boundary marking documents exist for grounds maintenance requirements? | Yes, see TE for Annex F. | |||
| Solicitation Line 9 | Due Date of 13 Jan 2022 | Given the holidays and the recent COVID-19 surge necessitating more remote work, please consider extending the due date for the proposal to 27 Jan 2022. | Extended to 31JAN2022. | |
| General | Are electronic signatures acceptable throughout the proposal? If so, must they be certified? | We will accept any legal digital signature. | ||
| Annex A, Overarching Base Operations PWS, Section 2.4.3.1, Page 13 | The PM shall be a certified Facility Manager or have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Facility Management. Highly qualified candidates with engineering or other applicable degrees and significant experience in large facility management can leverage this experience for the benefit of the government. Limiting the pool of candidates substantially by requiring only these credentials is ultimately a detriment to the government. | Please consider allowing years of facility management experience for the Project Manager in lieu of BS Degree in Facility Management and/or CFM. | See revised PWS. | |
| W911S021R0017_Fort_Gordon_BASOPS_RFP, Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, A. Proposal Submission -2. Proposal Files - (ii) Volume II - Past Performance - (5) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Page 91 | For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a PPQ (Attachment 3, Section J of this Solicitation) must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the PPQ and email the questionnaire to both the Government Contracting Activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to william.m.jaeger.civ@mail.mil. | Would the government accept CPARS sent from the Offeror and its teaming partners/subcontractors in-lieu of having PPQ Form completed and sent from the client? | We will accept either. | |
| Section J, Attachment 4, Client Authorization Letter W911S021R0017_Fort_Gordon_BASOPS_RFP, Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, A. Proposal Submission -2. Proposal Files - (ii) Volume II - Past Performance - (4) Section 4- Partner Consent/Client Authorization Letters, Page 90-91 | Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer. Client Authorization Letters (Attachment 4, Section J of this Solicitation) will be submitted for each identified effort of a customer, authorizing release of requested information on the offeror’s performance to the Government. | Is a Client Authorization Letter required from the client if the effort identified is for federal government customers or only a commercial customer? | Client Authorization Letters are required from the client if the effort identified is for Commercial Customers. | |
| Pricing Documents: Attachment 7, 8 & 9 plus Schedule B w911S021R0017+Fort+Gordon+BASOPS+RFP.pdf | It is unclear how to price the Government’s requirements given the different bands. Attachment 8 requires the contractor to price different levels of service for CLS 404 Ground Maintenance, CLS 411 Facilities Maintenance Vertical & CLS 420 Facilities Maintenance Horizontal, however it is not understood nor directed which level of staffing is then included with the Attachment 7 Staffing Matrix, Attachment 9 Pricing Matrix, nor Schedule B. It is unclear which band represents the Base Level of services and should flow into the additional documents. | Would the Government please provide a crosswalk as to which band of service is considered "steady state/Base Level" operations and should be transcribed throughout the pricing forms? | CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3 (depicted in RED font) will be used to input pricing into Schedule B. | |
| Attachment 8 Pricing Matrix Banding v2 RFP Schedule B | In filling out Schedule B for Annexes that have Banding, it is unclear as to which price is to be included. Ex. CLIN 0004 in Schedule B instructs the offeror to provide the pricing from Attachment 8- Pricing Matrix- Banding. However, CLIN 0004 has 3 potential prices that could be included (Capability 1,2,3) with no direction as to which to choose. | Would the Government please provide detailed directions on banding pricing, inclusive of how/which band to use when populating the additional pricing forms, inclusive of schedule B? | Every band will need to be priced in Attachment 8. Additionally, CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3 (depicted in RED font) will be used to input pricing into Schedule B. Additional instructions are found on all forms. | |
| Attachment 8 Pricing Matrix Banding v2 RFP Schedule B | The Banding descriptions for CLS 408, 411 & 420 are not clear. It is unclear if Capability 3 (the lowest level) represents the minimum level of services and then Capability 2 & 1 would be the delta between the previous Capabilities and the new level or does each Capability represent an "All-In" build up? Ex. CLS 404 Capability 3 = Up to 500 OWOs in the Option Years Should Capability 2 represent adding an additional 100 OWO to get to 600 or should it equal a total of Up to 600 OWO. This represents different pricing approaches and is unclear which the contractor is to price. | Please clarity descriptions of Bands to better understand what level of service is being requested. | Every band will need to be priced in Attachment 8. Additionally, CLIN X004 Band 1, CLIN X006 Band 5, and CLIN X009 Band 3 (depicted in RED font) will be used to input pricing into Schedule B. Additional instructions are found on all forms. | |
| Attachment 8 Pricing Matrix Banding v2 RFP Schedule B | The Government has requested a significant delta in the banding levels (Vertical Maintenance represents a 35% increase from 13,900 tasks to 18,850 tasks). The Banding structure provides no mechanics for the contractor to account for the increase in supporting Program Management. A vast increase in scope size, as requested with the current pricing structure, would warrant additional support staff in terms of Quality, Safety, Time Sheets, Accounting, etc., however there is no place for the contractor to account for those costs within this structure, which could force the contractor into an Unbalanced Pricing situation. | Would the Government please consider removing the Banding from the contractor pricing? Any increase in scope could be accounted for with a Change Order as provided through your inclusion of the FAR Changes clauses. As it stands right now the Contractor would not be able to properly account for a potential 35% scope increase and the costs associated with its Program Management office as there is no mechanism. | No, the pricing will remain IAW the solicitation. | |
| Annex A, Overarching Base Operations PWS | Fuel prices have increased ~30% in FY2021 alone according to the latest data from US Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov. This is a sizable amount of cost risk to ask a small business to price within its model. | Would the Government consider making Fuel Government furnished? Alternatively, please consider an equitable adjustment allowance for volatile fuel prices. | Fuel will be purchased by the contractor. See PWS A7.5.3 Contractor-Furnished Items. | |
| Annex A PWS-SECTION 2.9.9.15 2.9.9.15.1 | 2.9.9.15.1 The Contractor shall manage all lead-based paint requirements IAW the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and the Georgia Rules for Lead-Based Paint Abatement, Certification and Accreditation, Chapter 391-3-24. The Contractor will provide the COR all copies of the lead-based paint removal permits. Deliverable A1062, Lead Based Paint Permits. 2.9.9.15.1.1 The Contractor shall manage all asbestos requirements IAW the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), TSCA, and the Georgia Rules for Asbestos Removal and Encapsulation, Chapter 391-3-14. The Contractor will provide the COR all copies of the asbestos removal permits. Deliverable A1063, Asbestos Permits. | Please provide information on the quantity of asbestos abated each year in the last 2 years. | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex A PWS-SECTION 2.9.9.15 2.9.9.15.2 | 2.9.9.15.1 The Contractor shall manage all lead-based paint requirements IAW the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and the Georgia Rules for Lead-Based Paint Abatement, Certification and Accreditation, Chapter 391-3-24. The Contractor will provide the COR all copies of the lead-based paint removal permits. Deliverable A1062, Lead Based Paint Permits. 2.9.9.15.1.1 The Contractor shall manage all asbestos requirements IAW the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), TSCA, and the Georgia Rules for Asbestos Removal and Encapsulation, Chapter 391-3-14. The Contractor will provide the COR all copies of the asbestos removal permits. Deliverable A1063, Asbestos Permits. | Please provide information on the quantity of lead-based paint abated each year in the last 2 years? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| 7.5.2 Permits | The Contractor shall obtain all appointments, licenses, and permits required for performance of work and for complying with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. Permits and licenses shall be provided to the COR before work commences. | Will the government hold all regulatory permits? | Copies of permits and licenses shall be provided to the COR before work commences. | |
| Attachment 6- Past Performance | Please confirm the inclusion of a cure notice, show cause letters, or contract discrepancy reports for relevant experience/past performance (Block 13) shall be excluded from the page count within Volume II – Past Performance. | The actual cure notices, show cause letters, and/or CDRs will be excluded from the Past Performance page limit. However, narratives and explainations with regards to said documents will be counted towards the page count and depicted in Block 13 of attachment 6. | ||
| Historical Data- PWO, DMOs, OWOs etc. | Historical data is critical to estimating a Base Operations Contract, especially around pricing. Without a breakout of the historical averages by Annex for PWO, DMOs, OWO and weather events such as Sand, De-Icer, etc. utilized it creates a competitive advantage for the incumbent contractor. The Government provided quantities of orders but not values of time or material, essentially providing the contractor only a quarter of the equation. With DMO's being up to 32 hours each and $10,000 in material, without knowing the historical spending average per DMO a contractor is unable to create a competitive estimate. Additionally, without knowing the average pricing for PWOs the contractor is unable to accurately estimate this cost per occurrence. | Would the Government please provide the historical Hours and Material utilized by Annex for each PWO, DMO, and OWO, inclusive of historical sand and de-icers for weather events? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex A Overarching Base Operations PWS | Para 2.6 and 7.1.1.144 | DMO Labor hours and cost do not match up between these 2 paragraphs. Oct draft had 23.6.1.1 that was deleted that matchted up to 7.1.1.144 but is gone now. Will the goverenment change one or the other to have them match up on what contractor is responsible for on hours and cost? | Reference current provided documents and see revised PWS. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.6.2 | Historically, on yearly basis, how many unscheduled clean ups have been performed by the contractor? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.6.1 | Historically, on yearly basis, how many storms or natural disasters required additional collection containers? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.5 | Who is responsible for getting the scales calibrated? | Contractor is responsible. See revised PWS. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.4 | What is the historical workload for yard waste on daily, monthly or yearly basis? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.1.6.2 | What has been historical number of times the construction demolition landfill is used outside of normal work hours? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.1.6.7 | What has been historical number of times the diesel tank is moved on monthly or yearly basis? | None, tank referenced in cited paragraph is stationary. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.2 | How often are bulk items are picked up historically and from how many locations? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3 | How many refrigerators, freezers, and window air conditioner units are picked up historically on a monthly or yearly basis? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.1 | What are the hours of operation for HMCP? | Business hours are provided. See revised PWS. | |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.2 | How many SAPs are there and what are their hours of operation? | SAPs are operated in accordance with requirements and approvals of the DPW |
Environmental Division following contractor's proposal.
Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt 2.3.3 How many container are pickup on monthly or yearly basis? SAPs are operated in accordance with requirements and approvals of the DPW Environmental Division following contractor's proposal.
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.4 | What are the hours of operation for CSF? | Business hours are provided. See revised PWS. |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.4 | What is the historical workload for CSF on daily, monthly or yearly basis? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.5 | How many items are in the EEOH-MIS and how many daily inputs are made? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex E, CLS 403 Solid Waste Mgt | 2.3.6 | What as been the number of samples submitted on a monthly or yearly basis? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.4 | Historically, on yearly basis, how many snow events are there at Ft Gordon? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.3.2 | Historically, how many times a year is ice control abrasives required? Is this for all the roads on Ft Gordon or just some listed in TE G-002? Please clarify | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3 and priorties are listed. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.3 | Historically, how many times a year is pretreatment done? What areas receive pre treatment? Will a TE be provided showing required areas for pretreatment? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.2 | Will the Government updated TE G-002 with the number of miles and or linear feet for each priority listed? | Road lengths are shown in TE F-012 FG_AOR_MAP. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.1.1.1 | What are the total miles or linear feet of roads to be cleared? | Road lengths are shown in TE F-012 FG_AOR_MAP. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.1.1.2 | How many parking areas what are their sizes? | Refer to TE F-012 FG_AOR_MAP. |
| Annex G, CLS 408 Pavement Clearance | 2.1.1.24 | How many dumpsters must be cleared? | Refer to the workload data in Sec 7.3.2 TE A-2.1 -2.6. TE G-002 address all roads. |
| Annex A, Overarching PWS | 2.19.1.4 | How often and how long has the government historically needed the contractors technical representatives? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| TE G-002 Road Clearing Priority List | 1(a ) thru (h) | What are the lengths of each road to be cleared? | Road lengths are shown in TE F-012 FG_AOR_MAP. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.2 | Makes mention to TE A-6.9, Contractor Personnel Minimum Qualifications, Licensing, and Certifications but there are none in there for Grounds, Should this be updated or is it correct as is? Please confirm. | All qualifications are identified in PWS and TE A-6.9 - Contractor Personnel Minimum Qualifications. |
| TE F-002 Grounds Section | REIMBURSABLE | How is this area staffed and priced as there are no reimbursable CLINS? Please clarify. | See Annex A 7.1.1.152. |
| TE F-004 Common Semi Improved Grounds | Will this TE be provided as it is not currently available on BETA.SAM? | TE 004 has been removed. See revised PWS. | |
| TE F-006 Tree Inspection Zone Map | How many trees are in each zone? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| TE F-007 Tree Trimming and Pruning Schedule | How many trees are in each zone? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| TE F-008 Line Clearing Specifications | How many linear feet of trees must be trimmed an pruned for electrical line by each now listed in TE F-006 | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. | |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.4 | Will the Government provide a TE with the workload data for hard stand surfaces that must be maintained? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.6 | Will the Government provide a TE with the workload data for rip reap stone area that must be maintained and a map of those locations? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.14 | Will the Government provide the historical data on monthly or yearly basis for recovery and disposal of dead or dying rodents or animals? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.24 | Will the government provide the historical data for Tree removal services for the past 3 years? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.25 | Will the government provide the historical data for Tree trimming and pruning services for the past 3 years? On the average per year how many trees are trimmed and pruned? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.25.b | Does the Government consider the Certified Arborist a key position or a required position on the contract? | Key Personnel are identified in Annex A paragraph 2.4.3. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.25.b | Is the Government requiring the Certified Arborist to be on site daily all day long? Please clarify | Requirement is specfic to 2.1.13.25. |
| Annex F, CLS 404 Grounds Maint | 2.1.13.26 | How many liner feet of lines are cleared annually as there is no workload in the TE F007 or F-008? | All known workload is provided in TEs A-2.1; 2.2; and 2.3. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .