Attachment_13_W911SA17R3001_Government_Responses_to_Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911SA-17-R-3001
About this file
This document contains government responses to questions regarding solicitation number W911SA-17-R-3001 for logistics readiness support services for the 63rd Regional Support Command in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas.
The solicitation requires offerors to provide maintenance, inventory management, and logistics analyst support services at over 60 sites across the five states. Services include equipment and vehicle maintenance, property book operations, and warehouse operations. The period of performance is one base year with four one-year options. Pricing is firm-fixed-price according to the price schedule. The place of performance includes locations in Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and may include sites in California and Nevada.
Attachment 13 W911SA17R3001 Government Responses to Questions
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
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
63rd RSC - TX Region (2)
| Q&A Template -- 63rd Regional Support Command (RSC) -- Texas Region (W911SA-17-R-3001) | ||||
| Question # | RFP Reference | Page | QUESTION | Government Response |
| 1 | Key Personnel and their Resumes | It is not clear if Resumes are required to be submitted for the Project Managers for all sites and other positions as identified in the Instructions. If this is the case that Resumes are require to be submitted then us along with a number of other SDVOSB are way behind the curve tracking down the number of highly qualified people that meet the very specific qualifications called out for in the solicitation and now have less than 30 days to do so. Your insight into the Resume requirement is greatly appreciated. | There will be one Project Manager for this soliciation. All sites will have a supervisor responsible for them. Subfactor 1(d) in Addendums to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 were revised | |
| 2 | General | Our JV partner brings the full security clearance bona fides to the JV. We are in the process of solidifying that relationship but will likely not have completed the necessary coordination prior to submission of our proposal. Do we meet the security requirements with a formalized Joint Venture where the subcontractor is the possessor of the necessary security offerings? . | See Requirement in PWS 1.6.8. These will not be changed. | |
| 3 | Supplemental Information, paragraph 7, L.3.2.3 | 67 &107 | One reference says to upload proposals via ARMDEC SAFE, the other reflects hard copy and CD submission. Can the Government clarify the method of proposal submission? | |
| Only submit proposals electronically through AMR DEC Safe Access File Exchange. Revise L.3.2.3 to remove hard copy wording | ||||
| 4 | Attachment 9 & Wage Determinations | The solicitation WD section cites 23 work locations. Attachment 9 illustrates 63 worksite locations, including states outside NV, AZ, NM, OK, TX and AR. Will the Government clarify locations to be supported under this solicitation? | ||
| All locations identified on attachment 9 that is marked as Property Book Inventory Locations will require inventories completed. Attachment 12 indicates the physical location of Logistic Analysts. | ||||
| 5 | paragraph 5.12 | 96 | Property Book Automation. Are both PBUSE and GCSS-A in use for PBO operations? | GCSS is the STAMIS system in use for PBO operations |
| 6 | L-4.4 | How many past performance citations that are recent and relevant can be submitted? Since only up to 5 questionnaires are allowed, we are assuming that only up to 5 past performance citations can be submitted in the specific relevant contract format (Attachment 5, Enclosure/Attachment 2). Is this correct?? | Yes, 5 can be submitted IAW L-4.4 | |
| 7 | 1.8.5.2 | 84 | • How work will be scheduled at CO/CO facilities (including use of any automated systems or work loading procedures)? | All work will be loaded from the supported shop using GCSS ARMY. No COCO requirement in W911SA-17-R-3001. |
| 8 | CO/CO References | 94,91,84,88,91,94, | CO/CO is referenced multiple times throughout RFP but there is not a clear delineation that the contract needs to provide a Contractor Owned and Operated Facility. 1) Is there a requirement for a CO/CO facility to be provided CO/CO is referenced multiple times throughout RFP but there is not a clear delineation that the contract needs to provide a Contractor Owned and Operated Facility. 1) Is there a requirement for a CO/CO facility to be provided by the contractor? 2) If so, what are the specific requirements and if not will the government provide all required facilities for this effort? | CO/CO is not a requirement of the Texas Region 63rd Logistics Support Contract. The government currently provides all required facilities |
| 9 | Supplemental Information 2 &3, Attachment 9, Attachment 12 | In the title of this solicitation on FBO and in this RFP reference, CA is not listed as a place of performance. In addition it is my understanding that Solicitation W911SA-17-R-3000 is specific to CA and NV. In attachment 9 (Work site locations Texas Region) and attachment 12 (Density and work load Texas Region) there are multiple CA sites listed and many with manning and work load requirements. Does this solicitation include a requirements for work to be performed at CA sites or is this data for the other solicitation? 2)If it does, can the government confirm that staffing levels at the CA locations are correct and required? | Yes, Staffing Levels are shown on Attachment 12. Reference PWS Part 2 AOR. This requirement primarily covers the states of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma but may include locations in other states based upon the 63rd DOL's organizational structure and mission. | |
| 10 | 1.8.4 | 1.8.4 Position Specific Qualifications: The Contractor shall submit these qualifications with the proposal. Specific minimum qualifications below: Q: 1) What exactly is the contractor required to submit with proposal, Resumes or just qualifications? 2)Is it just for these 3 positions or are any additional required? | 1.8.4 has been updated. Project Manager and Supervisors are the designated key positions. As stated in 1(d), "Offeror shall provide the following qualifications for any proposed Project Managers:" Resumes would be the preferred method. | |
| 11 | 1.8.5, 1.8.5.1, Subfactor 1(d) Key Personnel | 32 & 110 | Project managers are required at each site for this requirement. Offeror shall provide the following qualifications for any proposed Project Managers: ) It is customary that a program has one PM for a program located at the primary site and that PM has subordinate leadership like site leads or supervisors at the remote locations. Is that approach agreeable to the government for this program? If not, how many PMs is the government requiring? | One Project Manager Required. PWS 1.8.5.1 has been updated. |
| 12 | Supplemental Info Para 2, Attachment 9 Worksite Locations | 67 | AZ, NM, OK, TX and AR are highlighted as the work locations. However, CA is also included. Are CA locations meant to be included in this procurement? | Yes, Staffing Levels are shown on Attachment 12. This requirement primarily covers the states of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma but may include locations in California and Nevada based upon the 63rd DOL's organizational structure and mission. |
| 13 | Supplemental Info Para 2, Attachment 9 Worksite Locations | Will there be any collective bargaining agreements for this project? | There are no CBAs that pertain to this requirement. | |
| 14 | General | This is a widely dispersed contract support effort with many locations. From an organizational diagram viewpoint, who does the contractor report to at each location for coordination? Where will the COR be located? | The COR will be located at North Little Rock, AR, Fort Smith, AR. There is an Alternate Contracting officer at all Sites. | |
| 15 | General | Will the Government provide a list of the military organizations at each of the locations with whom the contractor personnel will be interacting? | No | |
| 16 | 1.8.4.3 and 5.12.9 | 83&97 | Per PWS 5.12.9, Securing Army Arms, Ammunition and Explosives, can the Government provide the number and locations of arms room which will need to be staffed? | Attachment 12 has been revised to show historical man-hours and staffing levels for all positions by location. |
| 17 | 1.8.4.1 & 1.8.4.2 | What is the difference between the PM, as found in PWS 1.8.4.1, and the Supervisor, as found in PWS 1.8.4.2? | PWS 1.8.4.1 has been updated. Also, see PWS 1.8.5.1. | |
| 18 | Attachment 6 | Attachment 6, Mission Essential Contactor Services lists the Site Manager and Assistant Site Manager as essential. What is the rationale for not including the PM and the Supervisors in this list? | The PM has been added to Attachment 6. | |
| 19 | Attachment 12 | Attachment 12, Density and Workload Texas Region lists Site Mangers but no PM. Does the Government consider the Site and Program Manager to be the same person? | No, it is not the same position. | |
| 20 | Attachment 10 & Attachment 12 | There appears to be a small number of wheeled vehicles listed in Attachment 10, Equipment Texas Region compared to the number of mechanics specified in Attachment 12, Density and Workload Texas Region. We wish to clarify the number of mechanics required is correct in Attachment 12. | PWS 3.2.1 has been updated. Attachment 10 includes all government owned equipment by facility. This list contains special tools and shop equipment that is available for use by the Contractors. This excludes the master mechanic tool box as well as other individually issued equipment. | |
| 21 | Para 4.1 Contractor Furnished Items and Services, page 94 | The Government requires the contractor to provide all maintenance personnel individual tool kits. Will the Government provide a baseline listing of tools and electronic equipment desired? | PWS 4.1 has been updated. The Contractor shall provide all personnel performing field level maintenance individual required tools. Maintenance Contractor will provide mechanics, work-leads, and inspectors with a tool kit equivalent to the government master mechanic tool kit. | |
| 22 | Attachment 12 | There are several AMSA locations which have BMAs listed under them. What is the breakdown of personnel who work at each of those sites? | See updated Attachment 12 | |
| 23 | 5.18 | 100 | Per PWS 5.18, Logistics Analyst, the Logistics Analyst must have the “ability to design and maintain a Share Point site for the directorate to include: development, maintenance, and training DOL Staff and customers as needed.” Is there a portal where this will be hosted or does the contractor need to provide? Is a Share Point site already in use? | Government provides portal |
| 24 | 5.18.3 | 100 | Can the Government confirm which, if all, locations have transitioned to GCSS-Army? If not all locations have transitioned, can the Government provide a breakdown of sites that still use the legacy STAMISs (SAMS-E, SARRS, etc.)? | All locations have transitioned to GCSS |
| 25 | Supplemental Information para 28 | 72 | The solicitation states that contractor services may be required for up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (including holidays) during operational tempo. Can the Government provide historical data that includes overtime hours on Attachment 12 Density and Workload in order for Offerors to propose their firm fixed price bids? | This requirement was removed from the PWS. |
| 26 | Supplemental Information para 29 | 29 | The solicitation states that if the Contractor for his convenience desires to perform work during other than normal working hours, or if the Contractor is required to perform work at such times, they shall reimburse the Government for any additional expense occasioned by the Government. Will the Government modify this language to remove "or if the Contractor is required to perform work at such times" as Contractors should not be held liable for expenses incurred by the Government when the Government requires the Contractor to perform outside normal duty hours. | Removed "or if the Contractor is required to perform work at such times". |
| 27 | PWS 1.1 | 74 | The Description of Services/Introduction identifies services to be performed at locations identified in Attachment 10. Attachment 10 is the listing of Equipment. Can the Government clarify that this reference should be Attachment 9? | Revised to read Attachment 9. |
| 28 | PWS 1.6.2.1 | 75 | The solicitation contains subparagraph 1.6.2.1 but there is no language in 1.6.2. Please clarify and advise if there is language missing from the solicitation. | Paragraph 1.6.2 is titled Quality Assurance. |
| 29 | 1.6.4.2 | The solicitation states that if there is a significant increase in workload, an option CLIN may be exercised by the Government. What does the Government consider a significant increase and what measure will the Government utilize to make this determination? | Future mission requirements could cause the government to exercise the 10% Surge CLINS. | |
| 30 | 1.6.4.3 | The solicitation states that due to OPTEMPO the Contractor shall be required to support extended hours and days of operation. The Contractor can expect an increase in workload throughout the option year periods. Where in the solicitation or attachments are these workload increases projected? | The short term OPTEMPO increases are unknown. Any long term workload increases in the option years will be completed on the 10% Surge CLINS, as stated in PWS 1.6.4.2. | |
| 31 | PWS 1.8.5.2 | 84 | The solicitation requires that the Management Plan include a detailed explanation of how work will be scheduled at CO/CO facilities. There does not appear to be a requirement for a CO/CO facility; should this requirement be removed? | CO/CO is not a requirement of the Texas Region 63rd Logistics Support Contract. The government currently provides all required facilities |
| 32 | 1.8.7.1 | 85 | The solicitation states the Contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain a site specific annual training plan. Will the Government accept a single annual training plan that addresses all sites applicable to the Texas Region? | No, each facility should have a site specific training plan. |
| 33 | 1.8.7.5 | 86 | The solicitation states that during the life of the contract, the Government may identify on-site or off-site training courses, such as New Equipment Training (NET) and the Contractor shall be responsible for any travel costs incurred by its employees to attend the course. Is the associated travel, in accordance with the JTR, a reimbursable expense under the Travel CLIN? If not, can the Government provide historical information on the required travel in order for Contractors to prepare their firm fixed price bid? | When the Government is requiring a training class and there's travel included, it should be invoiced in accordance to the Joint Travel Regulations to the travel CLIN. PWS 1.8.7.5 has been updated. |
| 34 | 1.10.4 | The solicitation requires the Contractor to obtain any required permits to include CO/CO facilities. There does not appear to be a requirement for a CO/CO facility; should this language be removed? | CO/CO is not a requirement of the Texas Region 63rd Logistics Support Contract. The government currently provides all required facilities | |
| 35 | L-4.2 | 110 | Subfactor 1(d) Key Personnel states Project Managers are required at each site for this requirement. Is the requirement to have a Project Manager at each site a valid requirement? | One Project Manager Required. PWS 1.8.5.1 has been updated. |
| 36 | L-4.2 | Subfactor 1(e) Management Plan reads "If the proposed number of employees for a specific Job Classification at a Work Site is less than the estimated number of support hours required based on a 2080 hour work year, the offeror must identify how the remaining number of hours will be performed. Can the Government confirm that this should read 1920 hours to agree with the basis of productive hours used in the Workload Density? | 1920 was used in the workload Density. Subfactor 1( e) was revised to state 1920. | |
| 37 | L4.4 | The solicitation states that offerors shall not go back any farther than 3 years for past performance. Would the government consider extending the regency from 3 years to 5 years in order to increase competition in the restricted SDVOSB pool? | No, the past performance dates will remain. | |
| 38 | L-3.2.3 | 106 | The government indicates that "All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper." Subsequently, the government also indicates " Printing shall be easily readable". For ease of evaluation and readability, most contractors differentiate sections using non-black colored text for section/subsection headers. Please confirm that this is acceptable as long as body text is printed in black ink. Similarly, please confirm that graphics and tables can use color, as this often supports improved readability. Will the Government confirm the acceptable size of text in graphics, tables and exhibits? | Yes, this is acceptable. |
| 39 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | The CLIN Structure in Attachment 2 contains 4 separate CLINS that contain different support locations. How should Contractors portray the cost for PMO proposed in support of this effort (i.e., split the effort proportionately between the CLINs or include them in the CLIN where the PMO personnel are located)? | CLIN added for Project Management. | |
| 40 | Subfactor 1(d) | 110 | Would the Government prefer to see resumes of potential candidates, or would the Government prefer descriptions of said individual candidates and their qualifications as they pertain to the requirements? If resumes are preferred, the 15 page limit would be insufficient. Can the page limit be increased? | As stated in 1(d), "Offeror shall provide the following qualifications for any proposed Project Managers:" Resumes would be the preferred method. The page limit will not be increased. |
| 41 | Paragraph 5.16.1 | 99 | There is a local SOP for Equipment Storage Branch of Equipment Concentration Sites mentioned in this paragraph. Can the Government provide a copy of this SOP? | No, Local SOPs are working documents that changes daily, these documents will not be furnished but will not deviate from relevant regulations. |
| 42 | Solicitation CLINS | 4 thru 13 | These CLINs represent a 10% surge increase and the descriptions are the same. What is the Government referring to for the 10% increase? Can you clarify the intent of the CLINs since the pricing attachment does not provide instruction on how to complete? | The surge CLINs each account for a 10% increase in total workload. The Price Schedule automatically calculates the pricing for these CLIN's by multiplying the workload CLIN by 10%. The 10% SURGE INCREASE CLINs are locked for editing on the bid schedule and are formula driven. |
| 43 | Subfactor 1(e ) | 112 | This passage states, “Provide a detailed explanation of how the proposed number of employees per Job Classification at each Work Site Will accomplish the work identified in the PWS based upon the estimated support needed specified in Attachment 12. If the proposed number of employees for a specific Job Classification at a Work Site is less than the estimated number of support hours required based on a 2080 hour work year, the offeror must identify how the remaining number of hours will be performed. Generalized statements to include but not limited to ‘standard procedures will be employed’ or ‘well known techniques will be used’ etc., will be considered unacceptable”. Our question is, does the Government plan to use 2080 hour work year for evaluation of this RFP, or will an adjustment be made considering that hour work year may / will vary for Exempt, SCA, and CBA employees? | 1920 will be the number of hours used for evaluation. Solicitation will be revised to reflect 1920 throughout. |
| 44 | Surge Clins | 4 thru 66 | For surge calculations, should Offerors consider 10% of the workload provided in Attachment 12? How do they want the surge CLINs calculated? | The surge CLINs each account for a 10% increase in total workload. The Price Schedule automatically calculates the pricing for these CLIN's by multiplying the workload CLIN by 10%. The 10% SURGE INCREASE CLINs are locked for editing on the bid schedule and are formula driven. |
Example; if the MAX AMOUNT proposed on the SF 1449 for CLIN 0001, MAINTENANCE-ECS XYZ is $10,000.00 then CLIN 0002, ECS XYZ-10% SURGE INCREASE MAX AMOUNT would be $1,000.00. If CLIN 0003 also states ECS XYZ-10% SURGE INCREASE the MAX AMOUNT would also be $1,000.00 as it is 10% of the MAX AMOUNT proposed for CLIN 0001, MAINTENANCE-ECS XYZ.
The purpose of the 10% SURGE INCREASE CLINs is to allow the 63rd RSC DOL the ability to increase workload at different worksites based on possible future increases to their Mission.
As the type of possible increases to the 63rd RSC DOL's Mission at the different worksites is not known at this time the 10% SURGE INCREASE CLINs will be negotiated with the awardee based on the prices proposed on Attachment 2 Price Schedule 63d RSC Logistical Support XX Region but will not exceed the MAX AMOUNT price for the10% SURGE INCREASE CLIN.
| 45 | 5.2.1 | 95 | Contractor Program Management Office (PMO) Location. Is the Government directing the location of the contractor PMO, or is the locations selection left up to Offerors? | After Phase In, the location of the PM is left up to the offeror. | |
| 46 | General | Would the Government clarify if there is one overall Project Manager and where the position would be located; or is the Project Manager position(s) dual hatted with the Site Manager positions? If neither is correct, then would the Government clarify where the Project Manager(s) are located? Additionally, what CLIN are we using to price the Project Manager position? | One Project Manager Required. PWS 1.8.5.1 has been updated. After Phase In, the location of the PM is left up to the offeror. | ||
| 47 | PWS 5.5.2 Phase In Facilities | The contractor will be provided a maximum of two administrative office spaces during the phase-in period of the contract co-located with one of the Primary COR. Will the Government provide the location of the Phase-In office space? Is this space only available during phase-in? What location will the Project Manager work from after completion of Phase-In? | |||
| CORs are located in North Little Rock AR. PM Location not directed by Government after Phase–In. | |||||
| 48 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Question: Please clarify if the Attachment 2 Price Schedule can be adapted to consider a bidder’s approved accounting practices. For instance, there does not appear to be a column to accommodate Holiday/Sick Vacation leave costs on the spreadsheet. Can a bidder add these columns to represent how costs are actually accumulated? If not, where should those costs be captured? | You may change the Price Schedule as you need; however, any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | ||
| 49 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Should overtime be considered in development of the offeor's pricing? If so, at what percentage? | No, overtime should not be factored into the price schedule. It is the contractor's responsibility to schedule work, based on workload in Attachment 12, to be completed using regular hours. | ||
| 50 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule cell H14 | Would the Government define what Workload Indicator refers to? | On the Price Schedule Attachment 2, see the tab titled "New Directions" for an example. | ||
| 51 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Where would the offeror list costs for NM GRT and other mandated taxes required specific to this effort? | You may change the Price Schedule as you need; however, any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | ||
| 52 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Would the Government consider removing Phase-In as part of the cost evaluation? | No | ||
| 53 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Where does the Government require us to price the ODC and PPE requirement? | It should be included wherever it is appropriate based on accounting standards. | ||
| 54 | 4.1 | PWS Part 4.1 states that the contractor shall provide all maintenance personnel individual tool kits. However, Attachment 10 - Equipment Texas Region shows maintenance tool kits at each site location. Are the tool kits on the GFE listing available for contractor usage, or is the contractor still required to purchase individual tool kits? | |||
| In accordance with PWS 4.1,Maintenance Contractor will provide mechanics, work-leads, and inspectors with a tool kit equivalent to the government master mechanic tool kit. | |||||
| 55 | Key Personnel and their Resumes | Are Resumes only required for Key personnel? How many resumes are required to be submitted? | See the requirements in Addendums to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 | ||
| 56 | Attachment 11 - DOL Equipment Time Standards | What is the intent and purpose of Attachment 11 63RD RSC EQUIPMENT TIME STANDARDS? | These are time standards our facilities use by equipment type by task. Revised Attachment 11 provided. | ||
| 57 | Attachment 11 - DOL Equipment Time Standards | Is the equipment listed in Attachment 11 a list of government furnished equipment or is this historical work data? | Neither. These are time standards our facilities use by equipment type | ||
| 58 | Part 6.0 Applicable Publications | Please make available the referenced publications to preclude any unfair advantage to the incumbent who has ready excess to these publications. | No, Local SOPs are working documents that changes daily, these documents will not be furnished but will not deviate from relevant regulations. | ||
| 59 | Attachment 14 and Attachment 15 | The labor title Maintenance Program Coordinator and Electronics Maintenance Technician do not appear in either CBA. Are the two positions intentially omitted form the CBAs? Are the two positions subject to the DOL SCA? If so, do you intend to incorporate the applicable WD? If not, are the positions currently classified as Exempt? | Use the SCA. | ||
| 60 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (L-3) | Part I and Part III list the SF1449. Do offerers have to included the entire completed and signed Sf 1449 in both sections? | See the requirements in Addendums to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 | ||
| 61 | Attachment 13 | The Attachment was not posted on FBO or included with the other attachments but is listed in Part 7 Attachment Listing. | The Attachment is listed as Blank at time of initial posting. It is listed as a placeholder for the the Government Responses to Submitted Vendor Questions which is posted through Amendments. | ||
| 62 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (L-1) | Are subcontractors required to submit a Part III Factor 2: Price Attachment 12? | Subcontractors are not required to submit anything directly to the government. | ||
| 63 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (L.1.3) | Please provide the sign in sheet and any presentations and information communicated during the site visits. | There were no presentations given at the site visits. All questions from the site visits were to be submitted by email to the MICC Fort McCoy Contracting Office to be answered in Attachment 13. The sign in sheets will not be released by the Government. | ||
| 64 | 1.8.2, 1.8.3 | Para 1.8.2 Equipment Operation Qualification,;1.8.3 Vehicle and Self-Propelled Equipment Operator Licensing Plan; page 82 | |||
| Question: Based on the site visit at the Fort Hood location for the 63rd RSC, we observed many different vehicle types. Will the Government provide a listing of the equipment to be maintained under this solicitation, both to enable focused recruiting and to be able to address the driver equipment qualification and licensing plan. | See Attachment 11 for types of vehicles, along with PWS 1.8. | ||||
| 65 | Attachment 11 - DOL Equipment Time Standards | Is Attachment 11, 63rd RSC DOL Equipment Time Standards the list the contractor is responsible for supporting? | All equipment listed on Attachment 11 is located within one of the 63rd RSC ECS storage branches. | ||
| 66 | Attachment 12 | Based on the site visit, number of vehicles awaiting work and the throughput desired with the Army Fight Tonight Policy, does the Government want solicitation responses to bid strictly on the man-hours and positions listed in attachment 12. | Use Attachment 12. This has been revised to show historical man-hours and staffing levels for all positions by location. | ||
| 67 | General | Based on the complexity of this solicitation and the number of different geographic locations, will the Government consider changing the solicitation due date to 26 October 2017? | Please check FBO for any extensions and current RFP response date. | ||
| 68 | Para M-1.2 | 115 | Question: In view of the criteria established in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for LPTA, will the Government consider changing the award criteria to Best Value vice LPTA?. | No. | |
| 69 | Attachment 6 | Will the Government Provide a list of SCA/Wage Determination labor positions? Are the position titles in Attachment 6 the SCA positions expected by the Government? | No. | ||
| 70 | Attachment 12 | Based on the Site Visit, we were advised that the contractor is supporting two shifts at the Fort Hood locations. Will the Government clarify that offeror’s are only to consider the man hours listed in Attachment 12? | Yes, offeror's should quote based on data in Attachment 12. | ||
| 71 | 5.2.1 Phase-In-Plan, RFP L-4.2 | Page 94 &109 | The referenced paragraph states that "The contractor shall submit the Phase-In Plan, and identify associated costs, as part of their proposal." However, Section L states that no costs will be stated in the Technical Volume. Request the USG clarify its intent with respect to Phase-In costs within the Phase-In Plan? | The phase-in costs will be identified on the Attachment 2 price schedule, not within the phase-in submission. | |
| 72 | Para 2-2.1, Subfactor 1(a) Phase-In Plan | 116 | The last bullet listed in this subfactor states "Demonstrate how the offeror will establish procedures for contractor personnel to sign for government property." Is the offeror’s ability to demonstrate how it will establish procedures for contractor personnel to sign for government property considered to be a minimum government requirement? | It is a requirement to determine technical acceptability of subfactor 1(a) | |
| 73 | 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 2015) | 153 | Since this is a Small Business Contract, and in order to reduce the impact of the cash flow requirements of this contract, will 2 week invoicing be authorized under FAR 52.216-7? | No, FAR 52.216-7 is for other than commercial items. This requirement has been determined to be a commercial service. | |
| 74 | 1.8.2, 1.8.3 | 82 | The costs associated with obtaining and retaining DOT mandated physicals and other certifications in states such as California needs to be priced in the FFP CLINs. Request the USG provide either the historical or anticipated costs of these requirements or allow these costs to be billed under a cost reimbursable CLIN. | No. Government does not have that data. | |
| 75 | 1.8.2, 1.8.3 | 82 | The costs associated with obtaining and retaining CDLs and other certifications in the various states needs to be priced in the FFP CLINs. Request the USG provide either the historical or anticipated costs of these requirements or allow these costs to be billed under a cost reimbursable CLIN. | No. Government does not have that data. | |
| 76 | 5.19.7, 5.21 | 100 and 102 | Due to Department of Labor and various State laws, the contractor may be required to compensate TDY employees' base hourly rate at the WD rate for the TDY location. Will USG allow for equitable adjustments to compensate contractor for different rates arising from different WD Schedules at TDY locations? | If the Government directs TDY as stated in the question an Request for an Equitable Adjustment may be considered. | |
| 77 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | California is a FUTA Credit Reduction state that has experienced significant increases over the normal FUTA payment and has projected more increases for 2017 and possibly further in the future. Request the USG provide its methodology for recouping the successful contractor these yet to be determined increases that are driven by statutory requirements. | This may be reviewed as an equitable adjustment | ||
| 78 | 1.6.6 | 77 | The referenced section of the PWS indicates that this is an "...Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) ". Request the USG clarify how this IDIQ will be administered. | This IDIQ would be administered using task orders issued for services as needed. | |
| 79 | 1.6.6, Attachment 2, Section B | The PWS defines this contract type as FFP, Section B indicates all CLINs are FFP while Attachment 2 contains Cost Reimbursable CLINs. Request the USG please clarify this apparent inconsistency. | CLINs for travel and materials are a fixed, not to exceed number. REIMBURSABLE-CLINs ARE FIRM FIXED PRICE AT THE PLUG NUMBER STATED IN THE CLIN. THE TOTAL COST FOR REIMBURSABLE-CLINs MAY NOT EXCEED FIRM FIXED PRICE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE CLIN. ONLY COSTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE INVOICED AGAINST THE CLINS. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN USED. | ||
| 80 | Section M, subfactor 1(d) | 117 & 118 | The Project Manager qualifications include 8 bullet points, many of which appear to be highly subjective. As an example, the seventh bullet states that they are required to be “Highly skilled in verbal and written communications …” What criteria will the Government use to determine whether a PM meets the subjective requirements established such as whether the PM is “Highly skilled” v. only “moderately skilled”, and thus Unacceptable? | Based upon the knowledge, skills and abilities provided for the PM. | |
| 81 | PWS 1.9.7 | 87 | The referenced section of the PWS and the CBAs require contractor to provide PPE at no cost to the USG. As PPE is a requirement of the PWS, request the USG consider changing this requirement to allow contractors to bill PPE as a cost reimbursable ODC. | Revised 1.9.7, PPE should be considered part of OH and will not be cost reimbursable. | |
| 82 | PWS 1.12 | 89 | The referenced section of the PWS requires contractor to meet this requirement at no additional cost to the USG. As these meetings are a requirement of the PWS, request the USG consider changing this requirement to allow contractors to bill these expenses as a cost reimbursable ODC. | No. | |
| 83 | PWS 5.2.1; supplemental para 2 | 95 & 67 | The referenced section of the PWS states that "... the contractor shall prepare to assume full responsibility for all areas outlined in the PWS two (2) days after award." while the Phase-In period is 30 days in duration. Request the USG please clarify the difference between these two milestones. | PWS 5.2.1 Revised. | |
| 84 | Attachment 2 | CLINs X010 through X012 (Surge CLINs) are listed as FFP in the RFP (Section B) and are labeled as Cost Reimbursable in Attachment 2. Request the USG please clarify this apparent inconsistency. | Revised to FFP Reimbursable on the Price Schedule. | ||
| 85 | Attachment 2 | : CLINs X017 (Travel CLINs) are listed as FFP in the RFP (Section B) but are labeled as Cost Reimbursable in Attachment 2. Request the USG please clarify this apparent inconsistency. | CLINs for travel and materials are a fixed, not to exceed number. REIMBURSABLE-CLINs ARE FIRM FIXED PRICE AT THE PLUG NUMBER STATED IN THE CLIN. THE TOTAL COST FOR REIMBURSABLE-CLINs MAY NOT EXCEED FIRM FIXED PRICE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE CLIN. ONLY COSTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE INVOICED AGAINST THE CLINS. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN USED. | ||
| 86 | Attachment 2 | CLINs X018 (Material CLINs) are listed as FFP in the RFP (Section B) but are labeled as Cost Reimbursable in Attachment 2. Request the USG please clarify this apparent inconsistency. | CLINs for travel and materials are a fixed, not to exceed number. REIMBURSABLE-CLINs ARE FIRM FIXED PRICE AT THE PLUG NUMBER STATED IN THE CLIN. THE TOTAL COST FOR REIMBURSABLE-CLINs MAY NOT EXCEED FIRM FIXED PRICE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE CLIN. ONLY COSTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE INVOICED AGAINST THE CLINS. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN USED. | ||
| 87 | Attachment 2 | The FICA threshold for 2017 is higher than that mandated by the formula in Column Q. The actual FICA limit is $127,200 per FTE. The current formula prevents offerors from consolidating FTE requirements by Labor Category. Request the USG please provide an updated Price Schedule inclusive of this change. | The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | ||
| 88 | Attachment 2 | The formula in Column Q (FICA) does not accurately represent the FICA buildup when multiple FTEs in the same Job Classification are entered in a row resulting in a cumulative amount for all FTEs in that row that exceeds the FICA threshold. Recommend the USG consider the following change to the formula in Column Q of referenced file. |
From: ROUND(IF(P15<118500,P15*0.062,118500*0.062),2)+(ROUND((P15*0.0145),2))
To: ROUND(IF((P15/N15)<127200,P15*0.062,127200*0.062),2)+(ROUND((P15*0.0145),2)) Request the USG please provide an updated Price Schedule inclusive of this change.
| The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | |||
| 89 | Attachment 2 | Under this FFP, the USG has mandated that offerors use a specific FICA threshold for the entire term of the contract. FICA thresholds have been steadily increasing over the last several years. Request the USG address how it will monitor and make adjustments for changes to this statutory requirement that may impact offerors pricing in the out-years. | The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. |
| 90 | Attachment 2 | State Unemployment Insurance varies by State. The current structure and formulas do not account for this type of calculation. Request the USG allow offerors to modify the costs elements and formulas to conform to their respective accounting practices. | The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. |
| 91 | Attachment 2 | Worker's Compensation Rates vary by job classification and location. The current structure and formulas do not account for this type of calculation. Request the USG allow offerors to modify the costs elements and formulas to conform to their respective accounting practices | The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. |
| 92 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | It is not apparent how Offerors will integrate subcontractor pricing without making changes to the formulas in the Price Schedule. Request the USG provide instructions to all Offerors on how to incorporate sub-contractor pricing into ATT 2. Recommend adding a column to track Subcontractor name and then only require # FTEs, salary, hours, Fully Burdened rate and Fully Burdened Costs for subcontractors. | Subcontractor pricing should not be priced out separately |
| 93 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Does the USG anticipate having sub-contractors submit sealed bids and if so, will the USG provide separate instructions for sub-contractor sealed bids submissions? | No, subcontractors are not to submit their own pricing. That is to be determined and accounted for by the Prime in their price schedule. |
| 94 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | As our indirect rate buildup does not align with the USG's cost elements and formulas, trying to map/align our actual cost elements into the current Attachment 2 structure will misrepresent our costs. Request the USG allow offerors to modify the costs elements and formulas to conform to their respective accounting practices. | The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. |
| 95 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Request clarification on the following conflicting instructions contained in cell A8 of referenced document: |
-- "DO NOT change any of the formulas embedded within these spreadsheets. If formulas must be changed please provide a detailed explanation as to why the formula was changed." Will an offeror's proposal be compliant if the formulas are changed and an explanation is provided?
| The Price Schedule may be changed, but any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | |||||
| 96 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | For the purposes of pricing this proposal, please provide the anticipated Notice to Proceed (NTP) date. | Phase-In starts 30 March 2018. | ||
| 97 | L&M | 3,4,9,10,11,12 | The Government has provided multiple documents that describe the multitude and various requirements that apply as well as multiple workload references, that taken individually, yield differing results. Can the government be more clear/specific about what the actual minimum requirements are for this solicitation? | All information provided needs to be considered and used as minimum requirements. | |
| 98 | Attachment 6, para 2 | The PWS references for the Site Manager (para 2.o) and Assistant Site Manager (para 2.p) are missing. Request the USG revise this document. | See revisions made to Attachment 6 | ||
| 99 | Attachment 6, para 2 | The PWS references for the Site Manager (para 2.o) and Assistant Site Manager (para 2.p) are missing. Can the Government confirm which site(s) the Site Manager and Assistant Site Manager actually refer to in this document? | See revisions made to Attachment 6 | ||
| 100 | Attachment 7, Attachment 9 | As this RFP is for the Texas Region, it is unclear why California sites (ECS 16; PBT Support (Mountain View, CA); AMSAs 13, 14, 19, 29, 32, 85, and 98; HHC, 63rd RSC; the 191st and 300th Army Bands; the 201st PCH, 302nd MPAD, and 222nd BOD) are included in this RFP. Request the USG please clarify this apparent inconsistency. | Attachments 7 and 9 are correct. Some California locations fall under W911SA-17-R-3001 based on the 63rd DOL's orgainizational structure and mission. | ||
| 101 | Attachment 11 | Clarification of numbers in the Time Standards section of this table. Please confirm that the time standard units of measure in Att_11 are minutes. | These are time standards our facilities use by equipment type by task, unit of measure is Hours . | ||
| 102 | CLINS | 3 thru 66 | CLINS #0001 through 4020 do not have their applicable Periods of Performance referenced in their description. Request the Government include each CLIN's Period of Performance to enable Offerors to enter their costs correctly. | The Period of Performance for each CLIN is listed in a section called Delivery Information. | |
| 103 | Section L & M | 112 & 119 | Section L Subfactor 1e (last bullet) talks about the contractor requirement to provide a detailed explanation of how employees will accomplish their work "...based upon the the estimated support needed specified in Attachment 12." Section M Subfactor 1e (last bullet) talks about the contractor requirement to provide a detailed explanation of how employees will accomplish their work "...based upon the the estimated support needed specified in Attachment 5." The section M reference to Attachment 5 appears to be a typo. Request the Government ensure the Section L and M requirements are the same. | Attachment 12 for both sections. | |
| 104 | M-2.2, Sub-Factor 1(e) | There are 5 bullets and 15 sub-bullets listed under Subfactor 1(e) Management Plan. Does an offeror need to be found “Acceptable” for each of the 15 sub-bullets listed under the 5th bullet under of the Management Plan, Subfactor 1(e) (i.e. Will one unacceptable sub-bullet cause the offeror to be found Unacceptable for the Subfactor and Factor? | IAW Factor 1: Technical, "A subfactor rating of unacceptable will result in an overall unacceptable rating for the factor. Offeror must be found acceptable on all bullets in order to be found acceptable for the subfactor." | ||
| 105 | M-2.2 | 115-120 | There are 48 bullets listed under Factor 1 Technical. Are each of the 48 bullets listed under Technical Factor 1 (Sub-factors a-f) considered to be a “government minimum requirement?” | Yes. | |
| 106 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | The Government provided format in Attachment 2 does not have a CLIN associated with the overall contract Project Manager (PM). Request the Government provide a separate CLIN for the Project Management and Project Management Office costs | CLIN added for Project Management. | ||
| 107 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule | Clarification of Available and Productive Hours for the Base Period. Request the Government confirm that for pricing purposes, the Phase-In Period is the first 30 days of the Base period and the remainder of the Base Period is 11 months in duration? | The Phase-In period is 90 days, with the remainder of the Base Period being 9 Months. You may change the Price Schedule as you need; however, any changes need to have a separate explanation for the change. | ||
| 108 | Attachment 2, Price Schedule, RFP M | The detailed price buildup of offerors burdens (i.e., Columns P thru AB of Attachment 2) is not required for the USG to conduct a price reasonableness evaluation of these FFP proposals. Request the USG eliminate the requirement for the detailed price buildup in columns P thru AB of Attachment 2 and allow offerors to replace these columns with one column that contains their Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) to the USG. That FBLR times the proposed hours will provide the proposed price for each line item. | No columns will be removed | ||
| 109 | Attachment_9_Worksite_Locations_TX_Region | AMSA-13 is located in Vallejo, CA, yet the "Attachment 9 Worksite Locations TX Region" document lists its address as Port Hueneme, CA. Can the Government please confirm the correct address for AMSA-13 and if needed, correct the Attachment 9 accordingly? | Attachment 9 is correct. Some California locations fall under W911SA-17-R-3001 based on the 63rd DOL's orgainizational structure and mission. | ||
| 110 | L-4.2, and L-4.2 Subfactor 1(e) | 109 & 112 | This bullet comment states "Identification of proposed subcontractors and a discussion of the communications and internal control procedures that will be employed in order to ensure timeliness and quality of all subcontracted effort and how this work will be coordinated." In L-4.2, the RFP states that "The Technical Part shall not contain the name of the company, subcontractors/team members or individual/persons names (Except for in subfactor 1d) and shall identify their firm by DUNS number one time only on the cover page." Request the Government clarify their instructions in the last bullet on p 109 for Subfactor 1e as to how they want Subcontractors identified in the Technical Volume. | Remove the requiment for " "Identification of proposed subcontractors " from L &M in Subfactor 1(e ) | |
| 111 | Attachment 3 #7 & 8 | The final two (2) Performance Requirements Summaries (PRS) listed in the referenced attachment cite Technical Exhibit Listings Processes in PWS Part 7. PWS Part 7 has no Technical Exhibit Listings Processes. Request the USG clarify this apparent inconsistency. | Technical exhibit referenced as attachments. PRS updated. | ||
| 112 | Attachment 12 and PWS | Attachment 12 references a Labor Category called "Maintenance Program Coordinator" for all sites listed. The PWS has no references to this position. Attachment 12 references a Labor Category called "Maintenance Program Coordinator" for all sites listed. The PWS has no references to this position. Request the Govt provide a job description and any required qualifications for the Maintenance Program Coordinator. | The term is used on Attachment 12 as that's what the incumbent has. Each vendor may determine the best way to perform the work in PWS 5.15.2 | ||
| 113 | Attachment 9 and Attachment 12 | Attachment 9 lists 28 maintenance locations. Attachment 12 only lists 20 locations. The 8 missing locations are all Branch Maintenance Activities (BMAs). Attachment 12 does not list the BMAs for AMSA 5, 20, 26, and the 5 BMAS for AMSA 95. Request the USG clarify this inconsistency and add the workload for the 8 missing BMAs to Attachment 12 if required. | BMA workload is included in Parent AMSA. Attachment 12 updated to show BMA requirements. | ||
| 114 | Attachment 9 and Attachment 12 | Attachment 9 lists 28 maintenance locations. Attachment 12 only lists 20 locations. The 8 missing locations are all Branch Maintenance Activities (BMAs). Attachment 12 does not list the BMAs for AMSA 5, 20, 26, and the 5 BMAS for AMSA 95. Can the USG clarify that the workload for the 8 missing BMAs are included in the Attachment 12 workload requirement for their supporting AMSA? | BMA workload is included in Parent AMSA. Attachment 12 updated to show BMA requirements. | ||
| 115 | Attachment 12 | Attachment 12 lists 5 Maintenance Program Coordinators for AMSA 95. Since there is only one contractor Heavy Equipment Mechanic listed at this location, the requirement for 5 Maintenance Program Coordinators appears to be a typo or otherwise misstated requirement. Request the USG confirm that the contractor levels cited in the referenced attachment for AMSA 95 include five (5) Maintenance Program Coordinators? | Attachment 12 has been revised to show historical man-hours and staffing levels for all positions by location. | ||
| 116 | L-4.2 1(e ) and M-2.2 1(e ) | 112-112 & 118-119 | The last bullet under Subfactor 1(e): Management Plan in the referenced sections requires offerrors to provide an explanation as to why their estimated number of employees does not equal/exceed the estimated support hours required based on a 2,080 hour work year. With the SCA Holiday & Vacation requirements, various state Sick Leave Laws and Executive Order 13706, there will not be 2,080 productive work hours in a year. Request the USG clarify this requirement in Sections L and M to either address actual Productive hours for manning or rephrase it as total "Available" hours. | This was changed to 1920 in both places. | |
| 117 | L-4.2 1(e ) and M-2.2 1(e ) | 112-112 & 118-119 | The last bullet under Subfactor 1(e): Management Plan in the referenced sections requires offerors to provide an explanation as to why their estimated number of employees does not equal/exceed the estimated support hours required based on a 2,080 hour work year. Attachment 12 specifies 1,920 hours per FTE in the historical staffing figures. ith the SCA Holiday & Vacation requirements, various state Sick Leave Laws and Executive Order 13706, there will not be 2,080 productive work hours in a year. Request the USG clarify this apparent inconsistency. Recommend using 2080 "Available" work hours as the common standard throughout all workload documents and references | 1920 was used, that is the maximum hours in a year a contractor has actually available for work. | |
| 118 | M-2.2, Factor 1 Technical | 116 | In the first three paragraphs of this section, the Government provides a general description of their technical evaluation processes for assigning ratings but does not provide a definition of technical acceptability. In order to ensure we are heading in the right direction in fulfilling this solicitation's requirements, can the government define “technical acceptability” as it will be applied in this solicitation? | See M-2.2 for the definition of acceptable and unacceptable. |
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 .