20191115_W911SD-19-R-0039_RFIs_V3.pdf

RFI Response – Laundry Services, West Point, NY

W911SD‐19‐R‐0039

Questions from Amendment 03 RFIs Final – 15 November 2019

Patricia Sullivan, Donna Pletcher – Pruiss, Robert Rapp

1. The Original Question number 7 in the RFI Response stated:

Question: It appears The Government is asking contractors to address each part of the PWS and how the contractor intents to perform them. A cross reference matrix for this is even required. However there doesn’t appear to be a space for this in the Volume general outline.

• Where in Technical Volume does the Government want the response to the

PWS?

All technical capabilities should be addressed in Volume II – Technical Capabilities as stated in “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors”

Follow up Question 11/7/19: Taking in to consideration the Governments answer above. There is not a place in the Technical Capability Volume general outline or Elements where the Response to the contract task requirements specified in the PWS fits.

Will the Government please provide which specific section or element where the offeror should insert this part of the proposal? Please reference the required four elements listed under Volume II – Technical Capabilities. The verbiage in paragraph (1) of the Technical capabilities is used to ensure the Offerors meaningful detail in their submission. Offerors are only required to respond to the four elements listed in the section.

If it is helpful historical RFP’s have had the element called Mission Capability - Each task area must be addressed separately to include staffing (skill mix) and any deliverables associated with the specific tasks. The Mission Capability section shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their company and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offerors proposal.

2. Question 16 in the RFI was asking if there was a Wage Determination or a CBA.

The current workforce is all under a Collective Bargaining Agreement which stipulates the wages and benefits. This CBA is the Wage determination for this contract. See Amendment 0004.

Question: So that all offerors know the appropriate wages and benefits for the labor force will the government please provide a copy of the current CBA?

As Corrected, The CBA is the Wage Determination for the current contract W911SD-14-C-0006. This Solicitation will use Wage Determination

Questions from Amendment 03 RFIs Final – 15 November 2019

Patricia Sullivan, Donna Pletcher – Pruiss, Robert Rapp

3. Question number 201 in the RFI stated:

21. Maintenance shop tools owned by the government or the contactor? Refer to Technical Exhibit #4 for a list of government owned equipment. Any tools not listed, are contractor owned.

Currently all shop tools are owned by the contractor NOT the government.

4. Question Number 28 in the RFI stated:

28. How many employees working at CLADS Office? The number of employees (staffing levels) needed to satisfy contract requirements shall be determined by the contractor.

The number of people government provided is not accurate an accurate number.

The Staffing should be determined by the offeror in order to accommodate the PWS requirements in PARA 5.8.4.7 which States: Average Cadet wait time at CLADs shall not exceed 10 minutes.

5. Amendment 4 provided the CBA/Wage Determination numberCBA-2019-12929.

Unfortunately with the transition from all Government information sites to beta.sam.gov the Wage Determination only shows the cover page you had in the amendment it does not provide the actual CBA. As the incumbent we have this information but to be fair to all offerors this information should be available in full.

Please see the attached CBA which should be found on beta.sam.gov and the DOL page but for some reason is not. It provides the full wage and benefit information that the successful offeror will have to pay.

See Amendment 0005

6. Submission Requirements for Past Performance volume Section f) State:

Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 2, For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to Ms. Lakenia Brown, Contract Specialist, Not Later Than the proposal submission due date. Any questionnaires not returned directly to the Contract Specialist will not be reviewed and evaluated.

Questions from Amendment 03 RFIs Final – 15 November 2019

Patricia Sullivan, Donna Pletcher – Pruiss, Robert Rapp

The Past Performance Questionnaire required to be sent to past performance references seems to be missing. Attachment 2 seems to be a document that the offeror should return directly to contracting.

Question: What document does the government want Offerors to send to Points of contact for their use to respond?

See amendment 0005 with attachment.

7. There is an incorrect reference in CLIN 0009 (plus all option periods). The CLIN(s), as you can see hi-lighted in yellow, sites para 20, when the new para, per subsequent amendments, is now 5.9.

0009 1 Job

0009 Cadet Claims

FFP

CLIN #0009 Cadet Claims Claims will be settled IAW PWS Paragraph 20. For purposes of the solicitation this figure will be funded at $45,000. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT PROVIDE A PRICE FOR THIS LINE ITEM.

FOB: Destination

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: 0011367515

PSC CD: S209

This CLIN and all corresponding CLINs have been corrected. See amendment 0005.

8. The Technical capability volume is requiring a -Cross Reference Matrix.

The Government has removed the requirement of Offerors to address their methods for each section of the PWS so there is nothing to actually cross reference.

Question: Is the Cross reference Matrix requirement to be removed?

Use the Cross reference Matrix where applicable.

9. Is this RFP still a Lowest Price Technically acceptable Solicitation?

Yes, please reference Addendum FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (OCT 2014)

Questions from Amendment 03 RFIs Final – 15 November 2019

Patricia Sullivan, Donna Pletcher – Pruiss, Robert Rapp

a. Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) utilizing the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process. Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to the solicitation requirements, is found responsible, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the lowest price. The LPTA process does not permit tradeoffs among price and non- price factors (see FAR 15.101-2).