Vendor Questions-Set 04_Sol W911YN25RA008.pdf

Vendor Questions for Solicitation W911N25RA008

RTI Dining Facility Service-Set 04

Q1. Will the USG revise the PWS sec 1.2.1 to include subsistence?

A1. Added subsistence to the paragraph.

Q2. Will the USG revise the PWS sec4.4.4 to remove this requirement?

A2. Removed “Government”. The contractor is required to manage, maintain and account for subsistence.

Q3. Will the USG revise the PWS sec 5.23.4 to remove subsistence?

A3. Removed: to include subsistence, and controlled forms (DD Form 1544), Cash Meal Payment Sheets as prescribed by AR 30-22.

Q4. Will the contractor be required to use the Prime Vendor Program to order subsistence? If so, would the USG please provide a current order/pricing guide?

A4. The Contractor is not required to use Prime Vendor. They are only required to follow the approved menus and “grade” of subsistence product.

Q5. Will the USG be providing an initial menu or is the contractor responsible for developing one of our own.

A5. The 35 Day menu is the current required menu. However, a Menu Board will be convened to review and make adjustments upon approval.

Q6. Will the USG please clarify if the contractor is no longer required to use AFMIS as its Food Service Management program. If the is the case, will the USG remove the PWS qualifications requirement for Key Personnel to be highly familiar with Army Food Management Information Systems (AFMIS)?

A6. Removed the word “highly” in para 1.4.7.2

Q7. Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to O erors, Paragraph L (Volume I, Section 1 - Subfactor 1 description) states that the proposed sta ing plan will "...be evaluated to determine adequacy and realism. Assess and evaluate the o eror's knowledge and ability to perform and operate the dining facility in accordance with the Army's Food Service and Sanitation regulations and policies."

Paragraph M Addendum to Evaluation, Factor A states that "Evaluation of the o eror's proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS)."

A7. There is no paragraph L in 52.212-1 addendum, its (i) (1) and (2) for technical subfactors.

There is no paragraph M in addendum to Evaluation, it’s Sec A. and that statement is correct.

Q8. Is it the Government's intent to require a discussion of each PWS technical performance requirement in Volume I? If so, given the number of requirements and the level of detail necessary to demonstrate our understanding, we request an increase to the page count limit for Volume I (50 pages) to 100 pages?

A8. You must address Technical Subfactors 1. Sta ing Plan, subfactor 2. Quality Control as it applies to PWS. It does not state to each performance requirement of the PWS. 50-page limit should be su icient to respond.

Q9. In light of these major changes in the requirements for this contract, a significant amount of work is now required to revise our submission documents. In order to provide an adequate amount of time to make these revisions, will the USG revise the proposal due date to 18 August 2025?

A9. Changing Terms in the PWS and removing items is not significant change. In light of the smaller changes the USG did, we will extend date by 6 days to 14 Aug 25 @ 1100hrs.