W9124G-20-R-0003 Grounds Questions 2.docx
DOCX document 50 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ground Maintenance Cantonment Fort Rucker, AL
- Solicitation number
- W9124G-20-R-0003
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for grounds maintenance services at Fort Rucker, Alabama. The requirement is for a non-personal services contract to provide grounds maintenance to Fort Rucker, including mowing, edging, trimming, leaf and debris removal, shrub and tree pruning, fertilizer and herbicide application, and special event grass cutting. Services will be provided for high visibility, common areas, and unimproved grounds across the installation. The period of performance includes a 30-day phase-in period, one-month special cutting period, and a 10-month base year, with four one-year option periods. Key questions addressed technical requirements for mowing heights, equipment usage, safety considerations, and clarifying areas of responsibility.
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
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
Fort Rucker Grounds Maintenance Services Solicitation No. W9124G-20-R-0003 questions Part 2 Fort Rucker Grounds Maintenance W9124G-20-R-0003
| # |
| Date |
| RFP Page # |
| Question |
| Date |
| Response |
| Attachment 4, page 4 of 7 |
| In the LABOR portion of Subfactor 2, the requirement states, “Man-hour matrix following the format provided in RFP Attachment 6.” The “Past Performance Contract Reference Sheet” is titled as “Attachment 6” but the pages have headers indicating this is actually Attachment 7. Will the Government please provide Attachment 6 containing the man-hour matrix format the government requires us to follow? |
See attached information provided.
| Attachment 4, page 3 of 7 |
| The RFP limits the Technical Proposal to 40 pages. Are the required Table of Contents and Glossary included in the page count? |
The TABLE OF CONTENTS, GLOSSARY, RESUMES, LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES are omitted from the page count. Resumes, licenses and certificates may be added as an addendum.
| Attachment 4, page 3 of 7 |
| The RFP states, “Font shall not be less than 12 pitch, with the exception for charts, tables, and diagrams, which shall be no smaller than 10 pitch.” Will 12-point and 10-point Times New Roman respectively comply with this font requirement? |
The relation between pitch font size and typographic font size (points) is usually inverse: a 12-pitch typewriter font is equal in height to 10-point typographic font, while a 10 pitch-typewriter font is equal in height to 12-point typographic font.
| General |
| Will the Government please provide the SF-30 form? |
Yes, Amendment 0002 will be on a SF 30
| Attachment 4, Page 2 of 7 |
| Instructions for Volume I, SF 1449, letter (f) states “Clause fill-ins in Sections I through K.” Will the Government please clarify where Sections I through K are located? |
| General |
| Will the Government accept volumes I, II, and III in PDF format? |
Yes
| Annex F 2.2.8, page F-7 |
| “Leaves shall be removed from High Visibility Areas (Improved Areas), as ordered, along with organic debris such as, grass clippings, tree trimmings, and pine straw.” |
Does “along with” mean organic debris such as, grass clippings, tree trimmings, and pine straw are to be collected only as ordered, or concurrently with each mowing?
Leaf removal is not a requirement that is accomplished each mowing, but rather ordered by the acre, as needed, at selected locations. “AS ORDERED” requirements are covered under CLINs 0003AJ to 0003AM. Leaf Removal, when ordered, does include removal of all items listed in bullet #2.
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| When clearing the fence line initially in the base year, will the Government allow the Contractor to have “chips” remain after the clearing, or is the expectation that the entire fence line is free from any visible sign of forestry equipment? |
YES
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| Is the Contractor allowed to use track machines for the initial clearing? |
Yes, if appropriate for the locations to be used.
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| Is the Contractor allowed to use Forestry equipment (drum knifed forestry vegetation cutter – in lieu of a rotory flail – due to Kudzu vines) for the initial clearing, which would inevitably disturb the ground? |
Yes
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| “Where established tree lines are closer to the fence / cable barrier than the distance established above, then that distance shall be the limits of cut.” |
There were several areas where established tree lines came up to the fence. Is it the expectation that clearing of brush and trees under 4” in diameter at the ground be cleared – around those established trees – all along the fence line?
This would require evaluation on a case by case bases but generally the tree line establishes the limits. In isolated cases where saplings and small trees may be intertwined in the fence or cable barriers, they would need to be removed.
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| It appears there are locations on the fence line where private property encroaches into the 20’ outside requirement. What is the requirement in those areas? (Cutting the material down appears to leave no privacy between the fence line and the private property. Just trying to understand the intention in those areas.) |
This would require evaluation on a case by case bases but generally the clear zone is required in accordance with the PWS. In isolated cases, where there appears to be encroachment of private property, please notify the Government and the situation will be evaluated and a determination made as to enforcement of the clear zone requirement.
| Site Visit comment |
| Is the Contractor allowed to use any wheeled equipment on the ASP mounds? |
ANNEX F, PWS, Section 2.8.3 states “Contractor shall use appropriate equipment for current ground conditions and shall repair all damaged areas resulting from utilization of inappropriate equipment for current ground conditions.”
Based on the slope of bunkers, it would appear that hand work would be the primary means to cut the grass unless there is specialized equipment to cut steep slopes and not damage the grounds. It would appear the Contractor shall use appropriate equipment for current ground conditions and shall repair all damaged areas resulting from utilization of inappropriate equipment for current ground conditions.at
| Annex A 2.2.3.3, page A-9 |
| Is the Contractor allowed to work after 1600 hours if needed? Some seasonal labor assignments may necessitate overtime hours. Also, weather delays may force hours of operation beyond 1600 hours. |
The contractor can request working hour adjustments / modifications on an as-needed bases for approval.
| Site Visit observation |
| There were many hillsides which seemed unsafe for even “trimmer mowing”. Is the Contractor allowed to treat the ground with selective herbicide when it’s too steep for safe mowing and/or trimming? |
The contractor can request adjustments / modifications with strong justification on an as-needed bases for approval.
| Annex F 2.8.1, page F-15 |
| “All rotary mowers used within High Visibility Areas (Improved grounds) shall be equipped with mulching blades and have discharges blocked.” |
Mulching blades are a widely accepted industry standard, but “discharges blocked” means a mulching deck. This means that there will be no rear-discharge decks allowed in any of the Improved Grounds A, B or C. This will force the use of a 72” deck max in large areas, reducing productivity significantly. For the large fields, would a rear discharge deck be acceptable? Or, is it possible this requirement was meant for area “A” only?
| Section to be revised to read: | |
| 2.8.1 | All rotary mowers used within High Visibility Areas (Improved grounds) on main cantonment area with multiple facilities / buildings in close proximity to each other shall be equipped with mulching blades and have discharges blocked. Appropriate equipment shall be used for road shoulders and other large open areas where facilities / buildings are not in close proximity to each other. |
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, page TE 3-27 |
| While driving through the CDC/Chapel Complex on the site tour, groundcover was seen edged/trimmed over curb edges in the parking lot. Referencing Annex F 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, it does not appear that that is in the SOW. Can the Government please clarify where the Area of Responsibility lies there, and the frequency of the requirement if it is Contractor provided? |
The following will be added to ANNEX F, PWS, section 2.2.2 Edging: “Ground Cover at Chapel Complex: Contractor shall edge all curbed beds that contain ground cover, and all sidewalks adjacent to ground cover, and shall also remove weeds, bushes, vines and all other foreign growth that is not existing ground cover, concurrently with each mowing. “
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13 |
| The perimeter fence behind the Museum was observed to have very thick Kudzu vines. Is a one-time chemical treatment allowed in the base year to kill the vine, and then the Contractor can come in and clear the dead vine off the fence much easier? |
The Government will spray the section in questions and some other areas with herbicide to kill the Kudzu. Government will not clean the dead vegetation from the fence at these locations. That requirement will still remain with the contractor.
| Annex F 2.5.2.1, page F-13; Site Visit observation |
| Who has the area of responsibility for wood line reduction along the road edge and within the fence line? It appears the wood line growth can be very aggressive, forcing the Contractor to have to mow against it and possibly be compromised. |
Do not understand this question.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 5, page TE 5-6 |
| Referencing Annex F 03 (Para. 2.8.4), the Contractor shall provide a complete equipment list. Shall this be an appendix at the back of the Volume II – Factor 1, or part of Volume II – Factor 1, Subfactor 1? |
Annex F, PWS Section 2.8.4 will be revised to read “2.8.4 The Contractor shall submit a complete equipment list including number, make, model, specifications and catalog cut sheets with the proposal.”
Specification sheets and catalog cut sheets may be addressed with an addendum to the technical proposal and will not be count against the “page count”. The submission in the Technical Proposal will meet this requirement.
| Section L, page 5 of 7; Annex A 2.4.3.3, page A-13 |
| Does the Government intend for the Quality Control Chief and the Quality Control Manager / Inspector (QCM/I) to be the same person? |
Terms are interchangeable. Intent is to have ONE person who is responsible for QC. IF the contractor can meet all the QC requirements with ONE person that is acceptable. If not, we would expect that the contractor would have a sufficient number of Quality Control Inspectors assisting the QCM/I to meet contract requirements.
| Site Visit observation |
| While at the DoD School, it was noted that the beds were not maintained. Who has the area of responsibility for the planting beds? |
Currently the School.
| Site Visit observation |
| The Freedom Fest area/field had sidewalks going to nowhere, yet they were edged. Is it the Government’s intent to edge these sidewalks in the middle of the field? |
| Attachment 8 |
| Attachment 8, PPQ is dated 8 June 2020. The due date is 7 July 2020. Please clarify date PPQ’s need to be submitted back to the Government. |
21 Sep 2020
| Site Visit observation |
| At the DPW site, there was a lot of gravel areas with grass to mow/trim. That is unsafe to mow with vehicles nearby. Is chemical treatment allowed for areas of gravel? |
Contractor can submit a proposal and plan and the Government will evaluate and review for approval.
| Annex F 2.3.4.2, page F-11 |
| Can Applicator Personnel be AL certified in (OTPC & OTPS) Ornamental & Turf Pest Control Commercial, or do they have to be AL certified in the operational category ROW (Right-of-Way Pest Control)? |
Alabama Certified Applicators applying herbicide to the railroad Right of Way must have Alabama license/certification in the Right of Way Category. OTPC and OPTS will not work for ROW AND VICE VERSA.
| Site Visit observation |
| Several gates were closed where tenants were using the far away sites we would need to maintain. How do we coordinate the unlocking of the gates, or know when the sites will be accessible? Is the Contractor still responsible for the same PRS standards in those instances? |
A listing of POCs with phone and e-mail address’s will be provided and the Government will also coordinate on an as-needed basis with the customer and contractor.
| Site Visit observation |
| There appear to be thousands of linear feet of concrete ditches and culverts along the roadside to edge. Is chemical treatment allowed or is the Contractor required to use an edger for those areas? |
Edger OR weed eater would be appropriate equipment to use. Contractor may submit a chemical treatment proposal and plan for identified locations for review and consideration.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 1, pages TE 1-2; 1-3 |
| Section C Mowing indicates a cut for Improved/High Intensity between 3-5”, Semi-Improved between 3-4”, and Un-Improved between 3-5”. Can the Government please confirm that these are correct? |
Attachment 3 Section J Rucker Grounds Maintenance, Technical Exhibit 1, pages TE 1-2; 1-3 will be revised to reflect the requirements as identified in Annex F, PWS, Section 3.0 Work Capability Levels.
Annex A, Overarching PWS Statement, pages ANNEX A – 24 to A – 25 will also be revised.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, pages TE 3-28; 3-31 |
| Soldier-On Field and New Chapel areas are shown on TE 3-1 to be bagged, but the pictures on TE 3-28 and TE 3-31 do not indicate bagging. Please confirm. |
Bagging area is identified on page TE 3-6.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, page TE 3-29 |
| Please confirm the Bark Park in the map, just above the “Triangle shoppett” is by Contractor and not by Corvias. |
“Bark Park” is not a requirement in this contract. Road shoulder area is. Technical Exhibit will be modified to remove the “Bark Park” area from this contract.
| RFP page 69 of 75, 52.222-42 |
| Please clarify the cost of “Laborer, Grounds Maintenance: $15.05 plus fringe”. In AL Wage Determination No.: 2015-4631, Revision 13, Dated 05/03/2020, position “11210 - Laborer Grounds Maintenance” is listed at $10.96 plus $4.54 H&W. This comes to $15.50. If we apply the RFP wage of $15.05 plus $4.54 H&W that is $19.59/hr for the position, versus $15.50. Please confirm intent of RFP statement, and whether or not we should use the AL SCA WD rates. |
Use WD rates attached
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, page TE 3-1 |
| In frequencies table, improved grounds “A” mowings are noted in March and November. Are these mowings per Contractor scheduling, or does the Government mandate the mowings be performed a certain week? |
Contractor has requirement to develop work schedule and submit to the Government for approval. See Annex F, PWS Section 2.9 Work Scheduling Reporting. That being said a schedule for 2 cuttings a month with one cutting on week 1 and second cutting on week 2 with NO cuttings on week 3, 4 and possible 5, would not be acceptable.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, page TE 3-89 |
| Can pruning be performed during the month of May and September, versus June and September? We see no horticultural risk to this variance, but it would reduce staffing requirements. |
Yes.
Contractor can submit a proposal to the Government for review and approval.
| Attachment J, Technical Exhibit 3, page TE 3-89 |
| Will base year pruning of Crape Myrtles be done in January given the contract period of performance start date versus the contract requirement in December? There is no horticultural risk to this variance. Can this requirement be transitioned to January for every option year as well, given the expected vacation period of the workforce in December? This would reduce staffing requirements. |
Yes.
Page | 3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .