Gunnery Fort Rucker RFP QA 2020 Set 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 62 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FORT RUCKER GUNNERY RANGE AND TRAINING COMPLEX OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- W9124G21R0001
About this file
This solicitation seeks proposals for Fort Rucker Gunnery Range and Training Complex Operations, Maintenance, and Repair Services. Key details include the requirement for management and maintenance of ranges, training areas, and associated facilities; a period of performance of one base year plus four option years; pricing in the form of fixed-price contract line items for phase-in/base period and option years, as well as materials; submission of technical and past performance volumes addressing staffing, quality control, and experience; and a revised proposal due date of January 14, 2021.
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
Set ONE
| Gunnery Range | Ft. Gordon Gunnry Q&A | |||
| SOLICITATION: W9124G21R0001 | ||||
| Industry Questions & Answers | ||||
| Sol. Pg. | Reference | Question(s) | Government Response | |
| 1 | 160 | ITO, 4. Proposal Content, paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.1 | In the Instructions to Offerors (ITO), the government references the Past Performance Questionnaire and Cover Letter (Attachment 3). We do not see that in the RFP package released? Can the government please provide these attachments? | Updated instructions to Offerors to say attachment 5 and to add questionnaire as attachment 5 by Amendment 3 to the RFP. |
| 2 | 109 and 153 | Section L Instructions to Offerors - IAW FAR 52.212-1, para 1.4.1 | Questions due by 4:00 pm ET on Thursday November 19, 2020 (page 153); Also, on page 109 last para under “Site Visit Instructions: Questions due 4:00 pm ET on 23 November 2020. Please clarify questions due date. | The Site Visit has been cancelled and “Site Visit Instructions: Questions due 4:00 pm ET on 23 November 2020." has been removed with the Site Visit Instructions. Questions for the RFP were due by 4:00 pm ET on Thursday November 19, 2020. |
| 3 | 158 | 4.3 Volume III Factor 2: Past Performance, 4.3.1.2.4.1 | For all contracts identified by the offeror as a past performance the offeror shall forward copy of the PPQ and Cover Letter (Attachment 3). Attachment 3 is the Pricing Workbook, is there meant to be a PPQ and cover letter or are we to use only CPARS for past? If so, will it be in an Amendment? | Updated Instructions to Offerors as Past Performance to list Attachment 5 and added questionnaire as Attachment 5 in Amendment 3 to the RFP. |
| 4 | 4.3 Volume III Factor 2: Past Performance, 4.3.1.2.4.2 | Past Performance references; CPARS – “Teaming Partners may submit CPARS directly to the points of contact responsible for receiving proposal submissions identified in para 1.3.” Do we understand this correctly? If we are Teaming Partner on the Past referenced contract may, that Teaming Partner submit a CPARS from that Past contract? | Yes. However, the team partner must specify the portion of the contract that they performed services. | |
| 5 | 161 | 4.4 Volume IV – Factor 3: Pricing: Attachment 3 – Pricing Workbook | Attachment 3 – Pricing Workbook, on Labor Categories sheet. Page 161 of 165 para 4.4.4 Tab C IAW the “Instructions” workbook in attachment 3”. Could not find any Instructions in Attachment 3 Workbook? Are we to complete price breakdown Labor for Base year only or for ALL years? Work book only contains Base Year. | Instructions have been provided with a breakdown of Labor for Base and option years in Amendment 6. |
| 6 |
4.4 Volume IV – Factor 3: Pricing: Attachment 3 – Pricing Workbook – Summary Sheet
| Column for Manpower Report are we to insert NSP since Schedule B states this CLIN is Not Separately Priced (NSP)? | CMR will be provided IAW para. 4.4. VOLUME IV – FACTOR 3: PRICE, para. 4.4.8. The contractor is to determine to price or NSP. The description in the CMR CLINs has been revised. | |||
| 7 | Solicitation 1.6.4 | Will the Government clarify Solicitation 1.6.4 Hours of Operation: Range Operations is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Is there workload data to show the current workforce providing services to cover range operations operating hours 24x7? Is on-call personnel acceptable for after normal administrative hours? | Yes, the Range Operations "Firing Desk" is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Refer to TE 14, Firing Desk Section for summary workload hours. Refer to 1.6.3 and 5.2.2 for Firing Desk Operation requirements. Refer to TE 17, paragraph 3. for Firing Desk staffing requirements.Workload data for firing desk personnel is listed in 1.4.7 of TE 14, including all supporting services. Firing desk personnel provide a varied and wide array of services during their shifts. Due to both POI and Operational training requirements, the firing desk must be manned 24/7/365 in order to support training that occurs after hours and on weekends. See Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload (updated 9 Dec 20). There are no on-call personnel for after normal administrative hours. | |
| 8 | Solicitation 4.4 | Will the Government clarify Solicitation 4.4 Vehicles: Is the at a minimum 6 pickup trucks provided by the contractor in addition to the TMP provided vehicles listed in 3.4.2? | Yes, the contractor will at a minimum provide 6 pickup trucks, these are in addition to the TMP vehicles identified in paragraph 3.4.2. The vehicles the contractor provides (6 minimum) will be in accordance with paragraph 4.4 and are in addition to the TMP provided vehicles.The government provides at total of 7 TMP vehicles | |
| 9 | Solicitation 5.1.4.3 | Will the Government clarify Solicitation 5.1.4.3 Grounds and AGRC Target Maintenance at night and on weekends contingency plan. Is it anticipated that the Contingency Plan 20 percent of targetry maintenance and approximately 70 percent of grounds maintenance is accomplished between midnight and 7:00am weekdays and between midnight Friday night and 7:00am Monday. Is this contingency plan assumed to be utilized throughout the course of the contract? | The contingency plan is not expected to be utilized throughout the course of the contract. This plan would be implemented if aviation gunnery requirements precluded maintenance in the AM period. Historically, this has happened only once, approximately 10 years ago for a period of three months. This would be an exception, if required. | |
| 10 | Will the Government provide an estimated contract value? | No, the Government will not provide an estimated contract value. | ||
| 11 | Will the Government provide Incumbent information? Could you please tell me if this is a new requirement, or if there is a current or previous contractor who has performed similar services? If available, can you please send along the incumbent contract or task order number? |
Can you provide the following information regarding the subject line solicitation?
- Who is the current incumbent?
- What is the current contract value?
- What is the current Period OF Performance?
- How many FTE currently on task?
| Contract number W9124G-16-C-0003 is held by Strategic Defense Solutions, LLC. The Period of Performance (POP) for the base plus 4 year contract is 1 July 2016 through 30 June 2021. The total value of the contract is $14,793,567.00. The number of FTEs will not be provided as this information is proprietary to the contractor. | |||||
| 12 | 160 to 165 | Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.1 of the Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.1 of the Instructions to Offerors on page 160 of 165 references as ‘Attachment 3’ containing Past Performance Questionnaires, however, Attachment 3 is currently identified as the Pricing Template. | ||
| Will the Government provide documents for Past Performance Questionnaires and Consent Letters? | The Past Performance Questionnaires was provided in Amendment 3. | ||||
| 13 | PWS 5.1.1 includes requirements for the Management Plan, such as Physical Security Plan (PWS 5.1.1.3), Energy Plan (PWS 5.1.1.4), etc. | Are the various plans required within the Management Plan (PWS 5.1.1) included in the volume’s 50-page limit? | Yes. The page limit has been increased to 85 page limit. | ||
| 14 | Section L, Factor 1, Subfactor 1 requires submission of a Management Approach, however Section M Factor 1, Subfactor 1 identifies a Management Plan. Further the PWS, Section 5.1.1 requires submission of a “Management Plan along with his proposal.” | Can the Government clarify the requirements for Factor 1, Subfactor 1? Is a full Management Plan required with the proposal submission? Does the Government want this included in the body of the proposal or as a separable attachment? | Yes, a full Management Plan is required with the proposal. An electronic submission is acceptable. | ||
| 15 | PWS 5.1.1 includes requirements for the Management Plan, such as Physical Security Plan (PWS 5.1.1.3), Energy Plan (PWS 5.1.1.4), etc. | If a full Management Plan is required with the proposal submission, per PWS Section 5.1.1, this is to be submitted in accordance with Data Item 6, Technical Exhibit 1. The Technical Exhibit for the Management Plan does not allow for electronic submission of the Management Plan. However the proposal is an electronic submission. Can the Government clarify the submission requirements? | Yes, an electronic submission of the management plan is acceptable, Data Item 6, Technical Exhibit 1 has been updated as Attachment 6 Technical Exhibit 1, Data Item 6 updated 16 Nov 20. | ||
| 16 | Attachment 4 – WD 2015-4631 Rev 13 last revision 5/02/2020 | According to attachment 4 the WD to use when pricing is WD 2015-4631 Rev 13 with last revision 5/02/2020. However, the current WD being used for this contract is WD 2015-4632 Rev 14 with last revision 5/3/2020. Will the current WD for the Fort Rucker contract be changing from an ‘average cost’ under 29 CFR 4.175(b) to a ‘fixed cost’ employee benefits covered under 29 CFR 4.175(a). | The correct WD for this contract is WD 2015-4631 Rev 13. The WD for the Fort Rucker contract will be a "fixed cost" employee benefits covered under 29 CFR 4.175(a). | ||
| 17 | 15 | PWS 1.6.1 and TE #1 DI 7 | PWS 1.6 states “The QCP (see DI 7, TE 1) will include ….” DI 7 is not for the QCP it is titled QC Inspections and discusses submittal of the QC inspection reports. There appears to be no actual DI for the QCP. Please provide a DI that describes what goes in the QCP. | There is no DI for the QC Plan. The reference to (see DI7, TE 1) has been removed from PWS 1.6. | |
| 18 | 15 and 159 | PWS 1.6.1 and Proposal Submission 4.2.3.2 | Paragraph 1.6.1 details the requirements for the Quality Control program. It also states the QC Plan will be provided within 30 days after contract award. However, Paragraph 4.2.3.2 of the Proposal Submission directs us to submit the Quality Control Plan with the proposal. Please clarify. | This document will be provided as part of their proposal and resubmitted to the KO and COR in 5 working days when changes are made thereafter. PWS 1.6.1 has been revised in Amendment 6. | |
| 19 | 55 | PWS 4.2.2 | While TE #15 shows an extensive list of material stockage and historical material use, it does not include any fuel or other POL products used. Given the large number of Government furnished vehicles and equipment (heavy equipment, construction equipment, other fuel consuming equipment, plus the required contractor provided vehicles), this will be a considerable expense to be included in the FFP CLIN. |
Since POL consumption is directly dependent on equipment age, condition, use, number of hours/miles operated, and physical environment, the POL consumption for GFE will be unique to Fort Rucker. This information was required to be reported in the monthly Labor Hours and Cost Report (CDRL #42 Labor Hours and Cost Report in the current contract).
| In order for effective and realistic pricing to be made under the FFP CLINS, please provide the average fuel (gas and diesel) and other POL products for the last 4 years. | See Attachment 19 Amount Billed for Fuel FY10 - FY16. | ||||
| 20 | 60 | PWS 5.1.1 | Paragraph 5.1.1 states “The Management Plan shall reflect an understanding of all tasks specified in this contract and describe an approach to satisfy these requirements….The plan shall describe and discuss, in detail, procedures contemplated to manage facilities, equipment, personnel, work load, resources, and administration as they relate to the services to be performed.” The Management Plan is then broken down by the required items for the Plan; Organization, Communications, seven plans and a program but does not state where the required discussion of the methodology and procedures to accomplish the PWS tasks are to be placed within the Management Plan. Seemed most logical for this discussion to be prior to the listed plans and program. | ||
| Please clarify where the processes and methodology to accomplish the PWS tasks as required by PWS 5.1.1 are to be located in the Management Plan. | Place in Table 1, Volume II, Tab D - Subfactor 1: Organizaton/Staffing and Management Plan. | ||||
| 21 | 60 and 162 | PWS 5.1 and Evaluation Criteria 1.5 | Paragraph 5.1 states “The contractor shall submit a Management Plan along with his proposal.” The evaluation criteria 1.5 does not seem to evaluate a Management Plan for the entire contract. It is evaluating staffing plan labor categories and number of personnel, recruiting and retention and the Pre-Performance Period. Please clarify what elements of the Management Plan will be the basis the evaluation. | A bullet has been added and updated under para. 4.2.3.1 and para. 1.5, TAB D, Subfactor 1, Organization/Staffing and Management Plan for the evaluation criteria and basis of award of the Management Plan. | |
| 22 | 60 and 158 | PWS 5.1 and Proposal Submission 4.2 | Paragraph 5.1 states “The contractor shall submit a Management Plan along with his proposal.” However, there is no mention of the Management Plan in any of the required Volume II Tabs. The page limitation of 50 pages allocated for Tab D and E and a Management Plan is insufficient space to provide even a minimally technical response for these sections. | ||
| Request the Government allocate additional pages for Volume II or exclude the Management and Quality Plan from the page count. | The page limits has been changed to 85 pages for Tab D. SubFactor 1 has been changed to "Organization/Staffing and Management Plan", and Management Plan is added under the SubFactor. | ||||
| 23 | 60 and 158, 159 | PWS 5.1.1 and Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2 | PWS 5.1.1 lists the items to be included in the Management Plan (organization, communication, seven (7) specific plans and one program). However, it is unclear where the required Management Plan should be included. It appears to be outside of the two tabs in Volume II; Tab D and E. |
a) Please clarify where the Government wants the required Management Approach.
b) We recommend the Management Plan, and all the plans included, be excluded from the 50 page count for Volume II.
| The Management Plan will be included in Volume II, under Tab D - Subfactor 1: Organization/Staffing and Management Plan. Please note that Management Approach has been changed to read "Management Plan". The 50 page allocation has been changed to 85 pages. | |||
| 24 | 66, 152, and 159 | PWS 5.1.3, DFAR 252.237-7024 and Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.2 2nd bullet | All three of these references require a contractor contingency plan. Since they are worded slightly different, it is unclear if they are all three referencing the same contingency plan that is required as part of Volume II Tab E. |
Please clarify if all three references are referring to the same contingency plans.
If separate plans, where are the other two (PWS 5.1.3 and DFAR 252.237-7024) contingency plans to be included?
| There are three references to contingency plans, the contingency plan listed in paragraph 5.1.3 (Contingency Planning and Support of Contingency Mission, Mobilization, and Mobilization Training) and paragraph 5.1.4.3 (Plan to conduct maintenance at night and on weekends) shall be submitted as part of Volume II Tab E. The third contingency plan, required by DFAR 250.237-7024 (Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services) Shall be submitted no later than 30 days after contract award. | |||||
| 25 | 67 and 158-159 | PWS 5.1.4.3, Proposal Submission Paragraphs 4.2.3.1 Tab D and 4.2.3.2 Tab E | PWS 5.1.4.3 states “To this end, the contractor shall incorporate in his proposal a contingency plan…” This weekend/night work contingency plan does not fit the description of either what is required for Tab D or Tab E, so it is unclear where it should be included. | ||
| Please provide guidance on where the weekend/night work contingency plan should be placed in the proposal. | Referance PWS 5.1.4.3 plan to conduct maintenance at night and on weekends shall be submitted as part of Volume II Tab E, Quality Control. | ||||
| 26 | 106 | PWS 6.1.12 | PWS 6.1.12 Other Publications “Range Branch Standing Operating Procedures” dated April 18, is listed as a mandatory document containing safety, staffing, supply, operational, and security requirements that must be included and addressed in the Staffing and Management sub plans (PWS 5.1.1 to 5.1.10) submitted in Tab D, Subfactor 1 of Volume II. | ||
| Please provide a copy of the mandatory compliance document “Range Branch Standing Operating Procedure”. | Range Branch Standing Operation Procesdures has been added as Attachment 7 DPTMS Range Branch SOP (15 Apr 18)(Signed). | ||||
| 27 | 157 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.1 | Paragraph 4.1 states “Offerors are required to submit a completed SF 1449 (Solicitation, Offer and Award), including acknowledgment of Amendments, CLIN Schedule pages. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only. Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government.” However, the breakdown of Tabs for Volume I – General/Solicitation does not address where to include CLIN Schedule pages. | ||
| Please clarify where CLIN schedule pages should be included. | The CLIN schedule pages should be included in Volume IV under Tab B. The RFP has been changed to reflect this change. | ||||
| 28 | 157 and 160 | Proposal Submission Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.4.1 | Paragraph 4.4.1 states “The Offeror shall not include pricing information in Volumes I, II, or III of its proposal.” However, Paragraph 4.1 requires us to include “…CLIN Schedule pages. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only. Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government.” | ||
| Please clarify if CLIN schedule pages should be included in Volume I. | The CLIN schedule pages should be included in Volume IV under Tab B. The RFP has been changed to reflect this change. | ||||
| 29 | 158, 159 | Proposal Submission Paragraphs 4.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.1 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3 states “The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks.” Since the approach to accomplishing PWS requirements is not listed as part of the Tab break out for Volume II, it is unclear where this required discussion should be included. | ||
| Please clarify where the Government wants the required discussion of approaches and methodologies to accomplish the PWS requirements be placed in Volume II. | This submission should be placed in Volume II, Tab D under Organization/Staffing and Management Plan. | ||||
| 30 | 158 and 162 | Proposal Submission Paragraphs 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and Evaluation Criteria 1.5 | It is unclear why the RFP requires an extensive discussion of items to be addressed in the Technical Volume in paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 yet does not mention it in the breakdown of the Tabs or the Evaluation Criteria. | ||
| Request the Government update Technical Volume submittal Tabs and Evaluation Criteria. | Paragraphs 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 are addressing how the offeror's proposal should provide convincing rationale and be prepred in a form consistent with the PWS. This would not be included in the breakdown as it is explainng that the offeror shall provide rationale to address how they intend to meet the requirements. | ||||
| 31 | 160 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.1 | Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.1 states “For all contracts identified by the Offeror as a past performance reference, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Cover Letter (Attachment 3) to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts.” There is no PPQ and Cover Letter provided. Attachment 3 is the Pricing Workbook. | ||
| Please provide a PPQ and Cover Letter for us to provide to our customers. | Updated instructions to Offerors and Attachment 5 to add questionnaire were provided by Amendment 3 to the RFP. | ||||
| 32 | 160 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.2 | Paragraph 4.3.1.2.4.2 states “Submission requirements of Section 1 of this solicitation apply to the submission of CPARs information from Teaming Partners.” It is unclear what “Section 1 of this solicitation” the Government is referring to. | ||
| Please clarify what “Section 1 of this solicitation” the Government is referring to. | Updated Section 1 to Volume by Amendment 6. | ||||
| 33 | 161, 165 | Evaluation Paragraph 1.2 and 1.9.5 | Evaluation Section Paragraph 1.2 states “The Government will evaluate prices for reasonableness,” and “price reasonableness” is defined as “… it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person…” Both the FAR and GAO bid decisions have stated there is a difference between “price reasonableness” and “price realism analysis.” For example, GAO Bid Decision B-416717 states “Although it is not required, an agency also may provide for a price realism analysis in a solicitation for award of a fixed-price contract to assess whether an offeror’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements, or risk inherent in an offeror’s proposed approach.” A price realism analysis will protect the Government from high risk of poor performance from low bids that try to game the system, accidently, or on purpose, omit costs or do not fully understand the PWS requirements. | ||
| We recommend the Government modify Evaluation Section Paragraph 1.2 to include a statement indicating a price realism analysis will be conducted. | The Government will determine whether prices are fair, reasonable, balanced, and complete in accordance with the RFP. Price realism will not be conducted for this requirement. | ||||
| 34 | TE #14 pg. 1 | PWS 1.6.5.4.1.3 – 1.6.5.4.1.4 under Core Task 1.4.3 Electronic Maintenance | TE #14 lists PWS 1.6.5.4.1.3 – 1.6.5.4.1.4 (with 2,098 hours), yet there is no PWS 1.6.5.4.1.3 – 1.6.5.4.1.4. | ||
| Please update and correct the PWS areas the 2,098 hours correlate to. | TE 14 references updated and added as Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload updated (9 Dec 20). | ||||
| 35 | TE #14 pg. 2 | PWS 5.2.4.3 under Core Task 1.4.7 Range Operations | TE #14 lists PWS 5.2.4.3 (with 624 hours), yet there is no PWS 5.2.4.3. | ||
| Please update and correct the PWS area the 624 hours correlates to. | Correct PWS reference is 5.2.6 TE 14 references updated. See Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload (updated 9 Dec 20). | ||||
| 36 | TE# 14 ALL | TE# 14 ALL | It is unclear if the data in TE #14 Historical Workload Requirements reflects the current contract workload data or data acquired and tabulated from earlier times which may not accurately reflect current requirements. | ||
| Please clarify when the workload information in TE #14 was assembled/captured. | TE 14 reflects estimated workload requirements captured over the course of the current contract. TE 14 has been updated and the title has been renamed estimated and added as Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload (updated 09 Dec 20). | ||||
| 37 | TE #14 | TE# 14 | There are several areas in TE #14 that list PWS paragraphs that don’t exist or that don’t match the item listed. For example, PWS 5.3.3.3.4 under 1.4.4 Range Computer Systems lists Auto Range Firing Points, yet the actual PWS 5.3.3.3.4 deals with inspecting foxholes for fire-ants, snakes, etc. they don’t match up. | ||
| We ask that the Government please review TE#14 in detail and correct/update the PWS areas listed under each Core Task. | TE 14 has been updated. | ||||
| 38 | Amendment 0002 | With Amendment 0002 cancelling the Site Visit scheduled 18-19 November, is there a plan to provide a substitute event, i.e. a virtual meeting or briefing. For those offerors not intimately familiar with the terrain, condition of GFP vehicles and HE, ect, this provides the incumbent a significant advantage. | There is currently no plan for a substitute event. Due to recent spike in our local area of COVID-19, site visit scheduled for 18-19 Nov was cancelled. A detailed slide presentation has been provided in Attachment 14, OMN Contract Overview, 16 Nov 20 in Amendment 6. | ||
| 39 | 14 and 163-164 | PWS 1.4.1 to 1.4.10 and Evaluation Criteria 1.8.4.2 | Evaluation Criteria Paragraph 1.8.4.2 requires an offeror to have three (3) of the ten (10) scope areas called out in PWS 1.4.1 to 1.4.10 to demonstrate “same experience”. An analysis of those PWS 1.4.1-1.4.10 paragraphs shows that an offeror could claim three of the ten and none of the three would have any relevance to Range O&M work, which is the essence of the Fort Rucker Gunnery Range Contract. It seems that in order to obtain a “same” relevance rating more than three (3) and, most likely, six (6) areas should need to be demonstrated to reflect true range O&M relevancy experience. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Recommend the Government consider changing Evaluation Criteria 1.8.4.2 from three to six for a “same” scope rating and two to four for a “similar” rating.
| Para. 1.8.4.2 Relevancy in Past Performance has been changed to: Scope – The measure of services similarity to the requirements identified in the PWS. Scope shall be assessed by comparing the referenced requirements to the requirements outlined in the PWS. A proposal which demonstrates similar experience in six (6) of the ten (10) identified requirements in section 1.4 of the PWS will be considered to have essentially the same scope. A proposal which demonstrates similar experience in four (4) of the ten (10) identified requirements will be considered similar in scope. A proposal which demonstrates similar experience in one (1) of the ten (10) identified requirements will be considered somewhat similar in scope. A proposal which does not demonstrate similar experience in any of the ten (10) identified requirements will be considered not of similar scope, and therefore not relevant. | |||
| 40 | 15, 161 and 3 | PWS 1.5.1, Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4.6 and CLIN 0001 | In reference to the Pre-Performance Observation Period/Phase-In Period, PWS 1.5.1 states “There is a separate contract line item number (CLIN) included in the bid schedule for this period.” However, CLIN 0001 combines the Pre-Performance Observation Period/Phase-In Period with the Base Period and Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4.6 states “The Offeror’s price proposal shall consist of one 15-day Phase-In period included with one (1) 11-month and 15 days base period, and four (4) 12-month option periods.” |
QUESTION/COMMENT: These statements are in conflict, please clarify and make appropriate changes to the RFP.
| The refence in PWS 1.5.1 to a separate contract line item number (CLIN) included in the bid schedule has been removed by Amendment 6. | |||
| 41 | 55, 58 | PWS 4.2.2 and PWS 4.6.1 | PWS 4.2.2 states “Supplies used to support contractor operations will be provided by the contractor and shall not be billed to the materials CLIN, including all fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other like type items that are used in Government Furnished Equipment or contractor provided equipment or vehicles.” PWS 4.6.1 states “all fuel oil, kerosene, gasoline, etc., for use in vehicles and equipment shall be furnished by the contractor and may not be billed to the materials CLIN.” |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please confirm the contractor, under the FFP CLINS, must pay for all POL (gas, diesel, oil, lubricants, and fuel additives) products used by Government Furnished vehicles, heavy equipment and construction equipment.
| Yes. IAW PWS 4.6.1 the contractor shall furnish all fuel oil, kerosene, gasoline, etc., for use in vehicles. | |||
| 42 | 67 | PWS 5.1.4.3 | PWS 5.1.4.3 states “To this end, the contractor shall incorporate in his proposal a contingency plan to accomplish approximately 20 percent of targetry maintenance and approximately 70 percent of grounds maintenance between midnight and 7:00 a.m. weekdays and between midnight Friday night and 7:00 a.m. Monday.” This contingency plan, because it discusses evening and weekend work, appears to be different from the contingency plans required by PWS 5.1.3, DFAR 252.237-7024 and Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.2 since they are more for national emergency and natural disaster contingencies. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please confirm that the contingency plan required by PWS 5.1.4.3 is different and separate from the three other contingency plans.
| This contingency plan is different and separate from the other contingency plans. This is a plan for maintenance if installation training requirements dictate maintenance to occur at night or during the weekends. | |||
| 43 | 73, 74 and TE #14 pg.2 | PWS 5.2.4, PWS 5.2.6, and TE #14 | On TE #14, PWS 5.2.6 is listed as GIS Support but PWS 5.2.6 in the actual PWS is Command Tracker Support. GIS Support is PWS 5.2.4.1. This is confusing. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please clarify if GIS Support and Command Tracker Support are one in the same.
| The correct reference for this item is 5.2.4 and associated sub paragraphs. TE 14 references for GIS Support is updated. See Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload (updated 9 Dec 20). | |||
| 44 | 73 and TE #14 | PWS 5.2.4 to 5.2.4.1.4 and TE #14 | The PWS lists 5.2.4 through 5.2.4.1.4 describing extensive level-of-effort to be performed under GIS. However, TE #14 does not show any line items that correlate to PWS 5.2.4 to 5.2.4.1.4 elements with historical workload. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please provide the workload history for PWS 5.2.4 through PWS 5.2.4.1.4.
Estimated workload hours are provided in TE 14. The referenced scope of work was corrected to provide proper correlation. See Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload (updated 9 Dec 20).
45 74, 100, TE #1 pgs. 8 and 9, TE #14, pg. 3 PWS 5.3.1 (QC Plan), PWS 5.7.3 (QC Summary Reports), TE #1 DIs 7 and 8 and TE #14 The contractor is responsible for executing an effective Quality Control Program which includes writing and updating a Quality Control Plan (PWS 5.3.1), monthly QC Summary Report (PWS 5.7.3), other documentation (TE #1 DIs 7 and 8) and conduct inspections in support of the QCP. The workload data provided in TE #14, 1.6.1 for Quality Control tasks including admin (108 hrs.), inspections (780 hrs.), corrective actions (65 hrs.) plus hours listed for CDRL 7 (884 hrs.) and 8 (120 hrs.) equals 1957 man-hours. This QC level-of-effort plus the addition of Production Control Clerk (PPC) workload, far exceeds the available FTE man-hours.
QUESTION/COMMENT: We recommend the Government consider separating the PPC duties from the QC duties and specify two different and separate positions – PPC and QC Inspector.
| The excel spreadsheet has been updated and was used to create the Estimated Work Load Hours. The Government has corrected this in TE 14. There is only one position identified for Quality Control. That is the duty description of Production Control Clerk (PCC). Along with the 682.5 hours specifically shown for the Quality Control personnel in the updated TE 14, the PCC’s other hours are accounted for under the Administrative Sections workload hours, the PCC assists with some, but not all of the required DI reports. The PCC is also responsible for recording and filing inspections reports, acting as the key control/ key loss reporter for all contractor used keys, ensuring the GFE maintenance plan is followed, performing investigation/reporting of accidents or injuries, assisting in cyclic inventories, and managing fleet equipment records. These estimated hours are rolled up in the section hours identified in 1.4.6 and 1.4.10. | |||
| 46 | 156 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 3.6 | Paragraph 3.6 states “All pages within a Volume shall be numbered in consecutive order and identify the Volume and Tab, if applicable (for example, “Vol. 1 – Tab A - page 1 of 20”)”. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please clarify if the numbering should be consecutive within the Tab or the volume as a whole.
| Page numbers shall be consecutive within the volume as a whole. | |||
| 47 | 156 | Proposal Submission Paragraphs 3.6 and 3.9.1 | Paragraph 3.9.1 states “The page limit includes appendices, (except as stated in para. 3.6), charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, embedded documents, drawings, etc.” Paragraph 3.6 is about page numbering, not sure how it relates to appendices or Paragraph 3.9.1. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: We recommend deleting “(except as stated in para. 3.6).”
| The wording "(except as stated in para. 3.6)" has been removed. | |||
| 48 | 157 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.1.2 | Paragraph 4.1.2 states “The offeror is cautioned that the SF 1449 must contain an original signature in block 30a of the form.” This will be difficult to do with an electronic submission via email. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: We recommend the statement be removed from the RFP.
| The line has been changed to read original or electronic signature. | |||
| 49 | 158 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.1, 1st bullet | Paragraph 4.2.3.1 states “Provide a staffing plan narrative that adequately addresses staffing that includes labor categories and the number of personnel proposed, and methodology that demonstrates soundness and comprehensiveness of the offeror’s staffing approach for obtaining and maintaining required skills and qualifications to perform the complexities of work in accordance with (IAW) PWS paragraph 1.6.5.” PWS paragraph 1.6.5 does not contain skills and qualifications. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please update the PWS paragraph cited.
| 1.6.5 refers the offeror to TE 17, which clearly describes position descriptions and duties. | |||
| 50 | 158 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3 | Paragraph 4.2.3 states “The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks.” It is unclear which PWS tasks by PWS paragraph should be addressed. It appears this refers to PWS 5.2 through PWS 5.7 and down to the 5.X.X level for any meaningful description of approaches and methodologies to accomplish the PWS tasks. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: (a) Please confirm that to be rated Technically Acceptable the offeror must provide the actual methodologies for accomplishing the PWS tasks as required by Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.
(b) If so, what PWS paragraphs should be addressed?
| The sentence, "The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing the PWS tasks", has been removed under para 4.2.3, Proposal Submission. | |||
| 51 | 158, 162, TE #14 ALL and TE #17 pg.11 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.1, Evaluation Criteria 1.4, TE#14 ALL and TE# 17 pg. 11 | The total historical Man Hours in TE #14 of 100,236 does not equal the FTEs shown in TE #17. This impacts our response to the Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.1 requirement. It is also unclear what will be used to determine Technical Acceptability under Evaluation Criteria Paragraph 1.4 Factor 1 Sub-Factor 1. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please clarify what criteria will be used to evaluate Technical Acceptability for the Staffing Plan, TE #14 or TE #17.
| TE 14 has been updated to reflect more accurate estimated workload hours. TEs 14 and 17 will be used to evaluate Technical Acceptability for the Staffing Plan. TE 14 serves as an estimated model and TE 17 serves as a historical model for successful completion of PWS requirements. Attachment 15 TE 14 Workload updated (17 Dec 20). | |||
| 52 | 159 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.3.1.1 | Paragraph 4.3.1.1 states “In an effort to assist the Government’s Past Performance Team in assessing an offeror’s past performance relevancy and rating, a consent form shall be completed for each reference identified in your proposal.” Consent forms are typically included per subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture, not for each reference in the proposal. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: We recommend Consent Forms be provided per subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture not for each reference.
| Consent forms shall be completed as outlined in para. 4.3.1.1, Volume III Past Performance. | ||||
| 53 | 159 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.3.1.2 | Paragraph 4.3.1.2 states “In Volume III, Tab E of its proposal, the Offeror shall identify three…” There is no Tab E in Volume III. QUESTION/COMMENT: Please remove the Tab reference. | Reference to TAB E has been changed to TAB C in Paragraph 4.3.1.2. |
| 54 | 159, 162 TE #17 pg. 2 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.2, Evaluation Paragraph 1.6, and TE #17 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.2.3.2 and Evaluation Paragraph 1.6 have quality control as one of the two major subfactors within Volume II. TE #17 shows the quality control tasks are now combined with Production Control Clerk and the old title of Quality Control has been deleted. This major emphasis on quality control in the proposal requirements is inconsistent with the staffing and actually creates a conflict of interest between what the Production Control Clerk duties are, per the DOL Director of Occupations, and what a Quality Control person normally does. It also removes all independence of the quality control function from the contract. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please clarify why there is so much emphasis on quality control in Volume II, yet recommended staffing destroys all independence of the quality control function and sets up conflict of interests in the quality control/PPC position Quality Control is important. The quality control position has historically been a non-exempt position. Production Control Clerk is the position that most closely describes the duties of a quality control specialist. Historically, the person filling this position has been given autonomy and direct liaison authority with supervisors, corporate personnel, and the COR.
55 159 and 162 Proposal Submission 4.2.3.2 and Evaluation Criteria 1.6 Both paragraphs cited use the same terms “comprehensive and viable plan to respond to emergency services.” However, emergency services is never defined in the RFP. These two paragraphs are the only two places in the RFP that uses the emergency services term.
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please clarify what is meant by “respond to emergency services” and define what these emergency services are.
| In accordance with PWS paragraph 5.1.3, 5.1.3,1 and 5.1.3.2 the Offeror shall provide as part of their Quality Control Plan, how the Offeror will continue to provide all services required in the PWS in the event of national emergency or natural disaster. Examples of occurrences for which the contractor shall implement contingency plans are mobilization, civil disturbances, increases in terrorism or force protection levels, catastrophic weather events or strikes. The plan shall include, but is not limited to, what type and amount of corporate support can be expected, what steps the contractor plans to take to increase the work force if necessary, and replacement of personnel subject to military recall or draft. | |||
| 56 | 160 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4.1 | Paragraph 4.4.1 states “Volume IV of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain all required and necessary to support its proposed prices.” There seems to be a word missing between ‘necessary’ and ‘to’. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please update the sentence.
| The sentence has been corrected to read, "Volume IV of the Offeror's proposal shall cotain all required and necessary information to support its proposed prices." | |||
| 57 | 160, 161 | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4.3.1 | Paragraph 4.4.3.1 states “If an Offeror deviates from the 1,920 productive labor year hours, it shall fully describe it’s reasoning in the Price Narrative, Volume V Tab B, and the calculations shall be clearly shown in the Pricing Workbook.” There is no Volume V. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please correct and update the sentence.
| The correct location for the Pricing Narrative tab is Volume IV. Correction will be in Amendment 6, | |||
| 58 | 160, 161 and Att. #4 SCA WD | Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4.3.1 and Attachment #4 SCA WD | Paragraph 4.4.3.1states “If an Offeror deviates from the 1,920 productive labor year hours, it shall fully describe its reasoning in the Price Narrative.” This requirement seems to ignore the Executive Order 13706 (established 9/30/2016) listed in Attachment #4 SCA WD. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: In light of Executive Order 13706, please clarify/update the number of productive labor year hours to be used.
| The Offeror should use 1,864 productive labor year hours IAW Executive Order 13706. | |||
| 59 | 160, 161 and Att. #3 Pricing Workbook | Attachment #3 Labor Categories Tab and Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4 | Attachment #3 Labor Categories Tab has two columns for Prime and Subcontractor Labor Categories (columns A and E respectively) which appears to be company labor titles. Proposal Submission Paragraph 4.4 provides no additional instructions on the labor categories. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: In an effort to aid in analyzing the pricing reasonableness and realism and for DOL compliance verification and correct use of the DOL’s WD wages, we recommend that Attachment #3 Labor Categories Tab include all non-exempt personnel, the DOL Directory of Job Titles and corresponding 5-digit code for each companies’ labor title.
| Offerors are to propose the DOL labor categories needed based on the requirements in the RFP. The Offeror shall evaluate the work requirements stated in the PWS to determine their proposed staffing levels with corresponding DOL labor categories to meet the PWS labor requirements in their proposal. Job descriptions are found in TE 17 to aid the Offeror in making these determinations. In addition, the Government will conduct price reasonableness. Price realism will not be conducted. | |||
| 60 | 163 and 164 | Evaluation Criteria 1.8.4.2 to 1.8.7 and Tables 3 and 4 | It is unclear how Relevancy Ratings (1.8.4.2 and 1.8.5) combined with the Quality Rating (1.8.6) produce a Past Performance Rating (1.8.7, Table 4). It is unclear what combination of Relevancy and Quality would produce an unacceptable rating. Please clarify what the criteria is that maps Evaluation Criteria 1.8.7 and Table 4 from the Relevance and Quality evaluations. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please provide an example of Relevance and Quality ratings that would result in an unacceptable rating.
| The levels of Relevancy table has been corrected. Also, descriptive language has been added to Quality in para. 1.8.6.1. | |||
| 61 | 165 | Evaluation Criteria 1.9.1 | We believe the Government needs to protect itself from low bids that inject unacceptable performance, schedule and staffing risk into the contract. A review of Evaluation Criteria Paragraph 1.9.1 does not contain appropriate wording to protect the Government from stated risks. GAO Decision B-412851 (and several others) announced proposals need to have specific wording in price evaluation sections stating “that proposals could be rejected for offering low prices” and that even in FFP contracts the Government can perform Price Realism Evaluations as long as they state that such Price Realism Evaluation will be performed in the solicitation “for the purpose of measuring an offeror’s understanding of the requirements or to assess price risk in its proposal.” |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Recommend that the Government add words to Evaluation Criteria 1.9.4 to the effect that proposal could be rejected for offering low prices and also words stating specifically that Price Realism Evaluation will be conducted to protect the Government from risks of the offeror not properly understanding the PWS requirements, or omission of cost elements, or faulty pricing.
| The Government will determine whether prices are fair, reasonable, balanced and complete in accordance with the RFP. Price realism will not be conducted for this requirement. | ||
| 62 | Tab 1. Attachment #3 | Solicitation number is incorrect. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please update solicitation number in Tab 1 of Attachment #3 Updated solicitation number has been corrected in Amendment 6.
See Attachment 3 Updated Pricing Workbook Labor Categories with Option Years.
63 TE #6 pgs.1-5 and 9 TE #6 and PWS 1.6.9.1 and 1.6.9.8 It is unclear which Government Furnished Vehicles listed in TE #6 pages 1 to 5 require any special endorsements and/or a Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) to operate. PWS Paragraphs 1.6.9.1 and 1.6.9.8 infer that the contractor is responsible for these CDLs and associated costs for testing and obtaining the licenses.
QUESTION/COMMENT: Please identify the Government Furnished Vehicles/Equipment in TE #6 that require CDLs and any special endorsement to operate.
| Personnel who operate vehicles with a GVW of over 10,000 lbs. on public roadways require CDL certification. This encompasses the dump trucks listed in TE #6, the dump trucks with trailer maybe used to haul other equipment to work locations or to transport equipment to the LRC for services and or repair. Additionally personnel assigned to fulfill the requirements of PWS paragraph 5.2.1.6 must be certified, this task is typically performed using a standard pick-up truck. | |||
| 64 | 153 to 161 | Proposal Submission - Instructions to Offerors (ALL) | There have been several questions submitted, or are being submitted, that impact the actual format, placement of responses, page allocation and composition of proposal team members. The sooner the Government releases the answers to these questions the less likely there will be for a request for extension or pre-submittal GAO protests. |
QUESTION/COMMENT: Request the Government release response to answers that impact proposal outline, content, format, page allocation and placement of required items at the earliest possible date to preclude adverse impact to the proposal schedule.
| Table 1 - Volume Organization in paragraph 3.2 on page 155 and 156 explains the format, content, and organization of the submitted proposal as well as content and page allocations. Please refer to this table/chart. | |||||
| 65 | 160 | solicitation instructions | On Page 160 of the RFP, instructions state that offerors shall forward a copy of the past performance questionnaire and cover letter (Attachment 3) to points of contact for contract experience references. However, a PPQ form is not provided in the solicitation, and Attachment 3 is provided as the Pricing Workbook. We request clarification. | Past Performance questionnaire will be provided as Attachment 5 in the amended solicitation (see question 1) | |
| 66 | 157 | Para: 4.1.2 | Topic: SF 1449 Signature; 4.1.2 TAB C requires “Solicitation, Offer and Award - The SF 1449 shall be submitted fully completed and signed (including acknowledgement of all Amendments) upon proposal submission. The offeror is cautioned that the SF 1449 must contain an original signature in block 30a of the form.” Page 153 of 165, paragraph 1.2 indicates that “Electronic submissions via email is the only acceptable submission method.” | ||
| Question: If ‘an original signature’ is required on the SF 1449, but email submissions are required, should offeror’s mail the signed copy of the SF 1449 to the KO/Contracting Specialist? | This language has been revised to "state original or electronic signature" as mailed copies will not be accepted. | ||||
| 67 | 160 | Para: 4.3.1.2.4.1 | Topic: Past Performance Questionnaire; the paragraph indicates that offerors will forward the PPQ and Cover Letter (Attachment 3) to POCs for completion and email return to the contracting office POC. The Attachment 3 provided with the solicitation is titled “Attachment 3 Pricing Workbook.xlsx” that is referenced later in 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 as the the pricing workbook in Excel format. | ||
| Question: Will the Government provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Cover Letter attachment? | The Past Performance Questionnaire was provided in Amendment 3. | ||||
| 68 | 164 | Para: 1.8.5 | Topic: Four Levels of Relevancy; paragraph 1.8.5 indicates “There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 3.” Table 3 shows only three levels with the fourth level cut off. | ||
| Question: Will the Government provide the data for the fourth level of relevancy? | The 4th level or relevancy has been added to Table 3 by Amendment 6. | ||||
| 69 | 164 | Para: 1.8.7 | Topic: Past Performance Evaluation Rating scoring; Section 1.8 Factor 2 – Past Performance describes the components of assessing offeror past performance that includes Recency, Relevancy, and Quality (1.8.4). The scoring of Recency is indicated as binary, Recent or Not Recent. The Levels of Relevancy include four levels of Scope and four levels of Magnitude to derive a four level Relvancy rating in Table 3 (1.8.5). The Quality aspect indicates the sources it is based on, but provides no levels or criteria for the offeror to know how they are rated, and in paragraph 1.8.7, no methodology is disclosed to understand how Recency, Relevancy, and Quality are aggregated to determine if the offeror is Acceptable or Unaceeptable. | ||
| Question: Will the Government define the minimum Relevancy and Quality ratings that can combine with a Recent rating to result in an overall Acceptable Past Performance Evaluation Rating as shown in Table 4? | Language has been added for Quality in para. 1.8.6.1 The levels of relevancy is described in Table 3 under para. 1.8.5. A determination will be made based on these levels. | ||||
| 70 | 160 | 4.3.1.2.4.1 | 4.3.1.2.4.1 For all contracts identified by the Offeror as a past performance reference, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Cover Letter (Attachment 3) to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts. | ||
| Can the Government provide Attachment 3 in the solicitation in order for PPQs and the Cover Letters to be completed? | The Past Performance Questionnaire was provided in Amendment 3. | ||||
| 71 | RFP pg. 159 4.3.1.2.2, pg. 163 1.8.4.2 | 4.3.1.2.2 For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide the following information: Name of effort, contract and/or task order number, period of performance, Government point of contact responsible for monitoring performance under the contract (name, phone, email, address), Administrative Contracting Officer (name, phone, email, address), dollar value of work actually performed during the three (3) years prior to the date for receipt of offers, for which the Offeror believes the reference demonstrates relevancy and quality of services performed similar to this requirement. |
1.8.4.2: Relevancy:… Magnitude – The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actual performed work that exists between the PWS and the Offeror’s references. Magnitude will be evaluated on the dollar amount of work actually performed on the recent past performance references.
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 .