latest_FFS_Campbell_Tech_QA_31_Oct_2019.pdf

No. Section No. Subsection, Paragraph, or Bullet No.

Page No.

Question

1. A competitive range will be established after initial evaluation of proposals?

2. What are the criteria to be used in the initial evaluation?

3. Is this a commercial acquisition?

4. Is it the Government’s intention to award without discussion?

5. Addendum to 52.212-1 at paragraph I.A.1 (page 44) establish that hard copies shall be submitted prior to the established closing date.

Paragraph C.3.a (page 47) establishes an original copy shall be submitted as listed in paragraph c. Table 2. Table 2 establishes the number of hard copies to be submitted is N/A. Does the Government desire hard copies to be submitted? If so, how many for each volume?

6. The period of performance (POP on page 6) is established as 31 Dec 2019 to 30 Dec 2024 (60 months). The General Information paragraph (page 94 of 101) establishes “the ordering period under which Task Orders may be awarded under the forthcoming contract will be sixty

(60) consecutive months from basic contract award date with the option for 6 additional months through FAR 52.217-8”. The Pricing Matrix for CLINS X002 (the base period) is 11 months. In ordering periods one through four the CLINS is for 12 months (total 59 months). The estimated quantities (for CLINS 0002 through 0010) are identical except for the base period. So, our questions are: (1) why is the base period only 11 months? (2) are the estimated quantities correct? (3) will each of the five ordering periods be for a total of 207 operational days?

7. The Pricing Matrix at CLINS X002 establishes that this CLINS is for PWS 2.2.3 (Key Personnel) 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and 4.2. Paragraph 2.2.3.2 establishes that Dining Facility Managers are key personnel. Does the Government desire this management cost be included in CLINS X002?

8. The Pricing Matrix and the Pricing Matrix Summary CLINS do not seem to match. X003BA is 1 to 450 on the Matrix but is 1 to 500 on the Summary. X003BB is 451-900 on the Matrix, but is 500-1000 on the Summary, X003FB is 334-666 on the Matrix, but is 1-333 in the Summary.

9. Paragraph 2.2.3.2 establishes that Dining Facility Managers shall have experience in feeding multi-entrée, complete meal service (breakfast, lunch and dinner) feeding over 300 customers per sitting. This is a correct reading of the qualification level required of Dining Facility Manager(s)?

10. Does the Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager and Quality/Food Service Manager qualification include being certified as a Food Protection Manager as specified in the Tri-Service Food Code (March 2019) paragraph 2-102.11

11. Does the Dining Facility Manager and any person in charge have to meet the requirement for being certified as a Food Protection Manager?

12. Paragraph 3.1.2.2 Meal Preparation. What is ARSOF Policy 6-18. If it is applicable could the Government provide a copy?

IAW Tri-Service Food Code (TSFC) para 2-102.12(a), at least one EMPLOYEE that has supervisory and management responsibility and the authority to direct and control FOOD preparation and service shall be a certified Food Protection Manager who has shown proficiency with required information through passing a test that is part of an ACCREDITED PROGRAM as specified under para 2-102.11(b) and specified in § 2-102.20. The PM must be certified as a Food Protection Manager IAW with the revised PWS para 2.2.3.1. The PM and the qualified alternate PM, during the absence of the PM, must be certified as a food protection manager.

Yes, See answer to question 10 above.

Refer to updated PWS.

Dining Facility Managers (DFM) should not be listed on the PMO tab in the Staffing Matrix or included in CLIN 0002. DFM are specific to each dining facility and should be included Under Supervisory line on the staffing matrix.

The Roll Up nomenclature on X003BA and X003BB and X003FB has been updated. Please see attached updated Attachment G- Pricing Matrix.

Yes.

Addendum to 52.212-2, I.a.(2) it states, "After initial evaluation and based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, a Competitive Range shall be established comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals." Addendum to 52.212-2, I.a.(2)(a) it states, "If the SLA is determined to be in the competitive range, then the SLA will be afforded the priority as delineated in the R-SA. Addendum to 52.212-2, I.a.(2)(b) it states, "If the SLA is determined NOT to be in the competitive range, then the successful offer within the Competitive Range will be selected IAW Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph I.a.(1), which states, "Award will be made to a single offeror whose timely offeror is deemed responsible IAW FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other conservations as specified in the solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer.

Addendum to 52.212-1 has been updated. The Offeror shall provide an original hard copy accompanied by three hard copies of Volumes I-IV. The SLA shall provide an original hard copy of Volume V-Subcontracting Plan. In addition to submitting hard copies of the proposals, the Offeror shall include digital copies on CD-ROM with the hard copy submission.

1. The base period for CLIN 0002 is eleven months because of Phase-In period covered by CLIN 0001 for the period of one months. 2. Yes. 3. The number of actual days ordered under this contract over the five year ordering period may be more or less than the number of estimated days provided in the Pricing Matrix.

Please refer to Addendum to 52.212-2 contained within the solicitation for details.

Yes.

It is the Government intention to award without discussions IAW FAR Part 15.306

13. Paragraph 3.1.2.2 Is the contractor required to use Go for Green 2.0 (G4G 2.0) in their menu planning?

14. When is HACCP plan required?

15. The Pricing Matrix requires (X0010) for a monthly contractor manpower report (CMR). The PWS specifies an annual Enterprise Contract Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA). Are these the same reports? Could the Government clarify the requirement?

16. The Pricing Matrix establishes that this facility is forecasted to be operational for 207 days per ordering period. The Headcount Daily Summary confirms that the operation days history is 207. The PRS ANSI/ASQ Z 1.4 and the Quartermaster Schools Prototype QASP establish a lot as the numbers of operational days (207). This computes to 17 days per month. Table One, sample size code letters charts the General Inspection level as letter code C. Table 11-A single sampling plans for normal inspection prescribed a sample size of 5. The AQL at 4%, 6.5% and 10%, chart at Accept 0, Reject 1 (4.0 and 6.5) and Accept 1, Reject 2 for 10%. Only PRS 4 (3.1.1.2). PRS 5 (3.1.1.2.1 and PRS 8 (3.1.2.1.1) are 10%. The remaining 9 PRS allow for no defective services. This appears to be an almost 100% performance standard. Is this the Governments intent?

17. Attachment A – Dining Facility Location Map provides every dining facility on Fort Campbell standard hours of operation, except NCOA 7523 which states the standard (meal serving hours) are IAW Training Schedule. Will the meal serving hours be compressed or extended or will the meal periods be held to those identified in Attachment Q Estimated Workloads? Could the Government provide a copy of the units (NCOA) training schedule?

18 We are concerned about the flow rate. This DFAC supports a school house environment. Diners will come in large blocks. The entire 267 anticipated/actual headcount could arrive at the DFAC at the same time. They may well expect to be served in 35 to 40 minutes. This is part of the Quarterly Performance Review (PMR). This is PRS 11 (3.1.2.3) it is a 6.5% AQL with a 10% payment; the Accept/Reject criteria is Accept 0 nonconformities and Reject at a single nonconformity level. TM 4-41.11 establish how we will be evaluated. Simply stated this is a performance risk. Could the Government provide a solid number in lieu of these formats?

19. Are cyclic menus required? Under the Go for Green 2.0 (G4G 2.0) are menus required to be approved by the Installation Dietician? This is PRS (3.1.2.2) is a 6.5% AQL and rated as a 10% payment. How will this area be evaluated?

20. Has the new Tri-Service Food Code, dated March 2019, AR 30-22, dated July 2019; DA PAM 30-22, dated July 2019 and AR 40-25, dated January 2017 been fully implemented?

21. The SF1449 states due date is November 9, 2019, however, FBO states the due date is November 8, 2019, can you please clarify the correct due date?

22. Page 47 regarding the proposal preparation instructions states that each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three ring loose leaf binder. However, Table 2 on page 48 states electronic submissions of each proposal section. Can you please clarify the mode of submission?

23. Can you confirm the proposal due date is Saturday, November 9, 2019?

24. Are you requiring resumes of key personnel?

Refer to the answer for #21 above.

Yes, as the effective date.

The proposal due date has been updated. Please review the solicitation amendment for details.

Refer to answer for #5 above

The last training schedule provided by the NCOA Staff is provided for reference as a sample schedule. Historically, the training schedule has been provided to the food service vendor two weeks prior to the start of each class cycle and is used to schedule DFAC serving and operational hours. The document titled "Proposed change to NCOA Serving Period" is a memorandum recently signed by the NCOA Commandant on 23 October 2019. This Commandant just assumed Command and is now implementing changes, some of which could affect food service. Meal serving hours will be held to those identified in Attachment Q, Estimated Workloads.

No, this one we have to ref to the FPM to see how fast the Solders have to be fed to support the POI for the coruse. The meal may be disciplined dining which could make the flow rate higher than the formula would express for a standard FORSCOM. Reference DA Pam 30-22.

Yes cyclic menus are required. Yes IAW the Army Nutritional requirements are required to be approved by the Installation Dietician. This will be evaluated through the PRS inspection Sheet.

Yes, IAW AR 30-22, Para 3-58 (1) DFACs will provide highly acceptable food items for dinner selection through the entire serving period for each meal. Menu will meet Go For Green® menu coding goals, with healthy options at every serving period.

IAW Tri-Service Food Code (TSFC) para 3-502.12. Maintain the records required to confirm that cooling and cold holding refrigeration time/temperature parameters are required as part of the HACCP PLAN and:

(a) Make such records available to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY upon request and, (b) Hold such records for at least 6 months; and (c) Implement written operational procedures as specified under subparagraph (B)(5) of this section and a training program as specified under subparagraph (B)(6) of this section.

This comment is based on averages which is not the method of assigning the inspection level. If the month has the DFAC open less than 16 days the facility would be inspected 3 times; (lot size Letter B); however, most of the months would fall under 16-25 or lot size (C). The number of random inspections is 5 per month. The accept/reject rates for Random (6.5 and 10%) lead is to accept/reject rate of 1 accept/2 reject per each PRS. If the DFAC is open more than 25 days for a month, the inspection quantity would be 8 with the corresponding accept and reject rate. This is industry standard and is not a "zero Defect" standard.

Yes these are the same reports.

25. Can you confirm when Organizational Conflict of Interest is due to KO?

26. Can you confirm you are only requesting 1 digital copy of proposal and no hard copy submission?

27. This solicitation states this procurement is set-aside for eligible Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 722310, Food Service Contractors, with a size standard of $41.5M.

This requirement is subject to Randolph-Shepherd Act (R-SA) and give preference to the State Licensing Agency (SLA). Our business would fall under EDWOSB, but not R-SA. Does that mean the winning vendor would 1st have to be a SLA, then a EDWOSB?

Refer to the answer for #5 above.

This requirement is set-aside for EDWOSB with priority to the SLA in accordance with R-SA. This means that small businesses that are EDWOSB can propose along with the SLA (i.e. Kentucky State Department for the Blind and their Licensed Blind Vendor) also being invited to propose under the R-SA priority. the Government will verify the eligibility of all EDWOSB proposals received to ensure that the EDWOSB is qualified as an EDWOSB within the SBA's Women's Contracting Program. The eleigibility requirements to qualify as an EDWOSB are fully defined in Title 13 Part 127 Subpart B of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). An EDWOSB can also get a preliminary assessment of whether it qualifies at the SBA's Certify website located at https://certify.sba.gov/am-i-eligible.

The Government is not requiring resumes of key personnel. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the proposal demonstrates the offerors ability to meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

As stated under PWS Paragraph 2.2.1.6 Organization Conflict of Interest, "The Contractor shall notify the KO immediately whenever it becomes aware that such access or participation may result in any actual or potential OCI and shall promptly submit a plan to the KO to avoid or mitigate any such OCI."

Q&A