QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.docx
DOCX document 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Resource Efficiency Manager Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9124J20R0039
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding solicitation number W9124J20R0039 for resource efficiency manager services at Fort Benning. The solicitation requires contractors to provide qualified energy management professionals to support energy and water management programs, including complying with federal laws and executive orders aimed at reducing energy and water consumption and costs. It clarifies that the proposal due date is August 29, 2020. Amendment 1 will provide additional details on award criteria, proposal submission requirements, and evaluation criteria. Contractors must provide three potential resource efficiency manager candidates in their proposals, and the agency will not accept multiple pricing options. The scope of performance involves assisting the installation in reducing energy and water use at Fort Benning in accordance with the referenced laws and executive orders.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W9124J20R00390005 Amendment 5.pdf | ||
| W9124J20R00390004 Amendment 4.pdf | ||
| W9124J20R00390003 Amendment 3.pdf | ||
| W9124J20R00390002 2nd Amendment.pdf | ||
| W9124J20R00390001.pdf | ||
| W9124J20R0039 Released.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 SC-20-014A PWS REM-REVISED.pdf | ||
| COMBINED SYNOPSIS and SOLICITATION.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q1. I am following the Solicitation for resource efficiency manager services at Fort Benning, which was released July 30, 2020. (#W9124J20R0039) In the documents, there are two different proposal due dates. One is August 28, 2020, and the other is August 29, 2020. Can you confirm which date is correct?
A1. 29 Aug 2020 Q2. I have read through the Performance Work Statement as well as the Solicitation and am specifically looking for any award criteria referencing pricing such as lowest price technically acceptable or anything like that.
A2. See Amendment 1.
Q3. Request for Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria. The solicitation identified that FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial) and 52.212-2 (Evaluation-Commercial Items) apply to the solicitation; however, it is not clear what the proposal submission or evaluation requirements are related to this opportunity. Since there is an incumbent contractor, we respectfully request that clear proposal instructions and evaluation criteria be provided to all offerors to ensure fair competition and consistent evaluation of proposals by MICC.
A3. See Amendment 1.
Q4. Is it a requirement to provide three potential REM candidates in our proposal for the Fort Benning REM services? On page 18 of 38 of the REM PWS, Section 5.2: Provide a REM, states “The Contractor shall provide a REM and related technical and management services. In response to a Request for a Task Order, the Contractor shall present a minimum of three (3) REM candidates for review and consideration by the COR/installation energy manager.” Is it a requirement to provide 3 potential REM candidates in our proposal for the Fort Benning REM services? Since REM pricing is highly dependent on the qualifications and skills of the proposed REM, will MICC accept multiple price options to align with the REM candidates if three REM candidates are required? Any clarification on the number of REM candidates, acceptance of pricing alternatives, and how MICC will evaluate the multiple REM candidates and pricing alternatives would be appreciated.
A4. It is a requirement to provide 3 potential REM candidates in proposals. The MICC will not accept multiple pricing options. See attachment A3 of the PWS, titled “REM Qualifications”.
Q5. Developing an accurate level of effort (LOE), Labor Category (LCAT) mix, and labor rates would require the bidders to know the type of contract and evaluation criteria. The PWS and CLIN Structure would not be sufficient enough information to develop a proper LOE and price accordingly. Would the Government (Gov't) consider extending the due date and provide a written RFP, with a Section L & M so the bidders can provide the Gov't with the best possible solution?
A5. Due date remains unchanged. See Amendment 1.
Q6. Can the Gov’t confirm the only place of performance will be on Ft Benning? If there is any travel to oversee national IMCOM ESPC’s, may the Government provide a travel CLIN and plug value.
A6. Place of Performance is Ft Benning, see paragraph 1.5.9 or PWS
Q7.Are there any Past Performance and/or PPQ’s required for this bid?
A.7 See amendment 1.
Q8. Will the scope of performance be only to stand-alone contracts at Ft Benning, or will they involve national level ESPC’s.
A8. See paragraph 1.5.4 of PWS.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .