Follow-up_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91QV1-18-R-0015
About this file
Follow-up Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
Follow-up Questions
| QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR W91QV1-18-R-0015 FORT BELVOIR BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT | Government Response | Follow-up Question | Government Follow-up Response | ||||
| # | Page Number | RFP Reference | Paragraph | Issue/Question | |||
| 1 | Page 15 of 18 | CBA Attachment | Article 20, Appendix A | What is the difference in the 2 Laborers? Why is one $.02 higher than the other? | Please refer to the Amendment 0006 for revised CBA. | Government stated there would be a revised CBA posted with Amendment 6 and posted with Amend 7 but still didn’t answer original question. |
What is the difference between the 2 Laborer categories were one is $.02 higher than the other?
| The CBA was negotiated between the Union and Contractor Personnel. The Department of Labor is responsible for compliance. The Government does not have an answer for the $.02 difference between the two rates. | |||||
| 2 | Page 15 of 19 | CBA Attachment | Article 20, Appendix A | Will the Government provide position descriptions for the Laborers and the rest of the job titles in Article 20, Appendix A? | Please refer to the Amendment 0006 for revised CBA. Refer to Department of labor website, Wage and Hour Division, SCA Directory of Occupations. |
| 35 | Page 10 of 20 | Attachment |
#6,PWS 420
2.4.4 This PSW states in part: “Manholes. The Contractor shall maintain and repair sewer manholes, including repairing or replacing caps, ladders, rings, covers, and interior linings; uncovering those covered by dirt and debris and raising top to ground level; and removal of grit, sand, and debris from manholes. Manholes shall be structurally sound, clean, and free of debris.
Manholes shall be covered with cast iron manhole lids.”
• How many manholes are there to be maintained and repaired?
| . | Please refer to TE SW3 for a current list of manholes. | TE SW3 from our review does not have list of manholes. Can the Government please provide a total number of manholes to be maintained? | Column D of TE SW 3 includes a list of manhole covers. | |
| 92 | 411 FBVA Facility Mx Vertical 5 Apr 18.docx | PWS for Facilities Maintenance Vertical |
Please provide equipment inventory for Roof Gutters, Drains, and Downspouts to be maintained.
Information not available; Offerors should refer to TE BS1 for a list of buildings with a roof gutter, drain or downspout to be maintained. The Government Answer currently is: “Information not available; Offerors should refer to TE BS1 for a list of buildings with a roof gutter, drain or downspout to be maintained.” Reviewing TE BS1 again, the Government does not have in the description which building have roof gutters, drains, downspouts.
The Government Answer currently is: “Information not available; Offerors should refer to TE BS1 for a list of buildings with a roof gutter, drain or downspout to be maintained.” Reviewing TE BS1 again, the Government does not have in the description which building have roof gutters, drains, downspouts.
| Respectfully request again which building have these items and who much is at each one? Only the incumbent knows this and is an unfair advantage. | Offerors should assume that all buildings listed in TE BS1 have drainage systems to include gutters, drains and/or downspouts.. | ||||||
| 104 | Technical Exhibit SA1 | Provides a map for pavement clearance, however we are not able to accurately determine the pavement quantities from the map. Will the Government provide quantities (area/square yards) of paved road, parking, sidewalk, etc. to help determine the level of effort required? | The information can be derived from TE SA2 which is mapped to scale. | Request the Government revise their answer and provide hard numbers as it can not be easily derived and give the incumbent an unfair advantage and provide basis for a protest. | The map provided in TE SA2 is an accurate Geographic Information System (GIS) map that is presented to scale. A map wheel measure may be used to further derive distances if needed for proposal development. | ||
| 111 | 501 FBVA Heathing & Cooling PWS paragraph 2.3 | Boiler attendance Only two boiler plants are listed in the PWS. Attenandance requirement for building 214 is clear, however the attendance for building 2117 is not. Are these the only boiler plants that require attendance? What is the minimum attendance requirement for the Building 2117 boiler plant? | Building 214 has a boiler that feeds building 215. Building 630 feeds building 629. Building 701 feeds building 701 and 702. 1950 and 1949 have boilers. Building 2117 feeds buildings 2102, 2103, and 2115. Building 222 feeds building 221 and 223. Building 1468 feeds buildings 1467 and 1469. Building 2117 feeds many buildings. The minimum attendance requirement is every 8 hours by the Contractor. | ||||
| The Governments answer currently is: “The minimum attendance requirement is every 8 hours by the Contractor.” Please further confirm that we check it once ever 8 hours. | The Contractor shall check every eight hours. | ||||||
| 146 | S1 Grease Trap Inventory | This TE is confusing. Please clarify the following items. |
1. Column D (Maintained By) contains several “NA” entries, which can be interpreted as not being maintained. Do the “NA” items require maintenance by the base operations contractor under the new contract?
2. Column D contains four instances where Aleut is shown as the maintainer. Are these the only grease traps requiring maintenance by the base operations contractor?
3. Can it be assumed that of the 15 grease traps listed, all will require maintenance on the new contract, until such time that four are transferred to AW, upon which time 11 traps will require maintenance?
| Please see Amendment 0006 for revised TE S1, Grease Trap Inventory language. | Said revised TE S1 would be posted but not there. Will Government provide update TE S1 as mentioned? | TE S1 is included with Amendment 0008. | |
| 151 | SW15 Filterra Maintenance Steps | This TE states in part “Contech has created a network of Certified Maintenance Providers (CCMP’s) to provide maintenance on |
Filterra systems. To find a CCMP in your area please visit www.conteches.com/maintenance.”
1. Does this maintenance work require that a certified maintenance provider be used/contracted, or can the base maintenance contractor perform the work?
2. If the base maintenance contractor can perform the work, please provide information on getting certified, if certification is required.
3. Please provide the number of Filterra device locations on the installation.
| The Base Maintenance Contractor is free to perform the work. Certification is not required. There are approximately 30 Filterra device locations on the installation. | Governments Reponses is: “The Base Maintenance Contractor is free to perform the work” What do you mean by FREE? Is this work required to be accomplished or not? Please clarify | With respect to the orginal question and subsequent answer provided, no certification is required and the Base Maintenance Contractor shall perform the work. | ||
| 155 | Technical Exhibit WD1 – IJO, Service Order Workload | PM by Shop Tab; PM FY 2017 Tab | The PM FY 2017 Tab in WD-1 shows 20, 073 PMs performed across a range of assets, equipment and components. Approximately 5,000 of these PMs with frequency requirements of one year (365) were performed from 1 September to 30 September 2017. Fourteen thousand (14,000) of these PMs with a frequency requirement of thirty days (30) are indicated to have been performed once in the fiscal year with the majority being in a single month of June 2017. Another thousand (1,000) PMs with a frequency requirement of six months (180) were conducted in November of 2016. These single month accomplishments for the PMs, whether 365, 30 or 180 raises questions about the validity of data for the PMO module within GFEBS and whether it is complete, current and or accurate. It also raises the question as to whether the asset, equipment, component listings reflected in WD-1 represent the full set of PM responsibilities the contractor will assume at contract start. |
Question: Would the Government confirm the PM baseline as current in GFEBS for both the asset, equipment, component listing?
Question: Can the Government confirm that the PMs scheduled in GFEBS are being executed against the planned schedule and that upon contract start, the contractor will NOT be assuming responsibility for a large backlog of deferred and/or omitted PMs?
| In accordance with Overarching PWS paragraph 2.2.5.1, the Contractor shall assume that all PMO requirements need to be put into GFEBS. Upon performance start, the Contractor shall not rely upon any existing PM and/or equipment data currently in GFEBS. The Contractor will not be responsible for backlog of deferred PM’s. The Contractor needs to create a brand new PM program based on the buildings listed in TE BS1 and the equipment associated with those buildings. The Contractor needs to create frequency plans, schedules, equipment, task lists, etc in GFEBS. | So if the incumbent contractor keeps the contract, they too must ignore all the date in GFEBS and start over also? If so, this is big waste of date and will cost the Government more money no matter who get the contract. Why cant the current GFEBS data be validated to the building listed in TE BS1 and add what is not currently in GFEBS? Please explain why we are doing more work than needed? You want to keep cost of the contract down but this is not helping. | The current information in GFEBS was entered by a Government employee that no longer works in the Government. The Government has neither validated this information nor used it in any manner. Consequently, we have no assurances that the information is current or accurate. Once the successful offeror is chosen, they may validate the existing data and incorporate it into the development of their GFEBS program if they wish. For pricing purposes, all offerors shall assume that a PM Plan needs to be created and entered into GFEBS in accordance with Overarching PWS paragraph 2.2.5.1. | |
| 98 | Overarching PWS 2.2.4.1 DMO Desk | The work control team shall have two years of experience entering maintenance orders into GFEBS |
Is this statement inferring “collectively?”
| No. Each member of the work control team will have a minimum of 2 years of experience in GFEBS. | ||||
| The Q&A document provided via Amendment 6, Question #98, read as follows: “The work control team shall have two years of experience entering maintenance orders into GFEBS. Is this statement inferring “collectively?” The Government’s response was “No. Each member of the work control team will have a minimum of 2 years of experience in GFEBS.” However, the overarhing PWS, Section 2.2.4.1 was revised to read "The work control team shall have at least one year of experience entering maintenance orders into GFEBS, charging time and materials on the orders, and running/analyzing maintenance order reports." Please clarify this discrepancy (i.e., is it one year or two years experience?). | The work control team shall have at least one year of experience in accordance with Overarching PWS paragraph 2.2.4.1. | |||
| 155 | Technical Exhibit WD1 – IJO, Service Order Workload | PM by Shop Tab; PM FY 2017 Tab | The PM FY 2017 Tab in WD-1 shows 20, 073 PMs performed across a range of assets, equipment and components. Approximately 5,000 of these PMs with frequency requirements of one year (365) were performed from 1 September to 30 September 2017. Fourteen thousand (14,000) of these PMs with a frequency requirement of thirty days (30) are indicated to have been performed once in the fiscal year with the majority being in a single month of June 2017. Another thousand (1,000) PMs with a frequency requirement of six months (180) were conducted in November of 2016. These single month accomplishments for the PMs, whether 365, 30 or 180 raises questions about the validity of data for the PMO module within GFEBS and whether it is complete, current and or accurate. It also raises the question as to whether the asset, equipment, component listings reflected in WD-1 represent the full set of PM responsibilities the contractor will assume at contract start. |
Question: Would the Government confirm the PM baseline as current in GFEBS for both the asset, equipment, component listing?
Question: Can the Government confirm that the PMs scheduled in GFEBS are being executed against the planned schedule and that upon contract start, the contractor will NOT be assuming responsibility for a large backlog of deferred and/or omitted PMs?
In accordance with Overarching PWS paragraph 2.2.5.1, the Contractor shall assume that all PMO requirements need to be put into GFEBS. Upon performance start, the Contractor shall not rely upon any existing PM and/or equipment data currently in GFEBS. The Contractor will not be responsible for backlog of deferred PM’s. The Contractor needs to create a brand new PM program based on the buildings listed in TE BS1 and the equipment associated with those buildings. The Contractor needs to create frequency plans, schedules, equipment, task lists, etc in GFEBS. In answering Question 155, it is clear the contractor will be required to develop and build within GFEBS a reconciled equipment inventory in the GFEBS PM Module. It is further understood from this response that the contractor “shall not rely upon any existing PM and/or equipment inventory currently in GFEBS.”
| Question: Is there a listing of equipment with specified frequency requirements that the contractor will use to schedule and conduct PMs during the first 90 days while the PMO Program is being developed and positioned for implemented? | Column H in TE WD1 provides frequencies of PM work for each item of equipment listed. | ||
| 9 | Page 3 of 5 | Attachment |
#1, PWS
1.1 & 2.0 Para 1.1 states in part: “The Contractor has 5 business days to perform change of occupancy (maintenance) requirements by adhering to the checklist in TE UPH2. Change of Occupancy Maintenance and Repair Requirements is referenced in TE UPH2.”
• But nowhere in Para 2.0 through 2.2.5 is there a requirement for Change of Occupancy Maintenance and Repair Requirements. Will this be added to Para 2.0 or will it be deleted from 1.1?
| The Contractor is required to perform the tasks in checklist TE UPH2 for any change of occupancy. This also applies to tasks identified in paragraph 2.0 as required. | Reference Q&A document, Question #9. What is the associated workload, number of COMs for TE UPH2? | There are approximately 900 annual change of occupancy maintenance actions. |
| 11 | Page 3 of 5 | Attachment |
#1, PWS
| 2.2.2 | Will the Government provide the Property List we will be accountable for? | The list of furniture delivery workload data is provided in TE GEN 12. | Reference Q&A document, Question #11. The Govenments response identifies the workload for furniture deliveries, what is the inventory associated with PWS 2.2.2 and tracked in eMH? | There are approximately 1,200 pieces of furniture currently inventoried at the Government warehouse and tracked in the eMH system. |
| 24 | Page 16 of 20 | Attachment |
#6,PWS 420
| 2.7.1 | What is the historical workload for Fuel Storage and Distribution system on a yearly or monthly basis? This data is critical to staff and price correctly. | There are approximately 1,000 PM actions annually associated with fuel storage and distribution systems. | Reference Q&A document, Question #24. Are the 1,000 PM actions referenced in the Governments answer captured in the historical data shown in TE WD1 IJO and Service Order Workload Data 4 Jun 18, PM FY 2017 TAB? | Yes. |
| 27 | Page 6 of 20 | Attachment |
#6,PWS 420
| 2.1.1 | What has been the historical workload data for pothole repair? | The government estimates an annual average of 50 pothole repairs. | Reference Q&A document, Question #27. In it’s answer the Governemt states “The government estimates an annual average of 50 pothole repairs.” Wouldn’t these repairs be performed via a DMO or a PWO, since OWO work covered by Technical Exhibit GEN6 only covers SUPPORT FOR RECURRING EVENTS, as referenced in Q&A Answer #125? | The annual average of 50 pothole repairs shall be accomplished via DMO. | |||
| 142 | Page 1 | Attachment #1- 200, Unaccompanied Furnishing Management Operation, Sec. 1.1 | This attachment states in part “The Contractor shall input change of occupancy maintenance and repair requirements into GFEBS as part of the PM Program.” Can it be assumed that such requirements are not currently in the incumbent contractor’s PM Program? If they are in the program, how are such PM requirements being recorded and maintained? | In accordance with Overarching PWS paragraph 2.2.5.1, the Contractor shall assume that all PMO requirements need to be put into GFEBS. Upon performance start, the Contractor shall not rely upon any existing PM and/or equipment data currently in GFEBS. | Reference Q&A document, Question #142. How can COM be treated as PM, since it can’t be scheduled in advance? Is it the Governments intention that each barracks room and associated assets be part of the PM program? If so, please confirm so offerors are afforded a REA after completing the inspection requirements aligned with Overarching PWS 2.2.5.1. | This is not part of CLIN 0002 Management. The work associated with this is CLIN 0003, Unaccompanied Furnishing Management Operations and is Firm-Fixed Price. No PWO, DMOs, or PMOs will be issued for this work. | |
| 146 | S1 Grease Trap Inventory | This TE is confusing. Please clarify the following items. |
1. Column D (Maintained By) contains several “NA” entries, which can be interpreted as not being maintained. Do the “NA” items require maintenance by the base operations contractor under the new contract?
2. Column D contains four instances where Aleut is shown as the maintainer. Are these the only grease traps requiring maintenance by the base operations contractor?
3. Can it be assumed that of the 15 grease traps listed, all will require maintenance on the new contract, until such time that four are transferred to AW, upon which time 11 traps will require maintenance?
| Please see Amendment 0006 for revised TE S1, Grease Trap Inventory language. | Reference Q&A document, Question #146. In its answer the Government states “Please see Amendment 0006 for revised TE S1, Grease Trap Inventory language.” TE S1 was not updated or revised with Amendment 0006, please provide the updated TE S1. | Reference Amendment 0008 for a revised copy of TE S1. | |
| 157 | Attachments | Overarching Performance Work Statement (PWS) Base Operations Fort Belvoir, Virginia – deliverable(s) referenced 4 times without any specificity as to an actual deliverable. Additionally, within each of the supporting PWSs, there is no mention of deliverables. |
Attachment #1- 200 Unaccompanied Furnishing Management Operation - no mention of deliverables Attachment #2 – 400 Facilities Maintenance Instruction – no mention of deliverables.
Attachment #3- 404 Grounds Maintenance - no mention of deliverables.
Attachment #4- 408 Pavement Clearance - no mention of deliverables.
Attachment #5- 411 Facility Maintenance – Vertical - no mention of deliverables.
Attachment #6- 420 Facility Maintenance – Horizontal - no mention of deliverables.
Attachment #7- 501 Heating and Cooling Services - no mention of deliverables.
Please confirm there are no Deliverables for any of the Attachments provided with the solicitation?
| There is no requirement for the submittal of CDRLs. | Reference Q&A document, Question #157. In its answer the Government states “There is no requirement for the submittal of CDRLs.” In Attachment #6 – 420 Facility Maintenance – Horizontal, PWS 2.6.2 references deliverable A016 and PWS 2.6.3 references A051. Please clarify the reference to deliverables if there is no requirement for deliverables. | Please reference Amendment 0008 for revisions to paragraphs 2.6.2 and 2.6.3, Attachment 6 - 420 Facility Maintenance - Horizontal. | |||||
| 162 | PWS | 1.1.1.2 | 1.1.1.2 States that the Skills Training Facility will be added to the contract but does not indicate when that will occur. In what Option Year does the government anticipate that this facility will be added to the contract? | Please refer to Overarching PWS paragraph 1.1.1.2 for a revised description of required services associated with the Skills Training Facilities. | Reference Q&A document, Question #162. In its answer the Government states “Please refer to Overarching PWS paragraph 1.1.1.2 for a revised description of required services associated with the Skills Training Facilities.” PWS 1.1.1.2 says: Services associated with the Skills Training Facilities will be required as of 1 October 2018. The contractor shall provide grounds and landscaping for the Skills Training Facilities (buildings 3245 & 3246, approx. combined 100,000 sq. ft.). No further base operations services are required for the Skills Training Facilities on this contract. Question: Is the 100,000 sq. ft. referenced in PWS 1.1.1.2 included in the workload provided in TE GR1 Improved Grounds? | The 100,000 sq. ft. referenced is not included in TE GR1 as the facility is not yet completed. The final area to be maintained will be incorporated into the resulting contract via contract modification after award. | |
| 125 | WD1 IJO and Service Order Workload Data | Please provide historical workload for Operational Work Order (OWO)/Standing Operating Order (SOO) requirements across the entire contract. | The current annual workload for OWOs are captured in TE GEN 6. | Reference Q&A document, Question #125. In its answer the Government states “The current annual workload for OWOs are captured in TE GEN 6.” Question: Since OWO requirements are forecasted as part of the Annual Work Plan, please provide the historical OWO hours used to support TE GEN 6 events. | The Contractor should be able to estimate this cost based on the data provided in the solicitation | ||
| 141 | Page 3 | 400 Facilities Maintenance Instruction | Paragraph 2.0 states…” Project Work Order (PWO): Known in AR 420-1 as IJO. A work authorization document used for unscheduled work, including project-oriented work such as repairs, modifications, replacements, or installations that exceed the thresholds for a DMO and/or customer reimbursable work.” |
Question: Where are the thresholds for a DMO and/or customer reimbursable work defined? ? Is it the 32 onsite work-hours outline under Unscheduled Maintenance (page 4) or is there also a dollar threshold? Are there material costs that contribute to the DMO work limit?
The scope of a DMO is a service order 32 hours or less. Reference Q&A document, Question #141. This was a three part question, the last question “Are there material costs that contribute to the DMO work limit?” was not addressed. What is the threshold (overall materials dollars) associated with DMOs? There are no material costs that contribute to the DMO work limit. There is no overally materials dollars threshold associated with DMOs.
File details come from the government source that posted it.