AMENDMENT 2 12-0261-20-R-0002 GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 9

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applic.)

Amendment No. 2 April 17, 2020

6. ISSUED BY: CODE: 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than 6.): CODE:

USDA, Forest Service

SW Idaho/Nevada Acquisition Center

1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200

Boise, ID 83709-1663

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

[ X ] 12-0261-20-R-0002 9B. DATED (see item 11) 03/31/2020

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (see item 13)

CODE FACILITY

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[X] The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [X] is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy(s) of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amend-ment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if applicable) N/A

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

[ ] A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS PURSUANT TO: FAR 52.243-4 Changes

The changes set forth in Item 14 are made in the Contract Order Number in Item 10A.

[ ] B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

[ ] C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF: 52.243-1

[ ] D. OTHER (specify type of modification and authority)

E. Contractor [ X ] is, [ ] is not required to sign this document and return ___1__ ___ copy(s) to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

REFER TO SOLICITATION NO. 12-0261-20-R-0002, GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ

1. See attached for prebid teleconference notes

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (type or print)

KAREN L. MORTHLAND , Contracting Officer 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

__________________________ BY:________________________

(Signature of authorized person to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 SF 30 (REV. 10/83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA/PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

April 10, 2020

SOLICITATION NO. 12-0261-20-R-0002

GROUND COVER AND SEEDING APPLICATION 2020 IDIQ

Region’s 1,3 &4

Agenda BAER IDIQ pre bid meeting.

Good morning and welcome. Just to make sure you dialed into the correct number this is a conference call for a pre bid discussion of the Forest Service Aerial Mulching and Seeding contract, My name is Jeff Bruggink and I want to thank you for your interest in the FS post fire aerial mulching and seeding contract. Your time is important and we appreciate your participation in this call. I know we all are doing our best to maintain communications and working relations during this social challenge we are having with COVID 19.

INTRODUCTIONS/Roll Call

Before we start we would like to know who is all participating and listening in this call. I will go around the FS first then to our outside contractors that are on the call. If you could provide a name and your home office or company.

My name is Jeff Bruggink, soils and post fire programs manager for Region 4 of the FS. I am located in Ogden UT. Go next to Karen Morthland, Duwayne Kimball, Region 1 Forest Service, Region 3 Forest Service, Region 4 FS, anyone else I missed from the FS.

Lets go to contractors or business. Start with anyone from Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, California, Washington, how about other states.

CALL OBJECTIVES

Quickly I want to mention the objectives of this call:

1) Introduce Forest Service personnel that have development the solicitation and individuals that will be program managers and technical specialists for the contract across the 3 regions.

2) Answer questions that potential bidders may have regarding the solicitation.

3) Determine if any changes or amendments may be needed to the solicitation.

PURPOSE OF CONTRACT AND BAER SUMMARY

Although this contract will be available for all mulching and seeding needs it was primarily created to address post fire needs. Most of you are familiar with the Burned Area Emergency Response Program or BAER as we call it. Just want to share a little about the purpose of the program. I apologize as this is scripted but we want to make sure you understand the importance.

The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program is designed to identify and manage potential risks to resources on National Forest System lands and reduce these threats through appropriate emergency measures to protect human life and safety, property, and critical natural or cultural resources. BAER is an emergency program for stabilization work that involves time-critical activities to be completed before the first damaging event to meet program objectives While many wildfires cause minimal damage to the land and pose few threats to the land or people downstream, some fires result in damage that requires special efforts to reduce impacts afterwards. Loss of vegetation exposes soil to erosion; water run-off may increase and cause flooding, soil and rock may move downstream and damage property or fill reservoirs putting community water supplies and endangered species at-risk. Many areas are also at risk of invasive plant species following wildfire that can affect ecosystem integrity and use of vegetation on NFS lands.

In most cases, only a portion of the burned area is actually treated. Severely burned areas steep slopes, and places where water run-off will be excessive and may impact important resources. Time is critical if the emergency stabilization measures are to be effective

This contract is an important tool to allow us to expedite emergency treatments to reduce threats. Mulching and seeding are emergency response actions to help stabilize soil; control water, sediment and debris movement and potentially reduce threats due to invasive plant species.

The timing: After approval of emergency treatments we will provide a notice that a task order is coming.

ASAP after approval of treatment a task order will be put out for costs/bid. Turnaround time is usually a week or less for bids. Award of task order is within a few days of closing and mobilization to implementation 1-4 weeks following award depending on type of treatment.

This contract will also be available to our forests for other non-emergency projects. We do not anticipate many if any other non-emergency uses. However, the most common may be rangeland seeding.

QUESTIONS at this point?

REGIONAL HISTORY AND TREND

Scope of this contract includes all NF land within Regions 1, 3 and 4 of the FS. There is a general map in the solicitation. To give you an idea of the type of projects and number of projects I am going to have the 3 regions provide a brief general summary of past work and where we are seeing trends. I will start for R4.

R4: On average we have 1-2 projects per year of seeding and/or mulching. Costs for these projects has been < than 1 to 5 million in a given year. In the past we have used agricultural straw for most mulching projects. My general estimate is we are using less agricultural straw and moving more toward wood mulch especially for high very critical values at risk. Some of the reasons for more emphasis on wood are less risk of nonnative plants mixed in with the mulch, ability to treat steeper slopes, longer mulch residence time on site, and less wind loss. As far as seeding, Region 4 has decreased the amount of seeding in the past decade for the purpose of controlling run off and erosion. Where used for runoff and erosion control they are generally cereal grains.

However, we have increased our use of aerial seeding for the purpose of preventing non-native species.

Primarily cheat grass. There has been an increase in aerial seeding on shrubland and grassland systems in not only severely but also moderately burned areas. Use of native species is being increased and we are monitoring mixes to find the best species to limit nonnative plants. Future outlook compared to the past 15 years: Overall less mulch applications but more wood use where we do mulch. Very little seeding for erosion and runoff but increase seeding of native species.

Region 3…..

Region 1…..

Alright any questions on purpose or past work.

Karen: Quick process of the solicitation and award.

• This solicitation is for a Base year and 4 potential option years. Our plan is to award multiple contracts due to the different application process and the varying locations. Our hope is to have the IDIQ’s awarded by the middle of May.

• The Government anticipates awarding at least two (2) but not more than fifteen (15) contracts from this solicitation.

• Please send me an email to let me know that you are attending today’s call. This information will be added to the amendment as a virtual sign-in sheet.

• Amendment 1 was posted to beta.sam.gov on April 6, 2020 for your reference. Please make sure that you sign all amendments and submit with your proposal. Failing to do so will deem your proposal to be non-responsive.

• The closing date for this proposal to be submitted is Friday, April 24 at 1200 MDT. This closing date will not be extended due to award time constraints. Due to COVID-19, proposal’s must be submitted via email ONLY. No hardcopy proposal’s will be accepted. Proposal’s will be submitted to:

karen.morthland@usda.gov.

• Unsure of file size that FS service will accommodate. That size was at one time 20mb. I am guessing that it is somewhere between 10-20mb. I will send you and email when I receive your proposal.

• This IDIQ is small business set-aside

• NAISC: 115310 (forestry aerial seeding and other applications)

• Size Standard: $20.5 million over the course of 3 year’s

• See front cover page for proposal submission information:

o At a minimum, submit the following documents back with your response-o SF-1449 (complete, date and sign) o Schedule of items o Technical and business proposal per the evaluation criteria noted on page 52

• When doing your technical proposal, please go into great detail to give the technical evaluation team a clear and concise understanding of your capabilities. Failure to provide enough information or providing very generalized information will most likely be reflected in a lower technical rating.

Highly recommended that you provide much more information to be evaluated rather than not enough. What is initially received in your proposal package is what the evaluation team will have access to. They will not be given the pricing until after their decisions have been made on your technical proposal.

• It is also very important that you submit the Past Performance form that was added to Amendment

1. Recommendation is for you to send this form to past companies/agencies that you have done similar work. Past performance will be considered for the last 3 years only.

mailto:karen.morthland@usda.gov

• Page 76 of the solicitation is the Wage Rate for this IDIQ (aerial pilot). This work falls under the Service Contract Act.

• Contract time is from date of base year award through potentially May 2025 IF option years are exercised.

Questions and comments from contractors on solicitation

Next steps

Incorporation of comments Technical Review Award

Technical Notes – DuWayne Kimball Ground Cover and Seeding Application 2020 IDIQ

Work Summary Application of seed and mulch is an important stabilization tool post-fire to protect important values.

IDIQ contract is important to be able to quickly implement the work. Quick turnaround times.

Regional History and Trends

R-4 Work Summary Average of 1-2 projects per year and range from less than $1 million to $ 5 million.

Transitioning more towards wood mulch as time goes on.

Transition more to native seed as time goes on.

R-3 Work Summary SW Region has 1-2 projects per year and range from $10,000-$19 million.

Have primarily used more agricultural straw in the past but some transition to wood straw.

Fair amount of seeding and usually a combination of quick growing cereals with native seed mix.

Timing is super critical as the region has fires and then followed quickly by monsoons.

R-1 Work Summary Many of the fires in the region will go until the snow flies in October and there is little to no time to implement post-fire and pre-snow.

Having an IDIQ in place may help as sometimes in the past have had to advertise separate solicitations and this takes time.

Solicitation Overview See Contracting Officer notes.

Technical Overview Schedule is based on worst case pricing for an individual task order with high coverages, high elevation, long turns. Schedule is for application only and does not include mobilization or materials. These items will be bid separate at task order time. May bid seeding, mulching or both.

Contractor responsible for quality control.

Specifications are performance based and the acceptance is based upon what is applied to the treatment areas.

Purposeful vagueness in some areas of the contract as the contract has to be broad enough to work for all geographical areas and treatment specific requirements to be effective. Some of the specifics are to be indicated at task order solicitation and may include options such as FS inspection of agricultural straw or how non-certified straw will be accepted.

Q and A

Q: Will herbicide application be part of the scope of the work in this solicitation?

A: No, herbicide application will not be part of the scope of the work. There are some other solicitations that are occurring that may involve herbicide application.

Q: How will acceptance be defined? This appears to be the biggest issues on many projects as the contractor does not know how to appropriately bid the work based on how the inspections and acceptance will occur.

A: The Forest Service is aware of this as a re-occurring issue. The Forest Service is working on internal guidance to provide to Forest Service employees on the potential methods that may be used for acceptance and how those methods are implemented. The Forest Service recognizes the need for task orders to explicitly define how acceptance will occur. The Forest Service will do our best in this contract to make it clear at task order time and if during the bidding process you do not feel it is clear push us to define it in more detail.

Q: Can I bid certain items now and then bid more of the items in the future?

A: No, what you bid in the original base solicitation is what you can bid for individual tasks orders for the remainder of the IDIQ period. If bid seeding only then can bid on seeding only projects.

Q: There can be a high variation in seed costs and seed densities and how do I bid this appropriately?

A: Materials should not be included in the application cost. Some instances the Government will provide the seed and in some instances the contractor shall be responsible to provide the seed. Material and mobilization costs will be bid separately at individual task order time. We realize there can be significant differences in seed densities that can affect the costs. The schedule is looking at instances of what the maximum cost per acre may be for application and should consider the factors indicated in the bid item. Price is a lower waited factor than the technical proposal during the initial selection to the IDIQ contract. Price will have significantly more weight at the time of the individual task orders.

Q: Will all the aviation, communication, and safety plans be required for all contracts?

A: In general, yes, as this is an important part to maintain safety during operations but there may be times when certain things are not applicable. Discussion on the call included road guards may not be needed for a fixed wing seeding contract.

Q: May be a good idea to add a rotary aircraft seeding line item on the schedule that is set-up more for shorter turns than 50 miles as rotary aircraft can not be competitive at those long distances. Thoughts?

A: The Forest Service understands the difficulties comparing and bidding the two application methods.

If we add a rotary seed line item we then need to add a fourth pool of contractors. Pools for mulching only, fixed wing seeding only, rotary seeding only, and then both. Or may have to add another pool of contractors that is both types of seeding (fixed and rotary). As previously mentioned price is of lower weight for selection in the base IDIQ than the technical factors and the pricing is mainly used for setting a maximum unit price for future task orders. A rotary contractor could potentially work with a fixed wing subcontractor to lower their bid for the base contract and then depending on what is desired on an individual task order could pursue fixed wing or rotary. Due to the complexity of adding one or two more contractor pools we feel it is best just to leave the schedule as is and to keep three pools of contractors.

Q: The solicitation mentions both harvesting onsite and hauling in wood mulch. Which one is it?

A: Individual task orders will indicate which is the preferred method. It is possible some may require hauling in mulch, some may require harvesting and producing the mulch, and some may give the contractor the option to select either method.

Q: What does 80% coverage mean?

A: Quick answer is 80% of the ground on the treatable acres are covered with the product indicated.

The long answer is we realize there are lots of different inspection methods and currently this appears to be pretty subjective evaluation between different Forest Service contract inspectors and by different contractors and in between contractors. The Forest Service is producing an internal document in an attempt to standardize things between task orders to make this more objective.

Q: What happens with the exclusion acres that do not need to be treated such as unburned, rock, needle cast, revegetation, etc.?

A: Base IDIQ contract is worded such that these acres can be moved to neighboring areas that the flight distances are equal or less than what is being replaced. There is flexibility in the base contract to allow an individual task order to remove those acres or increase coverage percentage as well if they want to go that direction for a specific project.

Q: Over time things have changed on how to measure acceptance. Initially it started out as an application rate and may have been something such as 1.0 ton/acre and then it switched to a percent cover and then contractors have tried to get by with less and less tons per acre to be competitive in the bid process. Are we headed the right direction with this?

A: Good and bad with both methods. We think if inspections can be performed uniformly and consistently across projects that on the ground performance based specifications are the best. With straw there can be differences in density weight relationship attributed to the product that the straw is derived, the age of the straw, the straw moisture, and the condition of the straw due to storage conditions. Wood mulch is even more variable due to the species of the tree, the moisture of the product, how the mulch is produced, and the percentage of the mulch that meets specifications (too fine not producing any benefit for erosion control). The Forest Service does not want to be responsible to inspect and control all those different factors that affect the weight relationship. We feel it is best to let the contractor control all those factors and the Forest Service will inspect the final product which is what exists on the hillslopes.

Q: With past performance can we list past performance projects beyond three years?

A: Only projects that have been completed in the last three years will be considered when rating past performance. This is controlled by a FAR clause. These projects are the ones that we will perform reference checks and the contractor rating on this past performance portion of the evaluation criteria is based upon the references we check, the past performance questionnaires that we receive, and from other past performance information that may be available such as searching CPARS, contractor performance assessment reporting system, or contacting other personnel who may have knowledge about performance on past project within the last three years. The past performance can be as a subcontractor and make sure to include that your work was as a subcontractor. Past performance may include work for other agencies or for private industry. In the technical capability section experience is a portion of this factor and one can list all the projects that the company has been involved with and potentially personnel have different experience than the company and that experience can be listed as well. We will not call references or check on past performance for projects more than three years old.

Q: Are there any projects that are in the hopper that are slated for an individual task order when the base contract gets awarded.

A: Currently there are no projects in the hopper.

Q: When do final questions need to be received so they can be included in an amendment?

A: Final questions need to be received by April 17th. If you have questions related to this pre-bid conference call the sooner the better so it can be included in the conference call amendment.

Q: Will the evaluation team have experience in these type of projects?

A: Yes, it is anticipated that the evaluation team will have experience with seeding and mulching projects. Many of the evaluation team is currently on this call and the team will include members from the three regions.

Q: On the schedule of items we have pricing for so many acres for different line items. Is it possible that the requested quantity of acres in an individual task order is higher than the quantity on the schedule for the base solicitation?

A: Yes, the schedule is based on the conditions that the Forest Service perceives to be maximum pricing conditions. High elevation, long turn times, small acreages, high amount of product on the ground. It is anticipated that larger acreages will likely have some economies of scale and should not be higher unit prices than the smaller acreages that are being bid for the base solicitation.

Q: What happens if an individual task order does not meet these extreme conditions and a contractor cannot cover their costs?

A: The contractor will be held to their maximum application cost that they bid in the base contact for future task orders, but the contractor does have some ability to move costs around to the mobilization and materials line items at the time of the task order. All task orders should have mobilization as a line item and depending on the circumstances, if the materials are government furnished or not, materials may or may not be included in a task order schedule of items.

Q: The schedule of items has a unit price only and not a total, is this correct?

A: Yes, the schedule of items should be bid on a price per acre unit price.

Teleconference Attendee’s

Becky Martinez Contract Specialist rebecca.martinez@usda.gov Karen Morthland Contract Specialist karen.morthland@usda.gov DuWayne Kimball Engineer and BAER COR (4) duwayne.kimball@usda.gov Jeff Bruggink Regional BAER Program Manager(4) jeff.bruggink@usda.gov Anna Jaramillo-Scarborough BAER Coordinatior (3) anna.jaramillo@usda.gov Mark Muir Regional Hydrologist (4) mark.muir@usda.gov Mike Natharius BAER Coordinator (3) mike.natharius@usda.gov Jori Johnson Soil Scientist (1) jori.johnson@usda.gov Vincent Archer Soil Scientist (1) vincent.archer@usda.gov Micah Kiesow Soil Scientist (3) micah.kiesow@usda.gov

Al Hanson Columbia Basin Helicopter albert.hanson@columbiabasinhelicopters.com David McCarty Columbia Basin Helicopter david.mccarty@columbiabasinhelicopters.com Marcus Burr Mountain West Helicopter marcusburr@mnheli.com Darrel Mertens Aero Seat darrel@aeroseat.com mailto:karen.morthland@usda.gov mailto:duwayne.kimball@usda.gov mailto:jeff.bruggink@usda.gov mailto:anna.jaramillo@usda.gov mailto:mark.muir@usda.gov mailto:mike.natharius@usda.gov mailto:david.mccarty@columbiabasinhelicopters.com