Questions-Answers 12444824Q0026 FINAL.pdf

12444824Q0026

Layout and Design of National BMP General Technical Reports

Questions and Answers

1) Is there any incumbent on this project or this is a brand-new project. If yes, could you please provide us with the previous award number, or if these services have been purchased in past?

Answer: This is a new project.

2) Is there a structure and page limit that needs to be followed for technical volume?

Answer: The format of the GTR will require a set structure for some elements to follow the design of our General Technical Reports (certain margins, heading format, citation style, etc.), but there is no page limit for the total volume.

3) Can the Graphics/Writing personnel work remotely?

Answer: Yes, all meetings will be conducted via Microsoft Teams video chat or phone.

4) Is there a set or anticipated budget for this scope of work?

Answer: The range for this project is between $50K to $100K.

5) To provide the most accurate quote possible, it would be helpful to have the opportunity to review a draft text version of the report in advance. Of particular interest are the tables. If we could not get access to the report, it would be helpful to get more details on those, e.g., number of rows and columns, headers, footers, etc. Is this possible?

Answer: See samples of tables and figures at the end of this document. Number of rows and columns in tables vary but generally are no more than a half page in size. All tables were created using MS Word table function. Figures are all provided as JPG files.

Design and Content-Related Questions:

6) Design Reference and Compliance:

- Are there any additional design guidelines or templates, beyond the NRS-GTR-207 and NRS-

GTR-198 examples, that the final documents should adhere to?

Answer: See answer to question 2. Examples of recent Northern Research Station General

Technical Reports can be found in Treesearch at this link:

https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch?f%5B0%5D=publication_series%3AGeneral%20Technic al%20Report&f%5B1%5D=publication_station%3A1994 https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch?f%5B0%5D=publication_series%3AGeneral%20Technical%20Report&f%5B1%5D=publication_station%3A1994 https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch?f%5B0%5D=publication_series%3AGeneral%20Technical%20Report&f%5B1%5D=publication_station%3A1994

- Will the design elements, such as fonts, colors, and layout styles, be strictly defined by the

NRS guidelines, or is there flexibility for creative input?

Answer: There is room for some creative input.

7) Handling of Equations and Graphical Content:

- Will the equations in the documents be provided as Adobe EPS or PDF files, or will they need to be created from raw text within the layout?

Answer: These documents do not contain any equations.

- How are the bar graphs and charts expected to be created? Will they be provided by the

Agency in a specific format, or is the offeror responsible for designing these elements from raw data?

Answer: All figures will be provided as JPG files and will be in “ready to use” format, so contractor is not responsible for creating any of the figures from scratch. Alternative text for all figures will also be provided.

- For photographs, maps, and figures, will high-resolution images and source files be provided, or will the contractor need to source or create these?

Answer: All figures and photos will be provided as high-resolution images, and the contractor will not be required to recreate or source any of the figures.

8) 508 Compliance Requirements:

- Are there specific tools or software that the Agency prefers or requires for ensuring 508 compliances in the final PDF documents?

- Will the Agency provide guidelines or a checklist for 508 compliances, or should the contractor follow standard federal accessibility guidelines?

Answer: Contractor is required to follow standard federal accessibility guidelines for tagging, adjusting read order, inserting alternative text for images and figures (alternative text will be provided by customer, and making tables accessible with header rows, etc., so the final PDF document complies with U.S. Government Section 508 standards. The Adobe Acrobat

Accessibility “full check” tool can be used to check for accessibility.

9) Content and Layout Specifics:

- Will the documents include any interactive elements, such as hyperlinks or embedded media, that need special attention during the layout?

Answer: There will be some websites and URLs that will require hyperlinks and the Table of

Contents will require bookmarks.

- Are there any specific formatting requirements for tables, evaluation forms, and citations that go beyond standard practices?

Answer: All tables are required to be 508 compliant per standard practices. Evaluation forms are set up as tables and will require some design attention so that they look like evaluation forms and not tables. Citations will be provided to the contractor in the required format.

Timeline and Milestone-Related Questions:

10) Project Schedule and Deadlines:

- The RFQ outlines a general timeline for each manuscript. Are there specific internal deadlines or milestones (e.g., draft review sessions) that we should be aware of?

Answer: Approximate timelines are outlined in the Statement of Work.

- Is there flexibility in the timeline if additional revisions or unexpected challenges arise during the layout process?

Answer: Yes, schedule is flexible and subject to change due to Forest Service delays in returning proofing reviews, revised figures, etc., or should unexpected challenges arise on the side of the contractor.

11) Revision and Approval Process:

- What is the expected turnaround time for feedback on draft submissions? Will feedback be consolidated, or should we expect multiple rounds of revisions?

Answer: The project editor will work closely with the designer to finalize the draft design. Once the final draft layout is provided, revisions will be consolidated and returned to the designer. It is anticipated that there will be up to three rounds of revisions, with the number of edits lessening with each round.

- Is there a limit to the number of revisions allowed within the agreed timeline, or will additional revisions extend the project timeline and potentially increase costs?

Answer: We plan to limit the rounds of revisions, and only if there are unforeseen circumstances, do we anticipate any need to extend the project timeline or increase cost done via a modification signed by the Contracting Officer.

Pricing and Payment-Related Questions:

12) Pricing Structure and Payment Schedule:

- How is the pricing schedule arranged for this project? Is it milestone-based, or will the payment schedule be billed on a monthly basis based on the agreed-upon contract amount?

Answers: Partial payments will be authorized and can be based on a regular time schedule

(invoicing for work completed during the time period) or based on milestones as agreed upon by the customer and contractor at the start of the project.

- Considering the duration and in-depth timeframe of the contract, is there a specific contract amount allocated for this project, or should the offeror propose a total cost?

Answer: See answer to question #4 above. Also, per the Scope of Work, the final bid from the contractor should include the total estimated cost of layout for three separate documents, using the specifications on page 2.

- Are there provisions for pricing adjustments if the scope of work changes significantly during the course of the project?

Answer: Only if there are unforeseen circumstances, do we anticipate any need to extend the project timeline or increase cost. Done via a modification signed by the Contracting Officer.

13) Additional Costs and Contingencies:

- Should the offeror include contingency costs for unexpected revisions or additional design work that may be requested by the Agency?

project timeline or increase cost.

- Are there any reimbursable expenses, such as travel or software licenses, that should be factored into the pricing proposal?

Answer: No. Travel is not a part of this contract, and the contractor is expected to have the required software to complete the work being requested.

General Project Management and Communication Questions:

14) Point of Contact and Communication:

- Who will be the primary point of contact at the Agency for project-related questions and feedback? Will there be a dedicated project manager?

Answer: There will be a dedicated person for this project. Name and all information necessary will be provided to awardee.

- What is the preferred method and frequency of communication (e.g., weekly status updates, regular meetings)?

Answer: Preferred methods of contact are via Microsoft Teams meetings, email, or phone.

Meetings will be held weekly or more often if needed, and the designated editor and Production

Services Team Lead will be available to regularly work with the contractor on an as needs basis.

15) Final Deliverables and Post-Submission Support:

- After submitting the final 508-compliant documents, will there be a period of post-submission support required for any additional changes or updates?

Answer: Once the final approved documents are submitted to the customer, there will not be a need for post-submission support.

- Are there any expectations for archiving or providing source files (e.g., InDesign files) beyond the delivery of the final PDFs?

Answer: Per the Statement of Work, deliverables to the customer include the final digital files of the 508 compliant PDF file with file directory for online posting and InDesign files of the final documents.

Additional Clarification Questions:

16) Risk Management:

- What is the Agency’s policy on handling delays or disruptions (e.g., due to unforeseen circumstances)? Is there a defined process for requesting deadline extensions or modifying the scope of work?

project timeline or increase cost. There are two clauses referenced in the solicitation: FAR

52.242-15 and 52.242-17. Done via a modification signed by the Contracting Officer.

17) In regard to Form 1449, can this document be signed electronically, or does it need to be printed and signed using a pen?

Answer: Either way is acceptable.

18) For this particular solicitation, how frequent are these opportunities? Has a similar one been awarded in the past?

Answer: Contracts for layout and design of Northern Research Station publications are not a common occurrence.

19) How detailed should past performance be; are you seeking a list of projects adhering to a specific form / template or examples of work product which includes visuals by way of screen grabs?

Answer: Please provide sufficient information (technical document with x tables, x figures, references, total number of pages) to describe previous projects so we can evaluate your experience with the layout of technical documents similar in scope to the statement of work in this contract. Providing links to completed projects if available would be much appreciated. If not available to share, screen grabs of key components would be appreciated.

20) In reference the PDF page #26, are you asking for us to provide an estimate based on that chart? Above that chart there is a reference to page 2, is that referencing page 2 of the SOW, which is page 26 of the PDF document?

Answer: Correct, page 2 referenced is page 26 of the solicitation.

21) In reference to the PDF page #13, what is the Wage Determination Number for this solicitation?

Answer: See pages 12 and 15 of the solicitation:

Page 12: FAR 52.222-49 Service Contract Labor Standards-Place of Performance Unknown

(May 2014)

(a) This contract is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and the place of performance was unknown when the solicitation was issued. In addition to places or areas identified in wage determinations, if any, attached to the solicitation, wage determinations have also been requested for the following: NONE. The Contracting Officer will request wage determinations for additional places or areas of performance if asked to do so in writing by 23 Aug 2024.

https://sam.gov/search/?index=sca&page=1&pageSize=25&sort=-modifiedDate&sfm%5Bstatus%5D%5Bis_active%5D=true&sfm%5BsimpleSearch%5D%5Bkeywor dRadio%5D=ALL

(b) Offerors who intend to perform in a place or area of performance for which a wage determination has not been attached or requested may nevertheless submit bids or proposals.

However, a wage determination shall be requested and incorporated in the resultant contract retroactive to the date of contract award, and there shall be no adjustment in the contract price. (End of clause)

Page 15: Attachment 02: Wage Determination, to be determined with selected contractor

22) We have reviewed the similar type of documents provided. We did not come across an

Evaluation Form. Could you provide an example?

Answer: IAW FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (2)(b) Provide Capability Statement or

Resumé with past performance within the past 3 years from date of this solicitation. Attached is an Experience Questionnaire for your use.

23) Could you clarify what is meant by the PDF File Directory?

Answer: Disregard this language. Some of our products include supplemental pdf files. This product will only contain a single pdf file.

24) What is the invoice methodology? Is there an opportunity for quarterly progress invoices and corresponding payments?

Answer: See response to question #12 above. All invoices must be submitted electronically through the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) via www.ipp.gov.

25) In regard to invoices, are you the point of contact for submitting invoices? Also, would electronic invoices acceptable?

http://www.ipp.gov/

Answer: All invoices must be submitted electronically through the Invoice Processing Platform

(IPP) via www.ipp.gov. Any questions can be directed to the Purchasing Agent or Contracting

Officer.

26) Offeror will be using subcontractors and understands this needs approval. When and how do we gain approval? What information needs to be provided?

Answer: Prime contractors work directly with the government. They manage any subcontractors and are responsible for ensuring that the work is completed as defined in the contract. A subcontractor plan is required for contracts exceeding $750K. It will not be required for this award.

27) Location states Delaware, Ohio. Can this work be completed virtually / remotely?

Answer: See response to question #3 above.

END OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

http://www.ipp.gov/

SAMPLE Tables and Figures from project. All tables will be provided in MS Word, and all figures are provided as JPG files.

Table 28.—Implementation components, their scores, and interpretation of each score. Component scores are used to determine overall implementation ratings for AqEco protocols.

Implementation component

Component score

Score interpretation

Planning All All BMPs developed during planning were included in the project contract or plan

Some Some BMPs developed during planning were included in the project contract or plan, but at least one was not

None BMPs were developed during planning but they were not carried into the project contract or plan OR

Documents containing BMPs were referenced during planning but BMPs were not included in the planning documents

No BMPs No BMPs were considered for the project during planning

On-the-ground execution

All All BMPs included in the project contract or plan were implemented fully

Some Some of the BMPs included in the project contract or plan were implemented fully, but at least one was not

None None of the BMPs included in the project contract or plan were implemented fully

Project oversight All All necessary corrective actions identified during project implementation were implemented

Some Some, but not all the necessary corrective actions identified during project implementation were implemented

None No necessary corrective actions identified during project implementation were implemented

Table 29a.—Effectiveness components, their scores, and interpretation of each score for AqEco A.

Component scores are used to determine overall effectiveness ratings.

Effectiveness component

Component score Score interpretation

Waterbody disturbance

Effective No adverse effect

Mostly effective Minor adverse effect

Marginally effective Minor adverse effect but potentially could be major

Not effective Major adverse effect

No disturbance No waterbody work included in the project; does not affect the effectiveness rating

Floodplain disturbance

Effective No adverse effect

Mostly effective Minor adverse effect

Marginally effective Minor adverse effect but potentially could be major

Not effective Major adverse effect

No disturbance No floodplain work included in the project; does not affect the effectiveness rating

Chemical pollutants

Effective No adverse effect

Moderately effective Potential adverse effect

Not effective Major adverse effect

Table 29b.—Effectiveness subcomponents, their scores, and interpretation of each score for AqEco A.

Subcomponent scores are used to determine the waterbody disturbance component score for AqEco A.

When waterbody disturbance score is “no disturbance” (see Table 29a), these subcomponents are not relevant.

Waterbody disturbance subcomponent

Subcomponent score Score interpretation

Flow diversion Effective No adverse effect

Mostly effective Minor adverse effect

Marginally effective Minor adverse effect but potentially could be major

Not effective Major adverse effect

No flow diversion No flow present or evaluation done before flow control needed

Waterbody erosion Effective No adverse effect

Moderately effective Potential adverse effect

Not effective Major adverse effect

Table 30.—Distribution of implementation component scores by component for AqEco A evaluations completed in FY15/16 and FY17/18.

Monitoring period

Implementation component score

Planning component

(number)

Planning component

(percent)

On-the-ground execution component

(number)

On-the-ground execution component

(percent)

Project oversight component

(number)

Project oversight component

(percent)

FY15/16

(n=45)

All 31 69 35 78 42 93

Some 12 27 10 22 2 4

None 1 2 1 2

No BMPs 1 2

FY17/18

(n=38)

All 24 63 28 74 35 92

Some 12 32 10 26 1 3

None 1 3

No BMPs 1 3

Incomplete dataa

2 5 a All of the questions needed to determine a component score were not answered.

Table 31.—Implementation component scores corresponding to the overall implementation ratings for

AqEco A evaluations with complete data in FY15/16 and FY17/18. See Table 28 for meaning of implementation component descriptors.

Monitoring period

Implementation rating

Planning component

On-the-ground execution component

Project oversight component

Number of evaluations

FY15/16

(n=45)

Fully implemented All All All 24

Mostly implemented All All Some 1

Some All All 9

Some All Some 1

Marginally implemented

All Some All 6

Some Some All 2

Not implemented None Some All 1

No BMPs No BMPs Some None 1

FY17/18

(n=36)

Fully implemented All All All 19

Mostly implemented All All Some 1

Some All All 6

Marginally implemented

All Some All 3

Some Some All 5

Not implemented None All All 1

No BMPs No BMPs Some All 1

Table 32.—Distribution of effectiveness component scores by component for AqEco A evaluations completed in FY15/16 and FY17/18.

Monitoring period

Effectiveness component score

Waterbody disturbance component

(number)

Waterbody disturbance component

(percent)

Floodplain disturbance component

(number)

Floodplain disturbance component

(percent)

Chemical pollutants component

(number)

Chemical pollutants component

(percent)

FY15/16

(n=35)

Effective 16 46 26 74 33 94

Mostly effectivea 10 29

Moderately effectiveb 1 3

Marginally effectivea 4 11

Not effective 3 9 2 6

No disturbance 2 6 7 20

Incomplete data 1 3

FY17/18

(n=25)

Effective 14 56 14 56 22 88

Mostly effectivea 4 16

Moderately effectiveb 1 4

Marginally effectivea 1 4 1 4

Not effective 2 8 1 4

No disturbance 3 12 8 32

Incomplete datac 1 4 1 4 2 8 a Score applies only to waterbody disturbance and floodplain disturbance components (see Table 29a).

b Score applies only to chemical pollutants component (see Table 29a).

c All of the questions needed to determine a component score were not answered.

Table 33.—Effectiveness component scores corresponding to the overall effectiveness ratings for AqEco

A evaluations with complete data in FY15/16 and FY17/18. See Table 29a for meaning of effectiveness component scores.

Monitoring period

Effectiveness rating

Waterbody disturbance component

Floodplain disturbance component

Chemical pollutants component

Number of evaluations

FY15/16

(n=34)

Effective Effective or no disturbance

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 17

Mostly effective Mostly effective

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 10

Marginally effective

Marginally effective

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 3

Not effective Marginally effective

Not effective Effective 1

Not effectivea Effective Effective 1

Not effectivea Effective Moderately effective

Not effectiveb Not effective Effective 1

FY17/18

(n=23)

Effective Effective or no disturbance

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 16

Mostly effective Mostly effective

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 2

Mostly effective

Effective or no disturbance

Moderately effective

Marginally effective

Marginally effective

Effective or no disturbance

Effective 1

Not effective Mostly effective

Not effective Effective 1

Not effectivec Effective Effective 1

Not effectivea Marginally effective

Effective 1 a Waterbody erosion subcomponent score for this component was not effective.

b Flow diversion and waterbody erosion subcomponent scores for this component were not effective.

c Flow diversion subcomponent score for this component was not effective.

Commented [HZCFW1]: Ital 3x

Table 34.—Distribution of waterbody disturbance subcomponent scores by subcomponent for AqEco A evaluations completed in FY15/16 and FY17/18.

Monitoring period

Subcomponent score

Flow diversion subcomponent

(number)

Flow diversion subcomponent

(percent)

Waterbody erosion subcomponent

(number)

Waterbody erosion subcomponent

(percent)

FY15/16

(n=33)

Effective 17 52 30 91

Mostly effectivea 10 30

Moderately effectiveb

1 3

Marginally effectivea

4 12

Not effective 1 3 2 6

No flow diversion 1 3

FY17/18

(n=22)

Effective 10 45 19 86

Mostly effectivea 4 18

Moderately effectiveb

1 5

Marginally effectivea

1 5

Not effective 1 5 1 5

No flow diversion 5 22

Incomplete datac 1 5 1 5 a Score applies only to flow diversion subcomponent (see Table 29b).

b Score applies only to waterbody erosion subcomponent (see Table 29b).

c All of the questions needed to determine a component score were not answered.

Table 35.—Fisher’s exact test probabilities of association between BMP provisions relevant to flow diversion and waterbody erosion effectiveness subcomponent scores and floodplain disturbance component scores for AqEco A evaluations completed in FY15/16 and FY17/18.

Subcomponent or component

Provision FY15/16

In contract or plana p-valueb

FY15/16

Implemented fullyc p-valueb

FY17/18

In contract or plana p-valueb

FY17/18

Implemented fullyc p-valueb

Flow diversion

(subcomponent)

Dewatering requirements

0.26 0.06 0.26 0.16

Waterbody erosion

(subcomponent)

Construction methods to reduce disturbance, erosion, or sedimentation

0.13 1.00 1.00 0.21

Location and/or limiting the extent of waterbody disturbances

<0.01 0.29 0.20 0.21

Waterbody stabilization techniques

0.11 1.00 0.10 0.32

Floodplain disturbance

(component)

Timing and scheduling of improvements

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26

Location of access routes for vehicle travel

1.00 1.00 0.27 0.09

Construction techniques and treatments for access routes

0.02 0.09 1.00 0.57

Construction methods to reduce disturbance, erosion, or sedimentation

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04

Location and/or limiting the extent of floodplain disturbances

0.34 0.33 0.35 0.48

Temporary vegetative erosion

0.51 1.00 1.00 0.57 control requirements

Nonvegetative erosion control requirements

(temporary or permanent)

1.00 1.00 0.54 0.66 a See AqEco A-Q29.

b Probability of association; significant at α=0.10.

c See AqEco A-Q30.

Table 27.—Composite rating matrix for AqEco A projects evaluated for both implementation and effectiveness in FY15/16 (n=34 evaluations) and FY17/18 (n=23 evaluations). Numbers in the cells indicate the number of projects with that composite rating. Composite ratings are excellent, good, fair, poor, and no plan, which results when no BMPs were prescribed (i.e., No BMPs implementation rating), regardless of the effectiveness rating.

FY15/16

Composite rating

(number of evaluations)

Implementation rating

Fully implemented

Mostly implemented

Marginally implemented

Not implemented

No

BMPs

Effectiveness rating

Effective 9 5 2 1

Mostly effective 9 1

Marginally effective 1 2

Not effective 1 2 1

FY17/18

Composite rating

(number of evaluations)

Implementation rating

Fully implemented

Mostly implemented

Marginally implemented

Not implemented

No

BMPs

Effectiveness rating

Effective 11 4 1

Mostly effective 1 1 1

Marginally effective

Not effective 1 2

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

No plan

Table 12.—Frequencies at which prescribed range improvements were implemented and maintained fully in the evaluated grazing season (Range A-Q35) for randomly selected Range A evaluations completed in

FY15/16 (n=88 evaluations) and FY17/18 (n=63 evaluations). Only improvements that help protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources are included.

Range improvement FY15/16

Yes

(number

FY15/16

No

(number

FY15/16

NAa

(number

FY15/16

Yes

(percent b)

FY15/16

No

(percent

FY17/18

Yes

(number

FY17/18

No

(number

FY17/18

NA

(number

FY17/18

Yes

(percent

FY17/18

No

(percent

Off-site stock water 42 10 34 81 19 21 6 33 78 22

Water gaps 10 11 62 48 52 6 3 50 67 33

Fencing 58 10 18 85 15 45 4 14 92 8

Salt blocks or other techniques to keep stock away from waterbody 68 6 14 92 8 48 2 10 96 4

Mean 45 9 32 76 24 30 4 27 83 17 a Not applicable (NA) because the improvement was not prescribed for the grazing unit.

b Percent calculated from “yes” and “no” counts.

Solicitation No: 12444824Q0026

Layout and Design of National BMP General

Technical Reports

NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL, & PHONE NO. TO

CONTACT FOR INFORMATION.

AWARD

AMOUNT

EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: See Box 11, remarks, if extra space is needed to answer any item below. Mark X in the appropriate boxes.

1. Contractors Name, Address & Telephone No. Email 2. Type of Business

Company Co-Partner Non-profit

Corporation Individual

3. How many years of experience do you have in this line of work Yrs

4. How many years of experience as a prime contractor subcontractor

5. List no more than 3 most relevant projects your business has performed within 3 years of this solicitation issuance date:

CONTRACT

NUMBER

AWARD

AMOUNT

NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL, &

PHONE NO. TO CONTACT

FOR INFORMATION.

DATE

COMPLETED

DESCRIPTION OF

WORK PERFORMED

6. List all of your firms current contract commitments

NUMBER

7a. Have you ever failed to complete any work awarded to you? yes no

7b. Has work ever been completed by performance bond? yes no

7c. If "yes" to either item 7a or 7b specify location(s) and reason(s) why

PERCENT

Solicitation No: 12444824Q0026

Layout and Design of National BMP General

Technical Reports

8. Organization information available for this project:

a. Minimum # of employees: and Maximum # of employees:

b. Are employees regularly on your payroll: yes no

c. Specify equipment available for this contract:

d. Estimate rate of progress (such as 2.0 acres per day):

1. Minimum progress rate: Maximum progress rate

9. List the experience of the principal individuals of your business

INDIVIDUALS NAME PRESENT POSITION YRS EXP TYPE OF WORK

10. Information required to complete a responsibility determination if the apparent successful offeror.

a. Credit References Company Name/Address Point of Contact Telephone number TYPE OF WORK

N/A N/A N/A

b. Banking Information.

Company Name/Address Point of Contact Telephone number TYPE OF WORK

N/A N/A N/A

11. REMARKS

CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the statements made by me are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and that any persons named as references are authorized to furnish the Forest Service with any information needed to verify my capability to perform this project:

Name: Title: Date: