A11_QA12970223R0014-8Aug2023.pdf

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

PROCUREMENT & PROPERTY SERVICES

SPECIALIZED PROJECT OPERATIONS CENTER – SOUTHWEST REGION

08 August 2023

MEMORANDUM FOR RFP 12970223R0014 Vendors

FROM USFS PPS SPOC SW

SUBJECT: RFP 12970223R0014 Questions & Answers

1. Question: “Due to the unusual nature of the ‘Aircraft Public and Passenger Liability’ insurance requirement, can the contractor submit this expense as part of TO Cost/Price?”

Answer: “The intent is for the contractor to submit proof of ability to obtain Aircraft Public and Passenger Liability coverage at Task Order level. Anticipated cost may be provided in conjunction with Task Order costs. Solicitation Amendment forthcoming to reflect this.”

2. Question: “Are Cover Page, Table of Contents, and List of Abbreviations and Acronyms permitted as preface to each submission volume?”

Answer: “Yes, that is acceptable.”

3. Question: “The referenced section/language (E.1 Instruction to Offerors, E.1.2 Volume I – Technical

Proposal, b. Specialized Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel) indicates that a project manager must be named for each activity offered. Please clarify whether it is acceptable for our project management personnel to lead multiple activities in which they are experienced.”

4. Question: “Will the Forest Service allow the example reports requested in each Example Scenario to be submitted as attachments to Volume I due to file size?”

Answer: “Yes, that is what was intended.”

5. Question: “Questions are due on August 9th with the proposal due August 11th. Can the due date be extended to allow for adequate time to review the answers to question and incorporate them into the proposal?”

Answer: “Answers to vendor questions will be promptly posted publicly on the SAM.gov solicitation on a rolling basis, as they are received. As of this response on 26 July 2023, the Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date.”

6. Question: “Attachment D.3 – Example Scenario 2 – Potentially Responsible Party Investigation requires the submittal of an ‘Example of a previous PRP Search Report that the firm has prepared (can be redacted as necessary).’ The PRP search reports that we have developed for our clients are highly confidential, and it would likely take more than 30 days to get approval from our client’s legal department to release even a redacted version of the report. Is a table of contents for the PRP investigation example report acceptable for the PRP Search Report?”

Answer: “Proposing vendors are encouraged to include sufficient detail in response to Example Scenario 2, such that the vendor’s understanding of and ability to respond to the types of Task Orders anticipated under the contemplated IDIQ is adequately demonstrated. Within the parameters of the Solicitation’s instructions, the content, including degree of detail, of a proposal’s response to Example Scenario 2 is largely the discretion of the proposing vendor – a response that fails to adequately demonstrate the vendor’s understanding of and ability to respond to the types of Task Orders anticipated under the contemplated IDIQ will be evaluated accordingly.”

7. Question: “Attachment D.4 – Example Scenario 3 – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment requires an ‘Example of previous ESA that the firm has prepared (can be redacted as necessary).’ It is challenging to redact all information that can be considered confidential. Would a cover page and/or table of contents be acceptable for the ESA report?”

Answer: “Proposing vendors are encouraged to include sufficient detail in response to Example Scenario 3, such that the vendor’s understanding of and ability to respond to the types of Task Orders anticipated under the contemplated IDIQ is adequately demonstrated. Within the parameters of the Solicitation’s instructions, the content, including degree of detail, of a proposal’s response to Example Scenario 3 is largely the discretion of the proposing vendor – a response that fails to adequately demonstrate the vendor’s understanding of and ability to respond to the types of Task Orders anticipated under the contemplated IDIQ will be evaluated accordingly.”

8. Question: “Requesting that the Forest Service (USFS PPS SPOC SW) extend the proposal due date for the subject RFP. At the present, questions on this RFP are due NLT August 9, 2023, 1500 PST with a proposal due date of August 11, 2023, 1700 PST. We respectfully ask that the proposal due date be extended to August 18, 2023. This extension would allow adequate time between the Government’s posting of answer to questions that are received by the August 9th due date/time and submission of proposals.”

Answer: “The current solicitation schedule allows vendors 28 days to review solicitation content and present questions that may affect their proposal. It is recommended that interested vendors take full advantage of the entire Q&A period and thoroughly review the contents of the solicitation with ample time to develop and present substantive questions well in advance of the Q&A deadline. Answers to vendor questions will be promptly posted publicly to the SAM.gov solicitation on a rolling basis, as they are received. As of this response on 31 July 2023, the Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date.”

9. Question: “There is no ‘Offer’ form in the RFP – similar to an SF 1442 or SF 30, that’s followed by the signed Amendments, will this form be included in the forthcoming amendment?”

Answer: “The Solicitation is formatted as a Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, which does not include an SF 1442 or SF 30. To be considered for award, offers should be completed in accordance with the formatting and content parameters set forth in the solicitation’s Instructions to Offerors.”

10. Question: “Can the list of up to 25 projects also include projects from teaming partners / major subcontractors (Ref. Solicitation Page 84, Relevant Past Performance)?”

11. Question: “Can [offerors] provide previously completed work plans and Health and Safety Plan as an example in lieu of the requested site-specific work plans for the three scenarios (Ref. Attachment D.2, Example Scenario 1 – PA/SI, Page 1)?”

Answer: “The Forest Service would accept previously completed work plans as long as they are for similar sites and settings (i.e. a mine and mill site and not an unrelated industrial location).”

12. Question: “Is there a preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI), or similar type of report, that can be provided for the Williams Brothers Mine Site? If such a report is not available, could the Government please provide an estimated acreage for the site (Ref. Attachment D.3, Example Scenario 2 – PRP Investigation, Page 1)?”

Answer: “See attached report.”

13. Question: “Please confirm the pricing should include all deliverables stated on page 2 from draft workplan through final PRP report (Ref. Attachment D.3 – Example Scenario 2 – PRP Investigation, 5th Bullet, Page 1)”

Answer: “Pricing relating to the presented question needs to, at a minimum, include draft and final work plan and the draft and final PRP Search report.”

14. Question: “Please clarify what credentials are to be submitted (i.e. Professional Engineer, Registered Geologist, etc.) and the method of submittal (i.e. please provide applicable credentials for each key project management personnel within their resumes) (Ref. 12970223R0014 Solicitation, Specialized Experience and Qualifications of Key Personnel, Page 83).”

Answer: “The credentials represented in an offeror’s proposal should effectively represent the offeror’s understanding of the work activities and services contemplated under this solicitation and the resources and expertise required to fulfil those activities and services in full. It is expected that offerors will demonstrate that understanding by identifying in their proposal the professional qualifications and certifications needed to successfully fulfil the requirement. Professional licensing and certifications can be listed on resumes.”

15. Question: “Does the USFS intend to limit page counts on any or all of the sections of the responses/submittals?”

Answer: “No; the only page limit under this solicitation is that of the resumes (no more than two pages per person).”

16. Question: “Can [offerors] use a BPA or IDIQ as one of the five most representative projects completed in the last eight years?”

Answer: “The Government is asking to see projects that demonstrate the offeror’s actual work completed/performed. A BPA or IDIQ isn’t necessarily representative or inclusive of actual work performed. A Call Order or Task Order associated with an awarded BPA or IDIQ, respectively, would be more representative of an offeror’s actual work performed.”

17. Question: “Is the Contract Administrator information required for the five most representative projects supposed to be on the USFS’ side or on the contractor’s side?”

Answer: “The requested “contract administrator’s” information relates to the contact information for the agency/company who awarded the contract for the referenced project.”

18. Question: “Would [the Government] consider extending the proposal due date to allow time for offerors to adjust their proposal, based on answers to the questions submitted by the August 9, 2023 question deadline?”

Answer: “The proposal due date is extended from 1700 PST on 11 August 2023 to 1700 PST on 18 August 2023. See the Solicitation Amendment on SAM.gov. NOTE: The question deadline remains unchanged.”

19. Question: “Absent an SF 1442, SF 30, or guidance on what constitutes a “signed offer,” is a signed cover page ‘agreeing to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation’ and acknowledging the RFP [amendments] acceptable?”

Answer: “Yes. A signed cover page ‘agreeing to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation’ and acknowledging the RFP amendments is an acceptable way to satisfy the requirement for an offeror’s submission of a signed offer.”

MATTHEW L KILLIAN

Contract Specialist

USFS PPS SPOC SW

Attachments:

1. A11_QA-Attachment1-WilliamsBrosPA2005