Questions_and_Answers_Received_Against_191BWC18R0012.pdf

Questions Received Against 191BWC18R0012 – Ocean Outfall Sampling and Monitoring

1. The quotation includes "annual remote sensing, to be billed quarterly"; however, the scope of work and NPDES permit do not describe the "remote sensing" to be accomplished. Please explain the methods and schedule for the required "remote sensing".

A: Attachment E, Part V.a

2. When does the current agreement of USIBWC with the incumbent end for Ocean Outfall monitoring services?

A: The current contract ends September 30, 2018.

3. What services is USIBWC looking for that is different from incumbent provider?

A: No services are being requested that is different from incumbent provider. Services are to satisfy the ocean outfall monitoring requirements per the State of California issued NPDES permit.

4. If the Offeror meets all the USIBWC selection criteria, can USIBWC will be able to terminate the existing agreement with the incumbent and award to the successful Offeror?

A: The current contract ends September 30, 2018, therefore there is no “termination” with the incumbent contractor.

5. The reporting requirements for the kelp survey are unclear, who is responsible for reporting the kelp survey results – the lead agency or the contractor for IBWC?

A: Ultimately the USIBWC as the permit holder is responsible however we are requesting that the contractor perform the kelp survey and provide the required reports to the USIBWC.

6. What is the status of the sediment toxicity monitoring plan development and implementation? If the sediment toxicity monitoring plan has been finalized, can you please include it in the response to questions or state where it can be found?

A: This is an ongoing requirement and not new to the amended permit. The plan was developed and housed by the current contractor.

7. Section C.3.1 of the SOW states that the USIBWC field office in San Diego shall be responsible for making arrangements and coordinating with Mexico for the sampling and monitoring being performed in Mexico. Can you confirm that the three shoreline stations located in Mexico (S1, S2, and S2) and the following offshore, trawl, and rig fishing stations located in Mexico are not included as part of this scope of work? (I1 through I12, SD16, SD15, and RF4).

A: The current arrangements are that sites in Mexico are collected and transferred by entities in

Mexico. This arrangement is not changed by this contract.

8. Section C.5.20 of the SOW states that all reports shall be submitted to USIBWC in three hard copies and one electronic copy. Section C.5.21 states that all reports shall be submitted in electronic format. Please clarify the requirement for reporting format.

A: 3 hard copies and 1 electronic copy

9. Section C.6.4.2 of the SOW states that the contractor shall coordinate with other ocean dischargers to perform the annual kelp survey. Who is the current lead agency for this coordination?

A: SCCWRP

10. Section C.6.4.3 of the SOW states that Tijuana wastewater shall be sampled at two “mobile” sites each week. What is the location of these mobile sites?

A: The mobile sites are determined by CESPT and delivered to the US so collection is not part of the contract just analysis.

11. Per Attachment E of the Permit (Section V.A.) should a significant loss of kelp bed area persist for more than one year, a dive survey should be conducted to document benthic and understory conditions. Please confirm that this contract does not include Kelp Bed Dive Survey Work.

A: This contract includes all requirements per the NPDES permit for the ocean outfall monitoring to include all Kelp Bed monitoring requirements.

12. We would like to know why this RFP was released when the work is currently contracted with the City of San Diego. Is the work truly available for contracting outside the City or is the Commission requesting competing bids to assist in re‐negotiating the costs with the City.

A: The general purpose of the federal government acquisition process is to seek the best value to the Government. As required by FAR 10.001, the USIBWC has conducted market research and determined there are multiple sources that could provide this service. RE: Sources Sought, 191BWCR332. Therefore, competition is being sought and pursuant to Section M.01 of the solicitation: The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror based on Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. Price will be based on the total amount for all CLINs. Technical acceptability will be based on (1) Technical Approach and

(2) Past Performance (See Section L.02).

13. The RFP was posted on 7/31 and the Q&A period closed only three business days later which, for a project as complex as this one, seems extremely short.

A: A presolicitation notice was posted on 6/21/2018. The Q&A session was posted for a total of

6 calendar days, but as the solicitation states, questions received after that deadline will be answered if deemed significant.