J.05 Q&A.pdf

Answers to Questions Raised by the Contractors for the IDIQ RFP Solicitation

Question 1: Is the Merit Factor response the only scored response portion? Will the SF330 also be scored/graded? If the SF330 will be scored/graded, would you please clarify how scoring/grading will be applied? For example, will SF330 Section E Resumes be graded based on Merit Factors 3 and 4? Will SF330 Section F Projects be graded based on Merit Factors 1 and

2. Will SF330 Section D be graded based on Merit Factor 4? Etc.

Answer 1: Merit Factor responses will be evaluated along with the information provided in the

SF330.

Question 2: In Merit Factor 2 you state there is a 10-year time limitation for projects, are we to assume this time constraint is consistent throughout our response?

Answer 2: Yes, information for any project in the last 10-years period is sufficient throughout your responses.

Question 3: In the J.01 Evaluation Factor document, you specify that page margins shall have the following minimum dimensions: Left 1 inch, Right 0.75 inch, Top 0.4 inch, and Bottom 0.5 inch. The SF330 template has pre-set margins different than these with content that does not fit within the requested dimensions. Can you confirm that we may use the standard SF330 page margins and that the requested Evaluation Factor dimensions only apply to the Merit Factor portion of our response?

Answer 3: Document format specified applies to Merit Factor responses. For the SF330, please stay with the existing format of that form.

Question 4: Does the 12-point, Times New Roman font requirement only apply to the Merit Factor portion of responses or does it also apply to the SF330 as well?

Answer 4: Document format specified applies to Merit Factor responses. For the SF330, please stay with the existing format of that form.

Question 5: The requirement is that all responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman Font.

Does this also apply to tables and graphs, or can we provide tables and graphics with text that is smaller or with different fonts provided they are still easy to read?

Answer 5: Format specification applies to all texts, graphs, and tables.

Question 6: Is it acceptable to present the SF330, Section D Organizational Chart on a neatly folded 11x17 page?

Answer 6: Please follow the general and specific instructions provided for the SF330 and provide information for each section in the space provided in the SF330 without any extra insertions.

Question 7: Are bidders required to provide a completed Section K- Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents as part of our proposal submission?

Answer 7: Yes the bidders are required to provide a completed Section K as part of the proposal submission

Question 8: Are bidders required to provide a completed Section L.01 as part of our proposal submission?

Answer 8: Yes, the Offeror is required to delegate a person to be contacted for this contract.

Question 9: Is the requirement that we submit one binder containing the SF 330 and a separate binder containing the Merit Factors? Or, should all the SF330 Sections and Merit Factors be included in one binder. If the Merit Factors are required to be included in the same binder with the SF330, where in the sequence should the Merit Factors be included?

Answer 9: All documents shall be put in one binder. SF330 documents can be put in the binder after the response to the Merit Factor 5. The Offeror needs to submit five (5) binders (one original and 4 copies) along with a digital copy (CD or flash drive).

Question 10: Please clarify the statement "The Offeror shall not exceed 2 pages in length" as it pertains to Merit Factor 3, Item 1 and the 20 categories listed. Is the requirement that the entire write-up for the response to Merit Factor 3, Item 1 not exceed 2 pages or is the requirement no more than 2 pages for each category, for a total maximum of 40 pages?

Answer 10: For MF3, Item 1 with all the categories, the Offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages.

Question 11: Is there a difference in information required for common disciplines listed between the personnel in disciplines in Merit Factor 3 vs Proposed Professional Team in Merit Factor 4, Item 2?

Answer 11: MF3 provides for firm’s qualified professionals in various disciplines while MF4 provides for specific professionals that are to be assigned for this specific contract with

USIBWC.

Question 12: Is licensing/registration required in either TX, CA, NM, AZ for engineering discipline personnel?

Answer 12: Yes engineering licensing is required in either TX, CA, NM or AZ; however, project documents in a particular state have to be signed by the engineer registered in that particular state.

Question 13: Is there a difference in information required for common disciplines listed between the personnel in disciplines in MF3 vs Proposed Professional Team in MF 4?

Answer 13: MF3 is about firm’s general qualified professionals in various disciplines while MF4 is about the firm’s specific professionals that are to be assigned for this specific contract with USIBWC.

Question 14: Is there a deadline for questions to be submitted?

Answer 14: See amendment

Question 15: Given the requirement that submittals be delivered hard copy and not electronically, would it be possible to request an extension to the deadline based on the reproduction and shipping required?

Answer 15: Deadline specified in the RFP is final.

Question 16: If responses are shipped with signature required by recipient, will someone be available to sign/accept delivery? Can you please confirm that submissions are to be shipped to the following:

Attn: Philip Johnson, IBWC

USIBWC – ACQUISITIONS DIV

4191 North Mesa St.

El Paso, TX 79902-1441

Answer 16: Yes during office hours (8 am to 5 pm) in weekdays, someone will be available to accept the delivery. Shipping address as shown above is correct.

Question 17: In order to save large amounts of paper from multiple hardcopy submittals, we request the option to submit our responses electronically via email or through another Federal system such as Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), DoDSAFE, ProjNet, or another secure file transfer system used by IBWC.

Answer 17: Please follow the Submission requirement (L.02) that clearly states the submission of one original and four copies for total of five binders plus a digital copy on CD (flash drive)

Question 18: Is it acceptable to provide responses to the Merit Factors in the SF330 Section H - Additional Information section?

Answer 18: USIBWC required information is already solicited in the merit factors evaluation.

USIBWC does not require any additional information for the SF330 Section H.

Question 19: Will IBWC be responding to any questions before the submittal deadline, or waiting until all questions are received to respond?

Answer 19: Questions will be accepted up to 20 days prior to the date of the proposal submission.

Question 20: Could Merit Factor 3.1 be expanded from a 2-page limit to a 12-page limit to accommodate all requested information?

Answer 20: The Offeror shall not exceed 2 pages in length for this section.

Question 21: Would it be acceptable for Merit Factor 4.2 to include an 11x17 page org chart and a 2-page table?

Answer 21: Organization structure is not required for this section; the offeror shall not exceed 2 pages in length for this section of the Merit Factor (2.D.2 for Revised merit Factors).

Question 22: Could Merit Factor 4.1 be expanded to 3 pages to accommodate all requested information?

Answer 22: Please stay with 1 page response requirement for a past project in this section.

Question 23: Does the 12 pt Times New Roman font requirement apply to the organization chart? Can the organization chart be 11 x 17 page size?

Answer 23: : Please provide 1 page response with 12 pt Times New Roman font separately for each firm’s (prime, and joint venture firm) corporate structure. 11X17 size page can be used in this section.

Question 24: HDR would like to include hard copies of our CPARS for ease of review. Would it be acceptable for us to include an appendix to the Merit Factor package and CPARS reviews in SF 330 Section H?

Answer 24: Hard copies of CPARS are neither required as an Appendix to the Merit Factor Package nor for the SF330 Section H. You can describe your score in past performance section, but USIBWC has access to the CPARS.

Question 25: How many projects can be submitted in the SF330 Section F?

Answer 25: Up to Ten (10) projects can be submitted in the space provided in the SF330.

Question 26: Are Section F and Section E required to be one page each or can we submit two pages each?

Answer 26: Please follow the general and specific instructions provided for the SF330 and provide information for each person (Section E) and each project (Section F) in the space provided in the SF330 without any extra insertions.

Question 27: Does the government have specific information it wants to see in the SF330 Section H?

Answer 27: USIBWC required information is already solicited in the merit factors evaluation.

USIBWC does not require any additional information for the SF330 Section H.

Question 28: The SF330 has less than 1” margins. Do the 1” margins apply to the SF330?

Answer 28: Please use the existing format of the SF330; 1” margins don’t apply to the SF330.

Question 29: One more question regarding the questions on the IDIQ solicitation. The amendment says questions aren’t due until March 1. Will IBWC be submitting any responses prior to receiving all questions, or will they be submitting a responses amendment before receiving all questions? Just asking because the deadline for questions being March 1 doesn’t leave IBWC much time to submit responses before the March 20 deadline.

Answer 29: Q&A attached J.05 A&Q.

Question 30: In order to fit corporate organizational charts for each JV firm in Merit Factor 3.3 Corporate Structure, we would like to request additional page limit. (2017 submission allowed for 3 pages)

Answer 30: Please provide 1 page response separately for each firm’s (prime, and joint venture firm) corporate structure. 11X17 size page may be used for this section.

Question 31: In order to fit all requirements for Merit Factor 4.2 Proposed Professional Team in 12pt font, we would like to request additional page count for this section. (2017 submission allowed for 5 pages)

Answer 31: The offeror shall not exceed 2 pages in length for this section of the Merit Factor (2.D.2. for Revised merit Factors).

Question 32: Please specify what time both questions and submittals are due on the respective dates (1 March and 20 March).

Answer 32: Time of proposals is stated on the solicitation. Questions no time specified.

Question 33: The Evaluation Criteria does not specially mention how the sections of the SF 330 will be evaluated, but it is very clear how each of the merit factors will be numerically scored.

How are the sections of the actual SF330 form such as project descriptions (Section F of the SF 330 format) and additional information (Section H of the SF330 format) evaluated?

Answer 33: Merit factors will be evaluated along with the information provided in various sections of the SF330.

Question 34: Item #5 states, “The responses to the Evaluation Factors shall be submitted in one

(1) three ring binder and a pdf file that is in the same sequential order as provided. All Merit Factors shall be separated with a tab and all pages within the Merit factor shall be numbered in the following manner: x of xx.” Would the IBWC consider changing this requirement to an electronic-only submittal via email?

Answer 34: USIBWC requires the Offeror to submit 5 hard copies (one original, and 4 copies) in three ring binders and a digital copy in a CD (flash drive).

Question 35: The sentence under Item # 6 on page 1 of 7 states, “…Refer to the last page for a format of sample responses.” No format of sample responses was included in this document.

Please provide.

Answer 35: All responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman font. Margins shall have the following minimum dimension: Left 1 inch, Right 0.75 inch, Top 0.4 inch, and Bottom 0.5 inch.

Please use 8.5X11 size paper except for the corporate structure (Merit Factor 3) where 11X17 size paper may be used.

Question 36: F.01 Place of Performance - It is stated that the required projects shall be in TX, NM, AZ, and CA, but also within the Republic of Mexico (States of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California). Task orders may include work to be performed within Mexico for international projects.

a. Please clarify the USIBWC requirement to have staff and firms that are licensed and registered to practice engineering in Mexico for this solicitation.

b. Will Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance be required for work performed by individuals outside the United States and within Mexico on this contract?

Can you provide a general statement about the types of projects that we would be required to perform that are completely located within Mexico?

Answer 36: Will follow up with an answer

Question 37: Many contract clauses are incorporated by reference. One of the clauses is 52.222 – 54 (Employment Eligibility Verification) Considering that projects may be within the Republic of Mexico (States of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California), please clarify your expectation that we must verify the employment of Mexican citizens as part of this contract.

Answer 37: If within Mexico 52.222-54 would not apply.

Question 38: H.08 Ordering Procedures. Part (e) (2) of this section describes that each interested contractor must provide a Volume 1 (Quals, Tech Understanding, Schedule, Other Info) and a password protected Volume 2 (Detailed Cost/Price) in their task order proposal. This process requires a significant effort from each interested contractor. Other federal agencies have adopted a more streamlined process that can save the USIBWC a significant amount of time and effort.

This process only requires offerors to prepare a page limited (usually 15 pages or less) update to their SF330 that addresses the specific task order requirements. The agency then uses this information as the basis to select a single IDIQ contractor with whom to begin price negotiations.

If a satisfactory price cannot be negotiated, the next most qualified firm is notified, and price negotiations commence with that firm. This is a very efficient process that enables work to be awarded and completed rapidly. Will the USIBWC consider using such a process that parallels what other US government agencies have implemented?

Answer 38: No.

Question 39: The last page of the J.02 PDF document available on SAM-gov is shown as page 7 of 12. Are there additional pages of this document that have been omitted? If so, can you provide us with the full document?

Answer 39: J.02 has been replaced.

Question 40: It is conceivable that we could include a significant number of resumes in Section E of the SF330 to prove our experience with all facets of the Merit Factors. Would the USIBWC be willing to limit the number of resumes to be submitted in Section E, or limit the number of pages required in any other section of the SF3330 form?

Answer 40: Please follow the general and specific instructions provided in the form SF330 and provide any information required within the space provided in the form without any extra insertions. For Section E, you need to provide the resumes for key professionals proposed for this contract (Merit Factor 4).

Question 41: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 5 of 7, Merit Factor 2 – Item no. 1 (g) “This list, in conjunction with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), will be used for evaluation.”

CPARS limits us to federal projects only. For non-federal project examples, which do not use the CPARS system, will a client contact and reference information suffice in lieu of a CPARS?

Answer 41: For non-federal projects, client contact and reference information shall be sufficient.

Question 42: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 6 of 7, Merit Factor 3 – “(Note that the one-page maximum requirement does not apply to this Category, however additional information submitted other than what is requested will not be read and evaluated: The offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages in length.)” Given the volume of disciplines listed, to provide our qualifications for each at Times New Roman 12-point font would require at least 10 pages. May we have additional pages for this subsection?

Answer 42: The Offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages in length.

Question 43: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 1 of 7, Item no. 5 “The responses to the Evaluation Factors shall be submitted in one (1) three ring binder and a pdf file that is in the same sequential order as provided. All Merit Factors shall be separated with a tab and all pages within the Merit factor shall be numbered in the following manner: x of xx.” Please clarify that a single pdf with SF330 followed by Merit Factors 1 through 5 is appropriate or do you need two separate pdf documents

– one for SF330 and the other for Merit Factors?

Answer 43: SF330 information can be added after response to Merit Factor 5 in the same pdf.

Question 44: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 1 of 7, Item no. 5 “Responses that are not in the format specified shall be set aside and shall not be evaluated. There will be no exceptions. Refer to the last page for a format of sample responses.” There is no sample responses page attached. Could you provide one?

Answer 44: All responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman font. Margins shall have the following minimum dimension: Left 1 inch, Right 0.75 inch, Top 0.4 inch, and Bottom 0.5 inch.

Please use 8.5X11 size paper except for the corporate structure (Merit Factor 3) where 11X17 size paper may be used.

Question 45: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 3 of 7, “Neutral - Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance” What does a Neutral rating mean? Does it mean that the project does not count?

Answer 45: The project will be counted with a past performance score as “Neutral”.

Question 46: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 3 of 7, “Neutral - Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” For non-federal project examples, which do not use the CPARS system, will contact information for our clients suffice, as they can speak firsthand about our relevant past performance record?

Answer 46: For non-federal projects, client contact and reference information shall be sufficient.

Question 47: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 6 of 7, Merit Factor 3.1 and 4.2 seem to request very similar information (i.e., names of specific personnel), but with a few variations in discipline types. Can you please let us know the intended difference between the two subsections?

Answer 47: MF3 provides for firm’s qualified professionals in various disciplines while MF4 provides for specific professionals that are to be assigned for this specific contract with

USIBWC.

Question 48: Would it be beneficial to USIBWC reviewers to include CPARS (federal projects) and client reference information (non-federal) as an appendix to Merit Factor 2.1?

Answer 48: Hard copies of CPARS are neither required as an Appendix to the Merit Factor Package nor for the SF330 Section H. You can describe your score in past performance section, but USIBWC has access to the CPARS. For non-federal project, client contact and reference information can be added in the project description.

Question 49: We assume we can use a smaller font size in tables, graphics, and callouts, similar to previous USIBWC IDIQ submittals. Is this acceptable?

Answer 49: Format specification applies to all texts, graphs, and tables.

Question 50: How will the SF330 portion be graded compared to the Merit Factors?

Answer 50: Merit Factor responses will be evaluated along with the information provided in the

SF330.

Question 51: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES INSTRUCTIONS Page 1 of 7, Item no. 1 “All responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman Font.” Does the requirement of 12-point Times New Roman font for the Merit Factors also apply to the SF330?

Answer 51: Document format specified applies to Merit Factor responses. For the SF330, please stay with the existing format of that form.

Question 52: Is the information requested in J.01_Evaluation_Factors separate from the SF 330 forms?

a. Or should these be placed in a specific area within the SF 330 forms?

b. Do we follow the specific font and margin requirements for this section only?

c. J.01_Evaluation_Factors also states to “Refer to the last page for a format of sample responses,” but I’m not seeing the sample responses. Is this something you can still provide?

d. Should the binder be labeled anything specific?

Answer 51: Merit Factor responses will be evaluated along with the information provided in the SF330 form.

a. Merit factor responses need to be separate, these are not to be inserted in the SF330. Please follow the general and specific instructions provided for various sections of the SF330.

b. Follow the specific font and margins requirements for Merit Factor responses.

Stick with the existing format of the SF330 form.

c. All responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman font. Margins shall have the following minimum dimension: Left 1 inch, Right 0.75 inch, Top 0.4 inch, and Bottom 0.5 inch. Please use 8.5X11 size paper except for the corporate structure (Merit Factor 3) where 11X17 size paper may be used.

d. No specific labelling of the binder is required as long as the binder can be identified to be from a specific vendor.

Question 52: Are you only requiring hard copies for J.01_Evaluation Factors or should we also include copies of our SF 330 forms?

a. Just to confirm, should hard copies be sent to the following address:

International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)

USIBWC - ACQUISITIONS DIV

4191 NORTH MESA ST

EL PASO, TX 79902-1441

Answer: Hard copies of SF330 forms need to be added after the response to Merit Factor 5 in the three ring binder. A digital copy of the documents in a pdf file is also required. Please send your materials to the following address:

Attn: Philip Johnson, IBWC

USIBWC – ACQUISITIONS DIV

4191 North Mesa St.

El Paso, TX 79902-1441