Copy_of_Q_and_A_7.25.19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 11 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2032H319R00010
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding solicitation number 2032H319R00010 for RESTORE Act Subject Matter Expert Review Services. The solicitation seeks proposals for scientific and technical expertise to assist with the review of grants under the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act). Services include evaluation of best available science, environmental compliance, and on-site construction reviews. The incumbent contractor is Research Planning, Inc. Proposals are due electronically and should not exceed 40 pages total, with technical, past performance, pricing, and conflict of interest sections adhered to specified page limits. Clarification was provided around formulas, page limits, evaluation criteria, and submission formats. Annual grant volumes are estimated at 20 for best available science, 35 for environmental compliance, and 10 for on-site construction reviews.
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP_2032H319R00010_-_revised_7-25-2019.pdf | ||
| RFP_2032H319R00010_-_revised_7-18-2019.pdf | ||
| Attachment_J-1_PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-4_-_Price_Submission_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_J-7_-_Task_Order_Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_2032H319R00010.pdf | ||
| Attachment_J-3_-_Conflict_of_Interest_Certification_for_Direct_Component_Outside_Reviewers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-5_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-6_-_QASP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_J-2_-_Conflict_of_Interest_-_Offeror.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFQ #2032H319R00010 - RESTORE ACT Best Available Science SME Review Services | ||
| Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | Some of the cells in the pricing sheets (attachments J-4 and J-7) have missing or incorrect formulas. Since the formulas in question are in the green and yellow cells, we assume it is OK to add/update the formulas. | Yes, it is okay to update formulas on the Pricing Sheet, in order to get the correct calculations |
| 2 | The page limit details are not entirely clear in the RFP, see the possible discrepancies between and within the instructions on pages 4-5 and pages 41-44. We understand that the overall page limit is 40 pages (technical approach limited to 20 pages, past performance limited to 12 pages, conflict of interest limited to 5 pages, and pricing limited to 3 pages, not including the pricing worksheets to be attached separately; also, the cover letter and other front matter [e.g., title sheet, table of contents, acronym list] do not count in the page limits for either volume). Please confirm if the above is correct. Also, may we include the SF 1449 forms and the FAR items requiring responses in the front matter for the technical volume, not counting these towards the page restrictions? | Please do not go above 40 pages for the total proposal. Technical Proposal (20 pages), Past Performance (max of 12 pages if submitting three references), Price Submission Worksheet (1 page), Conflict of Interest (up to 5 pages), Task Order Spreadsheet (1 page), if applicable -page discussing pricing discounts (1 page). Cover letter, Table of Contents, Acronym lists are not included in the page count and this has been updated on the soliciation. |
| 3 | On page 4 of the RFP, under Past Performance, there is a statement that “The Offeror shall provide evidence of successfully delivered grants management training modules as listed in this PWS that have received evaluation rating equivalent to above average or better”. Grants management training modules are not described in the PWS and do not seem to be part of the scope of this contract. Can you confirm please. | This sentence has been removed from the soliciation. Please just reference similar experience as related to that listed in the PWS |
| 4 | Is this a new requirement, merging of existing requirements or existing requirement with incumbent? | This is not a new requirement, it is a recompete of an existing requirement. |
| 5 | If this is an existing requirement with an incumbent, can you share the name of the incumbent contractor? | The current incumbent is Research Planning Inc. |
| 6 | Can you share the projected annual volume of grants in each of the three different grant categories? | Estimated annual volume: Best Available Science (20), Environmental Compliance (35), On-site Construction Review (10) |
| 7 | Can you share the evaluation criteria used for each of the three different grant categories? | Please refer to the procurement Performance Work Statement and the application packet, available on the Treasury RESTORE Act website, that includes a question about best available science and the Environmental Checklist: https://www.treasury.gov/services/restore-act/Documents/Direct_Component/RESTORE%20Act%20Direct%20Component%20Application%20Forms%20OMB%20Approval%20No.%201505-0250.pdf |
| 8 | Can you clarify whether the proposal should be submitted electronically via email to you or in a hard copy format as specified on page 38 of the RFP? | Please submit electronically. The wording about providing a hard copy has been removed from the soliciation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .