Amend_02_Qs_and_As.pdf

70Z05018RENVES200, USCG ENV Engineering Services IDIQ MATOC Amendment 0002 Questions and Responses

1. Under the Synopsis document posted on December 6, 2017, Section 3.1 Professional

Qualifications, request government’s clarification of the requirement for “The number of years of experience must be demonstrated through projects relevant to the scope of this requirement.” Section 3.1 further states “Part I, Section E, Block 19, under RELEVANT PROJECTS, include only projects having the final project deliverable approximately 65% complete within the past ten (10) years of the posting date of this synopsis.” Since respondent firms are providing projects that are limited to the past 10 years, and some of the positions require over 10 years of proven experience, it is unclear how projects should be used to demonstrate the required staff experience. For example, if a person has 20 years of experience from 1997- 2017, how do we demonstrate that experience using Relevant Projects if only projects completed after 2007 can be included in Section E?

Answer: A project that was started prior to the ten year period and then completed after the ten year period began would demonstrate ten plus years of experience assuming the individual then had other relevant projects within the ten year period. It is not necessary to demonstrate 20 years of experience, but only ten plus years.

2. Section 3.4 Past Performance indicates that CPARS PPQs are to be submitted for each project included in Section F. For projects that are less than 100% completed (as permitted as described in Section 3.2), is an Interim CPARS rating acceptable to submit?

Answer: Yes, an interim CPARS is acceptable.

3. Selection Criteria 3.1 Professional Qualifications: Please clarify whether you are requesting an Industrial Hygienist with Function Code 36 or an Industrial Engineer with Function Code 35.

Answer: Industrial Hygienist with Function Code 36.

4. Will the 11 by 17 pages count as 1 page (out of the 60 page limitation) or 2 pages (out of the 60 page limitation).

Answer: One page.

5. We have a standard contract funded with separate Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) that has one CPAR evaluation issued for the contract where each CLIN is separately evaluated within the CPAR. We would like to write up work performed under one CLIN as an example project in Section F. Would this be acceptable?

Answer: Yes, but please reference the entire contract under which this work is being performed so that the CPARS record can be reviewed.

6. Section 3.1 of the solicitation states “Provide proof that the firm and its proposed team are permitted by law to practice the profession of engineering (i.e., state registration number, a brief explanation of the firm’s licensing in states that do not register firms, etc.).” Can the USCG please confirm that for teams proposing as a Joint Venture, or JV yet to be formed, that documentation that the JV members or partners are permitted and/or registered to practice engineering will satisfy this requirement?

Answer: Confirmed. Documentation that the JV members or partners are permitted and/or registered to practice engineering will satisfy this requirement.

7. Final solicitation Section 4, Contract Structure, indicates an overhead rate audit must be conducted before submission of rate proposals. Our firm submits Incurred Cost Submissions (ICE) to our cognizant DCAA office every year, and have received adequacy determination for each ICE submittal. We have been subject to a multi-year DCAA audit in 2014 for prior years, resulting in no change to our indirect rates, and since this time DCAA has deemed our firm “low risk” and not selected for review under DCAA’s “low risk procedures.” Will the Coast Guard accept an adequate ICE submissions and related “low risk” determinations by DCAA as support for the overhead rate being proposed? If not, will the USCG provide time for a 3rd party audit to be conducted after selection is made?

Answer: Verification from DCAA is acceptable.

8. Page 2 of the Synopsis states: “If a firm is competing for this contract under a contractor team arrangement as defined in FAR Subpart 9.6, the firm must submit, along with their SF 330, a written agreement identifying the contractor team arrangements and fully disclosing the company relationships.” Do you intend contractors to provide teaming agreements for prime-subcontractor relationships as well as defined in FAR 9.601(2)?

Answer: Only team agreements for the prime contractor are required.

9. Section D – Organizational Chart. None of the evaluation criteria mentions evaluation of Section D. Under which, if any, criterion will Section D be evaluated?

Answer: The Section D – Organizational Chart may be used by the Selection Board when evaluating “3.5 Capacity and Management Capabilities”.

Additionally it will be used to help the Selection Board understand the overall organizational structure of the team submitting the SF 330.

10. In reference to Part E of the SF 330 – each résumé may be no greater than two (2) pages in length. Will the Government consider allowing “up to 10” projects vs. the restriction of “up to 5” per SF 330 instructions?

Answer: Yes, as long as the two page maximum is maintained.

11. Does the definition of a project, as clarified in the Synopsis as part of Amendment 01, also apply to projects that are cited on résumés?

Answer: Yes.

12. Regarding Discipline 4. Function Code 24 - Environmental Scientist* (10+ years exp plus appropriate state or professional certification commonly recognized for the discipline); Unlike Professional Engineers and Professional Geologists, there is not a single universally recognized or required professional certification associated with practice in the field of Environmental Scientist. Would USCG consider a resume that includes 25+ years of experience with 10+ years working with USCG, advanced degree (e.g., MS Environmental Management), relevant Professional Associations (e.g., Dredging Association, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), numerous relevant publications and presentations, and relevant Specialized Training as “Meets Criteria” for this discipline? Or would the individual resume be considered “Does Not Meet Criteria” due to the lack of a Certification? Note: this individual has been a key resource serving the USCG on a number of significant task orders on the current and previous Environmental A/E contracts and is considered an industry expert in his field, but appears to be precluded from consideration under the new contract synopsis.

Answer: Yes the individual would meet the criteria. Note the criteria states, “10+ years exp plus appropriate state or professional certification commonly recognized for the discipline”. If no professional certification is appropriate or commonly recognized for a particular discipline then none is required.

13. Regarding Discipline 7. Function Code 11 - Chemist**; Would a degree in Biology with a minor in Chemistry, plus 20 years of experience in the practice of environmental chemistry be considered “Meets Criteria” for this discipline, or does USCG require a major degree in Chemistry?

Answer: Yes, this individual would meet the criteria provided the experience is relevant to the discipline and the scope of this contract.

14. For the Risk Assessor labor category, please clarify the skill set that the Coast Guard is seeking. Risk assessment is a fairly broad subject. For example, it could cover human health risk, ecological risk, environmental compliance, operational liability, property due diligence, and financial risk. Which areas does the Coast Guard want the Risk Assessor’s skill and experience to cover primarily?

Answer: Risk assessment related to the scope of this contract.

15. In Section 3.1, Evaluation Methodology it is stated that "the firms proposed team members must demonstrate that each person proposed for each discipline have a professional certification as indicated by the asterisk for each of the 13 positions", regarding the Scientist Registrations, there are a number of certifications and registrations from National, State and even local jurisdictions for the many scientific disciplines involved in environmental programs. In some cases, there are no specific certifications for the skills required to perform a scientific role. Are all personnel presented as key personnel required to provide registrations or certifications in a discipline and, if so, how do we determine which certifications and registrations are deemed to be acceptable by USCG?

Answer: Only disciplines with a single * are required to have the appropriate or commonly recognized state or professional certification. Disciplines with two * must have 5 plus years of experience. If no professional certification is appropriate or commonly recognized for a particular discipline then none is required. Any industry recognized registration or certification relevant to the discipline will be recognized by the USCG.

16. What specific qualifications are you looking for in the chemist discipline? Are you looking for a chemist with more experience with QA/QC for laboratory and field work or are you looking for a chemist with more practical experience on understanding the chemical relationships, fate and transport for restoration projects?

Answer: Any chemist with experience relevant to the scope of this contract will be acceptable provided the five plus years of experience is also met.

17. Regarding the allowable font size for the SF330 content, in the answer to question 6, it was stated “11 pt. font for all content added by the firm; default font size (which is 10 pt.) as included in the SF 330 forms available from GSA is acceptable.” Could you please clarify whether the allowable font size is 10 pt or 11 pt for the content that we add in the SF330 form.

Answer: 10 pt font is acceptable if it is the default font size included in the SF 330, otherwise use 11 pt font.

18. In Section 3.1, there are single asterisks (*) next to the Program Manager, Project

Manager, and Environmental Scientist disciplines, and the synopsis notes that these disciplines must have “appropriate state or professional certifications commonly recognized for the discipline”. Given that this contract is for Engineering Services, would a Professional Engineer registration be considered appropriate for the Program Manager and Project Manager positions? Additionally, what state or professional certification does the USCG deem appropriate for the Environmental Scientist position?

Answer: Yes a Professional Engineer registration would be considered an appropriate registration for the Program Manager and Project Manager positions. See questions 12 and 15 above for the Environmental Scientist.

19. Our small business firm will include licensed engineers, and our team includes a subcontractor which is a registered/licensed engineering firm in several states. As the small business prime on this project, the engineer in responsible charge of its engineering work is located in and licensed in Minnesota. This is all Minnesota requires of our firm – that the engineer in responsible charge of its engineering work is licensed in Minnesota. (See Minn. Stat. § 326.14). We can elect to be governed as a professional engineering firm in Minnesota, but making this election is not required under Minnesota law. Accordingly, we have complied with the law applicable to us for offering engineering services. Is this sufficient so as to allow our team to advance in Step One? In the alternative, if our firm has completed and sent in the necessary paperwork making that election to the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design at the time that our team submits its proposal, is this sufficient for our team to advance in Step One?

Answer: If your firm has complied with applicable state laws to practice the profession of engineering then your firm would meet the requirements of this synopsis.