USCG_ENV_ENG_MATOC_DRAFT_Synopsis_Comments_&_Responses.pdf

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Nationwide Environmental Engineering Services Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)

Responses To Industry Comments On The Draft Synopsis

1. In Section 2, Footnote #1 states that Key Personnel will be designated for each task order.

Therefore, is it conceivable that at some point during the contract all the positions listed in Section 3.2 could be considered “Key Personnel”? If so, does the government have an estimate of how many of each discipline will be required (each task order, by fiscal year, aggregate, etc.)?

Due to variability of projects and workload, the Coast Guard (CG) does not have an estimate of how many of each discipline will be required. Historically based on the existing contract, there have been anywhere from 25-55 task orders issued in a fiscal year with the average being in the mid 30s per fiscal year. We do not have data on how many personnel were required by the contractors for each task order.

2. In Section 3.2, is the Coast Guard looking for just one person proposed per discipline, or for multiple people (e.g., all so qualified individuals within each firm)?

See final synopsis. Submit only one resume per discipline.

3. In Section 3.2, do the disciplines listed with a slash (i.e., #1, #2, #7, #10, #13) require either discipline listed? Or are offerors supposed to propose people for both of those disciplines (i.e., two people per discipline)?

See final synopsis. Submit only one resume per discipline.

4. In Section 3.2, for Senior Scientist and Principal Scientist, are any professional registrations acceptable other than PG? Or does the Coast Guard expect to see only geologists or related professionals in this discipline? If other registrations are acceptable, please specify those registrations.

Additional certifications will be accepted as long as the certification is appropriate and commonly recognized for the discipline.

5. Section 3 Selection Criteria, Subsection 3.2 Professional Qualifications – As indicated in the footnote, PE or PG licenses are required for personnel in specific discipline categories.

Professional geology license programs are administered at the state level. While some states utilize the Professional Geologist (PG) designation, other states like NC, WA and OR use Licensed Geologist (LG) or Registered Geologist (RG) designations that are the equivalent to PG. Are other equivalent professional geologist license designations permissible for personnel in the designated disciplines?

State equivalents are acceptable.

6. Question/Comment. If additional disciplines are included in the proposal, will the additional disciplines be viewed unfavorably by the USCG selection board?

Submit one resume for each discipline as instructed in the synopsis. Resumes submitted for additional disciplines will not be considered for the evaluation of Professional Qualifications, however, offerors may discuss additional disciplines as appropriate to address the other evaluation criteria.

7. The synopsis shortlists Engineer and Scientist in the list of required disciplines.

Question/Comment. Are there limitations to the types of engineers or scientists that can be proposed for the scope of work? (For example, please confirm that an environmental, civil, chemical, or other engineer or a classification is acceptable assuming these personnel have qualifications and credentials that align with scope.)

Resumes submitted must fall within the Function Codes as delineated in the synopsis and the personnel must demonstrate experience that supports the requirements of the synopsis.

8. The evaluation criteria of section 3.2 states “Firms that provide a broader range of certifications/registrations in Section H may be considered more highly qualified than ones that do not.”

Question/Comment. How is “broader range” defined? I.e., is it defined by type of registration provided? or by geography of registrations?

See final synopsis, this criterion was changed.

9. Reference Section 3.2 of the Draft Synopsis: We request that USCG consider requiring a science/engineering degree and hold either a PE, PG, or PMP for the Principal/Program Manager role. Program Managers typically focus on ensuring the contractor is meeting/exceeding client expectations; delivering on time and on budget/within price;

monitoring scope, quality, and risk under the program; meeting small business goals, executing programmatic work safely; etc., which requires a strong understanding of program and project management principles. The PMP, which is an industry- and government-recognized certification, requires at least 4,500 hours of documented project and program management experience, 35 hours of project management training, and successful completion of a 4-hour exam for certification. The PMP exam focuses on measuring the examinee’s understanding of project and program concepts in the areas of scope, quality, schedule, budget, risk, communication, and procurement and thus is a directly relevant measure of metrics critical to program management success.

Additional certifications will be accepted as long as the certification is appropriate and commonly recognized for the discipline. A Project Management Professional (PMP) would be considered an appropriate professional certification for a Program Manager or Project Manager.

10. For Professional Qualifications, Section 3.2 the solicitation states, “provide information that accurately identifies numbers and types of professionals and accreditation, making note of professional certifications and representation of state-certified professionals throughout the AOR.” This is a typical requirement for A/E IDIQ SF 330 and is difficult to concisely demonstrate as not all states register environmental and engineering professionals in the same manner. We have seen this handled differently by other agencies with a statement like this, “the A-E firm must be a registered/licensed architectural and/or engineering firm to be eligible for award; therefore, provide proof that your firm is permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering, (i.e. state registration number, a brief explanation of the firm’s licensing in states that do not register firms, etc.)” This places more emphasis on the capabilities of the firm rather than individuals, which is addressed in the resumes.

This criterion has changed. See final synopsis.

11. Can more than one resume be provided for the project manager position?

No. Submit only one resume per discipline. One resume may cover more than one discipline

(eg. Project Manager/Environmental Engineer). In instances where one individual’s résumé is used to cover more than one discipline, 2 pages may be allotted for each of the disciplines.

12. The evaluation methodology states “A firm that demonstrates a longer history of key personnel working together will be considered more highly qualified than one with a shorter history of key personnel working together.” There is really no way to show this on the resumes themselves, other than to show as many common projects as possible, and have the evaluation board note all of the common projects (which might include more than projects included in F). Perhaps this would be easier to demonstrate if the Coast Guard would allow SF 330 Section G to be part of the evaluation criteria.

See final synopsis. Section G will be evaluated as part of the evaluation criteria.

13. Clarification on the following required disciplines would be helpful:

Principal Scientist/Engineer – Is a resume expected for both disciplines?

See final synopsis. Submit only one resume per discipline. One resume may cover more than one discipline (e.g., Project Manager/Environmental Engineer).

14. Toxicologist/Chemist – These disciplines are somewhat different and frequently toxicologists cover the risk assessor role. Please clarify that separate resumes would be expected for a toxicologist and risk assessors.

The criterion has been revised. See final synopsis.

15. Archaeologist/Architectural Historian – These are different disciplines, will a resume be required for both?

16. Section 3.2 evaluation criteria includes, “Evaluation of each discipline will consider education, registrations/certifications, relevant experience, and longevity with the firm. A firm that provides resumes for key personnel with greater levels of education, relevant experience, and longevity with the firm will be considered more highly qualified than one that provides less qualified personnel, with less education, less relevant experience and a shorter duration with the firm.” Does the Coast Guard had an education criteria for each discipline? Would a firm that presents all disciplines with PhD level personnel be evaluated at the highest level? Is there a desired longevity with the firm the Coast Guard might be looking for?

17. Under selection Criteria 3, 3.2 professional Qualifications, Position 3, Project Manager (PM).

Will the offeror be permitted to provide more than one representative resume for evaluation.

This being a Nationwide Contract, there will be qualified PMs in different geographic locations that would demonstrate qualifications and experience within that region that would be specific to the geography.

The Project Manager resume does not need to cover the entire AOR for the Project Manger to be qualified, but must demonstrate relevant experience for the years of experience requirement in addition to the education requirement.

18. In Section 3.2, would the Coast Guard allow as Relevant Projects multi-year projects that are ongoing; for example, program support, where task years are complete but option years are still being executed?

Yes, as long as one CPARS/Past Performance Evaluation can be submitted for it and it is at least 65% complete.

19. In Section 3.2, would the Coast Guard allow as Relevant Projects any project that is 90% complete and will be completed within 6 months of the proposal due date?

Projects may be approximately 65% complete.

20. “In Part I, Section F, of the SF 330, submit 5 - 7 projects” The SF330 form allows for the submission of up to 10 projects. Would the USCG allow offerors to submit the full 10 projects- or are offerors limited to 7 example projects?

The CG will allow up to eight example projects so that firms may submit two projects per program area. The firms are, however, not required to submit two per program area.

21. “Projects must have the final deliverable 100% completed within 10 years of the date of this synopsis.” The 100% final deliverable requirement is highly restrictive for small businesses as well as emerging companies. We ask that the USCG consider allowing offerors to submit projects that are have been awarded or contracts which work is in progress. Adjusting this language will allow for a larger pool of small businesses to compete on this procurement, which could generate increased value to the Government.

Projects may be approximately 65% complete.

22. Section 3 Selection Criteria, Subsection 3.1 Specialized Experience and Technical

Competence. Are projects limited to work completed under one task order number or could work from multiple task order numbers for the same site and work be used as one project (i.e., different phases of work at the site same)?

Projects are limited to one task order number with one corresponding past performance record.

23. The synopsis states “An IDIQ contract is not considered one project.”

Question/Comment. Is it acceptable to submit a project that is not part of an IDIQ contract but was performed for one government entity under an initial contract with several subsequent contracts; each with several task orders issued, as needed, to complete the entire project over a period of years?

No. A project must be one contract with one past performance record or one task order with one past performance record.

24. Reference Section 3.1 of the Draft Synopsis: The draft synopsis/solicitation notes that IDIQ contracts cannot be submitted for the section F projects. Limiting offerors to 5 to 7 total projects can make it challenging to demonstrate experience in all of the required scope elements. Would USCG be open to allowing 1 or 2 IDIQ contract project descriptions to be submitted as part of the 5 to 7 total?

The CG will allow up to eight example projects so that firms may submit two projects per program area. The firms are, however, not required to submit 2 per program area. Firms are now allowed to provide additional supporting information in Section H to address 3.2 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

25. From the solicitation, it appears the Coast Guard is interested in innovative use of technology, which changes rapidly. Would the Coast Guard consider allowing a project that is less than 100% complete if the innovative technology portion of the contract is complete?

Projects may be approximately 65% complete.

26. “A minimum of four (4) projects shall have the prime firm as the prime contract holder.”

Requiring small business prime contractors to feature four (4) relevant projects as the prime contractor is restrictive for emerging companies. This requirement could hinder participation in the small business categories. We ask that the USCG consider allowing small business prime contractors to submit work conducted as a subcontractor. Additionally, we ask the USCG consider reducing the number of required example projects from the small business prime, from four (4) to two (2).

Four projects are required by the firm submitting the SF 330. Small businesses must comply with the clause FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting for the life of the IDIQ contract.

Submitting four out of eight projects helps demonstrate a small business firm’s ability to meet this contractual requirement.

27. “In the instance of JVs, projects may be submitted from each partner and counted as the four projects from the prime firm.” Please clarify if each JV entity must submit experience or if the JV could feature any number projects (or no projects) from each respective JV partner.

In the instance of JVs, projects may be submitted from each partner and counted as part of the four projects from the prime firm. At least one project must be submitted from each JV partner.

28. In Section 3.1, under Evaluation Methodology, do the terms “firm” and “firms” refer to the entire proposed team or just the prime firm?

The synopsis has been revised to clarify this.

29. Section 3.2 refers to Part I, Section H of the Form SF330 and the requirement to list the numbers and types of professionals for each firm. This information seems more suited to Part II, Block 9. Please clarify.

This requirement was changed. See final synopsis. Part II will now be considered as part of the evaluation.

30. In Section 4, the Draft Synopsis mentions that an audit of overhead rates should be performed. Is the expectation that a forward pricing audit should be performed? If not, please provide further guidance.

A forward pricing rate agreement will not be required. A verification/audit that the overhead rate being proposed for the duration of the contract is in compliance with FAR Part 31 will be required. The verification/audit may be performed by any 3rd party, DCAA, another government agency, a certified public accountant, etc. An escalation rate will also be negotiated as part of the fully burdened rates for this contract.

31. Also in Section 4 there is mention of a third-party auditor. Are we able to use any Certified

Public Accounting Firm with the necessary expertise, or is there a list of approved vendors?

There is no approved list of vendors. Any Certified Public Accounting Firm with the necessary expertise is acceptable.

32. The projected small business subcontracting goals listed Service Disabled Veteran Owned

Small Businesses (SDVOSB), but do not list Veteran Owned Small Businesses. (VOSB).

There are VOSB engineering firms that do not qualify for the other categories listed. except small business in general. Would the U.S. Coast Guard consider expanding this category to include all VOSBs regardless of service disability?

The Small Business Administration does not break out goals specifically for VOSB so the Department of Homeland Security also does not. The Coast Guard follows the policies set by the Department of Homeland Security for small business goals.

33. Would USCG consider awarding both a Large Business and a Small Business contract if an offeror is part of the Prime entity of both teams? For example, if a firm is the prime for the Large Business pool and part of a SBA-approved mentor-protégé joint venture for the Small Business pool? Or, would submitting for both pools mean only being selected for one? Will the government conduct the review of both the Large Business and Small Business proposals concurrently?

Any joint venture must be viable for the anticipated ten year duration of the contract for the business size category under which the offeror whishes to submit an SF 330. The USCG will consider awarding contracts to both large and small businesses if the prime entity is on more than one team. As stated in the synopsis, large businesses will compete against large businesses and small businesses will compete against small businesses.

34. Is it possible to respond to this sources sought under 541330 as an SDVOSB who does not meet the $15M size standard? Would it be possible to include the exceptions in the Sources Sought notice?

If your company does not meet the $15M size standard for small business, your company may compete as a large business.

35. We see from the Presolicitation Notice issued in July that the Coast Guard plans to make multiple awards including some set aside for small businesses. In that vein we would like to ask whether there would be any prohibition against a company bidding as both a prime contractor and a subcontractor. For example, as a small business we are considering submitting a proposal for consideration as a small business prime contractor; we may also wish to be included as a subcontractor on a large business’s proposal. Would there be any restrictions preventing us from bidding as both a prime contractor and a subcontractor?

There are no restrictions on performing as a prime or subcontractor on multiple teams.

36. For the referenced projects in Section F, will work done for other federal agencies carry the same weight as projects done for the Coast Guard?

Yes, provided the work is consistent with the requirements of the synopsis.

37. In the Submission Requirements, Section 6, the solicitation states, “In Block 9, firms are to use the positions listed above in the evaluation criteria for disciplines and include any other relevant Function Codes included in the SF330.” Some of the disciplines requested (Principal Scientist/Engineer, Senior Engineer, Senior Scientist are both a combination of rank/experience (“Principal” and “Senior”) but also include multiple disciplines listed in the standard Part II list (engineers would include civil, chemical, mechanical, geotechnical, etc.;

scientists would include biologists, geologists, environmental scientists, etc.). We would suggest modifying this to stay with the 62 disciplines listed in the SF 330 instructions where individual scientific and engineering categories are listed without regard to amplifying terms such as senior/principal.

See final synopsis. It has been changed to categorize the disciplines to the greatest extent possible within the function codes included on the SF 330.

38. Perhaps some clarification would be helpful on the reference to the key personnel in the contract. It is understood that each task order will have key personnel designated and that they might be different than the personnel included on the SF330. However, at the end of the solicitation (Section 6), it mentions that, “any Key Personnel substituted after award of this contract shall be equal to or better than the Key Personnel included in the SF 330 submission.” Might be helpful to call out if the people included on the SF 330 are in fact designated as key for the contract, or if the intent is the key personnel are at the task order level.

See final synopsis. It is more important to maintain the same Key Personnel for a particular task order than it is on the entire IDIQ level given the size, scope and duration of this contract.

39. Section 3.4 evaluation. Perhaps elaborate on the use of Government databases and publicly available sources for the past performance issues. It is not clear the search criteria that will be used. Will it be based on the firm as a whole, limited to the lead office, or the offices included in the SF 330?

The synopsis has been updated to address this.

40. The draft solicitation states, “The determination of which firms are the most highly qualified will be based on an assessment by the evaluation board on the firm’s ability to address the evaluation criteria included in the synopsis.” Does the statement indicate that all proposals will be fully assessed by the evaluation board, or that some other pre-screening process will be utilized before the actual evaluation is conducted?

See final synopsis. Additional clarifying language on the evaluation has been added.

41. In section 3.1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, only Section F is mentioned for the evaluation of this criteria, which would indicate only the projects count in the evaluation. Would the Coast Guard also allow Section H to be included in this criterion?

Yes, Section H has been added for this criterion. See final synopsis.

42. When will it be determined how many UR and How many SB awards will be made? In the selection process will SBs be held to the same standard as the large businesses i.e., will they be competing for the available contracts with the large businesses?

We will know how many unrestricted and small business awards will be made at the time of final selection. Award may be made to approximately four (4) large businesses and approximately four (4) small businesses. Large businesses will compete with large businesses for the four large business contracts and small businesses will compete with small businesses for the four small business contracts.

43. What is the definition being used for this procurement for “Key Subcontractors”

Any subcontractor included as part of the proposed team on the SF 330.

44. “A firm and its key sub-consultants or JV partners that more effectively addresses knowledge of locality will be considered more highly qualified than one that does not.” Please clarify the meaning and intent of “knowledge of locality”. Does this mean a firm which shows substantial knowledge of a specific or focused geographic area will be evaluated more or less favorably than a firm that shows “some” knowledge of all the referenced geographic areas?

Will experience in some geographic areas be considered more or less favorably than others?

See revised criteria language in final synopsis.

45. Reference Section 3.5 of the Draft Synopsis: The draft synopsis/solicitation notes that a firm with a longer relationship with a key sub-consultant or JV partner may be considered more highly qualified than one with a shorter relationship with key sub-consultants or JV partners.

Please consider removing the length of time firms have worked together as part of the evaluation methodology for qualification, as our experience has shown that we have successfully provided services to our government clients in concert with very qualified firms that we have worked with for a short period of time.

The criterion has been changed. See final synopsis. The CG does see value in having an established working relationship and a history of a team dynamic as valuable for the firms and their key personnel, but understands that subcontracting requirements do not always allow the same prime and subcontractor working together. Additionally, the ability of a firm to retain highly qualified individuals is indicative of good management capability.

46. Section 6 Submission Requirements. Responses shall not exceed 50 pages. Resumes are included in the overall page count. Please consider increasing the page count to allow for adequate space to provide information for all selection criteria and Description of Work areas.

The page count has been increased to 60 pages.

47. Reference – Submission Requirements Section 6

Related to labor rate proposals, Section 6 Submission Requirements states that “The Government has established a 14-day turnaround for the A-E firm’s proposal after receipt of the RFP.”

Question/Comment. Would the USCG be willing to extend this to a 21 day or more turnaround to encourage and facilitate more thorough response?

The 14 day turnaround is only for the rate proposal for the labor rates for the contract after final selection is made. This 14 day turnaround has nothing to do with the response time for submission of SF 330s.

48. Reference Section 3.2 of the Draft Synopsis: Because there are four broad scope areas, one

Project Manager resume might not reflect management of projects in all four scope areas.

Would USCG consider requiring multiple resumes in the Project Manager discipline?

The Project Manager resume does not need to cover ALL areas of this requirement for the Project Manger to be qualified, but must demonstrate relevant experience for the years of experience requirement in addition to the education requirement.

49. Reference Section 2 of the Draft Synopsis, Environmental Sustainability and Training:

Would USCG provide a bit more detail on the service area defined as: Provide specifications in support of sustainable building practices and energy conservation. What type of sustainable building practices and energy conservation are you referring to? Also, would USCG provide more detail on the following scope item: Develop environmental engineering and sustainability design work products?

See final synopsis. The request to“Provide specifications in support of sustainable building practices and energy conservation.” has been removed.

50. The draft solicitation states, “Services may be required in any U.S. state (including Alaska and Hawaii) or territory, as well as other locations outside of the U.S. where the USCG may have a mission interest. It is anticipated that the majority of the work would be performed at USCG facilities along the coastal U.S. (ocean, Great Lakes states, and inland rivers) and Alaska and Hawaii.” Over the past few years, it appears Coast Guard offices in Alaska and Hawaii have developed standalone small business A/E contracts and there has been minimal opportunities for work under the current MATOC outside of CONUS locations. If this is expected to continue, perhaps the solicitation could be modified to show the emphasis on CONUS locations with an understanding that Hawaii, Alaska, and US Territories could be included in task orders. With limited space to address the locality expertise (Section 3.3), it may be helpful to prioritize geographic areas of importance.

It is anticipated that this contract will be used to in Alaska and Hawaii in addition to being used in Continental United States (CONUS) locations. See revised criteria in the final synopsis. This contract vehicle is anticipated to be the primary source for Environmental Engineering Services for the U.S. Coast Guard.

51. We noticed that actual remediation/restoration services are not included in the listed scope of services, which is consistent with the current IDIQ. However, previous regional contracts (prior to the current national IDIQ) did include these services, which were occasionally utilized by various Coast Guard offices. Would the Coast Guard consider including these services in this IDIQ? In our experience with other agencies this is handled differently with some including these type of services and others not. If the Coast Guard includes these services it is not obligated to use them and may find it helpful in specific circumstances where the remediation/restoration services require the capabilities of an A/E firm due to the complexity of the contamination or the challenging logistics that come with some of the remote Coast Guard locations.

Remediation services that are incidental in nature to the performance of the work under this contract will be allowed, but task orders specifically for remediation will not be allowed.

52. The solicitation lists 18 environmental laws and 4 key environmental programs as the basis for the contract. The 4 key environmental programs have 31 bullets of aspects within these programs. This is a wide variety of items to respond to with the proposed page limitation of the SF 330. Perhaps the Coast Guard would considering putting the bullets in a prioritized order so the responding firms could focus the SF 330 on the elements most important/relevant to anticipated Coast Guard needs.

The listed 18 environmental laws and 31 bullets are listed as examples only. Additional laws and program aspects exist but are too numerous to list them all. The CG does not keep metrics on what laws are followed most often. Firms should provide information that demonstrates experience with environmental laws that supports the requirements of the synopsis.

53. Section 3.3 evaluation. The AOR is clear in the solicitation, but perhaps the Coast Guard might consider prioritization of regions/areas that are more important than others. With such a wide variety included in the AOR, it would be nearly impossible to address all the nuances and variations of environmental regulations across the AOR.

See revised criteria in the final synopsis.

**FIRMS ARE NOTIFIED THAT IF THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THIS

DOCUMENT AND THE SYNOPSIS, THE SYNOPSIS SHALL GOVERN.**