Set 1 Environmental Questions and Answers 80GSFC20R0005.pdf

Environmental Services RFP 80GSFC20R0005

Questions and Answers Set 1

May 21, 2020

(Responses identified in bold and italics)

1. RTO2 - Is the EA for the draft EA already completed and under review through May 18, 2020? Or for the final EA process?

Representative Task Order (RTO) 2 is a requirement for completing all actions described in the RTO for a project to install additional “Redundant Fiber Optics.”

2. RTO2 - The RTO2 POP says not to exceed two years from award. Does this refer to the initial Scoping Period that began June 2019?

The Period of Performance listed in Representative Task Order (RTO) 2 is for completion of all work required by RTO 2.

3. Attachment F, Page 3, WBS -- The WBS Level II and III headers say Core and IDIQ

Requirements for Greenbelt. Is this a mistake?

A corrected Attachment F, Page 3 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) will be posted, removing “Greenbelt” from WBS Level II.

4. Are personnel (incumbent) resumes required?

The Request for Proposal does not require submittal of personnel (incumbent) resumes.

5. SOW Attachment A and Enclosure 7, Workload Indicators -- Is there a conflict for

1.3.2.1 c Workload Indicators says 1 new review/year and the SOW 1.3.2.1.c says “For the first 12 months of the contract only.”

There is no conflict. Statement of Work (SOW) 1.3.2.1.c requirements are only in effect for the first 12 months of the contract.

6. Enclosure 7 -- Are the 3 samples a week for Fecal Coliform and E. coli) performed on set days (e.g., M,W,F)?

In accordance with VPDES permit No. VA0024457 effective May 1, 2020, (to be added to the eLibrary at https://elibrary.gsfc.nasa.gov/), Fecal Coliform samples are required to be initiated 3 days per week (between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., and E. coli samples are required to be initiated 3-days per week (at 24 hour intervals between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.)

7. Can you share the identification of the incumbent(s) to this contract, or is it a new contract?

The incumbent at Greenbelt. MD, is Dine Development Corporation (DDC) dba DDC

4C.

The incumbent at Wallops Island, VA, is Ingenicomm, LLC.

8. Enclosure 7, pg. 12, 1.3.5 Air Quality – should the numbering be 1.3.4? Error carries through the rest of WBS.

A corrected Enclosure 7 will be posted.

9. Enclosure 7, pg. 13, 1.3.5.3 GSFC Findings Management for Air Quality. Is the workload indicator correct for 6 waste program findings per year?

10. Enclosure 7, pg. 16, 1.3.7.1.c Species Management. There is no workload indicator provided for Wallops, please provide this information.

Refer to the eLibrary at https://elibrary.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

11. Enclosure 1, pg. 69, B.5, Wallops Analytical Services. To respond to services provided off-site and on-site and explain the cost implications and risks, can NASA provide an estimate of how much has been spent a year, and/or expenses or records of equipment maintenance?

No. The information requested is not readily available.

12. Enclosure 1, pg. 65, A.1, Subfactor A.1 requires that offerors describe their approach to permit renewal. Is it acceptable for offerors to refer to this section when discussing permits in Subfactor B.1 to reduce redundancy?

It is not the Government’s intention that offerors repeat information from multiple locations. See clause L.23(a)(4), which specifies that the proposal shall include a matrix showing where in the proposal the technical requirements of the SOW and the evaluation criteria of this RFP are satisfied (i.e. SOW element versus Offeror's proposal page numbers). It is intended that this be a simple matrix that should in no way inhibit an innovative approach or burden the Offeror. This proposal matrix is excluded from the page limitations contained in paragraph (b)(1) below.

13. Enclosure 1, pg. 81, L.28, The text in L.28 uses 25% of effort on a project as the standard for significant subcontractor past performance. However, the calculation example uses

10%. Section M lists 25% as the standard. Please clarify.

The wrong percentage was used in the example in Clause L.28(a). The example should have been 25%. Below is the corrected paragraph. A revised Enclosure 1 –

RFP Clauses will be posted to correct the 25% past performance language. The correction will be identified in bold and italics.

For example (note, these example numbers may not relate to this specific procurement), if a procurement is valued at an average annual value of $50M and a proposed significant subcontractor for the effort has a proposed average annual cost/fee of $16M, the Offeror shall provide relevant current/past contract references that have a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred at/above $4M (25% of $16M) for that significant subcontractor.

14. L.24 page 61 states that an original signature is required for SF33s. Since this is an electronic submittal, would a scanned copy or electronic signature be acceptable?

A scanned copy or an electronic signature will be acceptable.

15. Section L page 79-80 states past performance must be provided for all projects that meet the criteria. On page 82 it states that past performance should be provided for five projects. Which is correct?

The five references stated in Clause L.28(a) was in error. The reference to five (5) will be removed. Below is the corrected paragraph. A revised Enclosure 1 – RFP Clauses will be posted to correct the language. The correction will be in identified in bold and italics.

If the prime Offeror is an existing joint venture, then the prime Offeror shall provide the majority of the reference contracts required above for the joint venture. If the joint venture is newly established for this effort and therefore cannot provide past performance contracts in the name of joint venture, then past performance from individual members of the joint venture will be considered.

16. Section M page 91 references an oral presentation, can more information be provided?

Oral Presentations are not applicable to this solicitation.

17. FAR 52.242-4 requires that a Certification of Final Indirect Cost Rates be submitted with the proposal. Please confirm the certification is required and which volume it should be included in.

The certification identified in FAR 52.242-4 only applies to the closeout of the contract. However, offerors are required to provide backup information in the Cost

Volume as outlined in the cost volume of the RFP.

18. The compensation plan requires labor categories to be identified as exempt, non-exempt, or union. Can current Wage Determinations be provided for SCA positions and the

Collective Bargaining Agreements be provided for union positions?

Per proposal section L.26(c)(a9), all proposed labor categories are to be classified as either exempt, non-exempt or union as required. Current Wage Determinations can be provided for SCA positions and the Collective Bargaining Agreements can be provided for union positions. Offeror’s are still required to submit a Total Compensation plan in accordance with the instructions outlined in the RFP.

19. Can additional information be provided for tasks associated with export/import?

There are no current tasks identified that are associated with export/import.

20. Section L.24, FAR 4.102 requires each joint-venture participant to provide signatures.

For JV submittals, is it acceptable for the managing member to sign the SF33 so that the form represents the JV and not individual members?

The managing member can sign the SF33.

21. As this is an electronic submission via NASA’s Large File Transfer (LFT) capability, offerors must request an LFT invitation to register for an account. Are significant subcontractors to submit required proposal files through the prime offeror’s LFT account or are subcontractors to establish their own LFT account to submit their files?

The proposals can be submitted with the prime or separately. The provision language states the following:

“Significant Subcontractors for the Cost Volume and/or Past Performance Volume may submit their required proposal information separately using the instructions in this provision.”

22. Please correct Enclosure 7 numbering so that we may properly organize our proposal response.

The following questions are still being reviewed by the Government:

23. Enclosure 1, pg. 69, L.27, Instructions state that an important prerequisite for award is the

Prime Offeror must have an accounting system that has been deemed adequate by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. Most small businesses, especially those without an existing prime cost-plus contract, have not had their accounting systems audited by the Federal Government. To our best knowledge, DCAA does not come to audit contractors' systems when requested by contractors unless directed and paid by another Government agency. This RFP requirement, for an 8(a) small business set-aside contract, will eliminate otherwise qualified 8(a) firms from responding to this solicitation. In order to allow for the greatest extent of competition, while still providing NASA a means to evaluate Contractor Responsibility per FAR Part

9-106, we request that NASA consider requiring contractors to submit a completed “Pre-

Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System” checklist. This checklist is available on the dcaa.mil website. If this is not an acceptable solution, please provide direction to small business contractors on how they can initiate an accounting system audit with NASA.

24. The equipment identified in Attachment C, Wallops IAGP, does not include much of the equipment identified in the corresponding library documents (e.g., Wallops Lab Work

Instructions, Sampling Plan for WW, SW, and DW). There are many field sampling requirements in 1.3.3 with no corresponding equipment. Is that an indication that the list is incomplete or that the equipment will not be provided?

25. FAR 52.219-14 Limitation of Subcontracting is dated July 2019 but references the

Deviation. The clause itself was updated March 2020 to include the deviated clause language which allows for similar situated entities. It also requires the CO to state how

Limitation of Subcontracts applies (i.e. by year, by order, by total contract). Would you please confirm that similar situated entities are included in the Limitation of Subcontract calculation? Will you clarify the second part of the clause to state how/when the calculation will apply to this contract?

26. Would the government provide a comprehensive list of ODC's or the historical ODC costs on the current contract to allow price to be more competitive among all bidders?