ECO2-_RFP_QAs.docx

80JSC017R0017- ECO2

Questions and Answers – RFP

CONTRACT QUESTIONS

1. Section B.12 of the RFP states: “The parties agree that the fully burdened labor rates established below shall not be subject to any adjustment (upwards or downwards), regardless of actual rates incurred during contract performance, with the exception of changes due to Collective Bargaining Agreement or Service Contract Labor Standards.”

a. We assume that this statement applies to pricing task orders and that the FBR rates proposed will become fixed contract rates that will be used for estimated costs and fixed fee on cost-reimbursable task orders. We also assume, based on other statements in the RFP that the Government does not intend to cap rates for invoicing purposes. In other words, the Government will reimburse allowable costs in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, including direct labor rates that may be slightly higher or lower than CPFF contract rates. If these assumptions/interpretations are not correct, please clarify the above statement from B.12.

Correct, pricing of all CPFF IDIQ task/delivery orders shall be in accordance with the negotiated rates set forth in section B. Also, under a cost reimbursable type contract, the Government will reimburse allowable costs as defined in Clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment.

2. Section E.2, FAR 52.246-11(DEC 2014) HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENT (a) The Contractor shall comply with the higher-level quality standards selected below.

a. Does NASA expect offerors to be ISO 9001:2015 and 14001:2015 certified or simply to be compliant with the White Sands Test Facility’s ISO certifications?

Offerors are required to maintain compliance with ISO 9001:2015 and 14001:2015 which are applicable to WSTF as defined in clause E.2. However, an ISO certification is not required for the contractor organizations.

3. Cover letter - Acquisition Features, Item b. - The paragraph indicates the government may transition activities from cost plus to firm fixed fee at any time. Will negotiations be allowed should this occur since typically firm fixed fee activities entail a higher level of risk than cost plus activities and thus, level of effort and/or profit should be negotiable should this occur?

Every task order (not already pre-priced at time of award) will be processed per NFS, 1852.216-80 Task Ordering Procedures, which enables the contractor to submit a task plan that may be negotiated with the Government for labor hours, material, travel, etc. prior to issuing the task order. However, the proposed labor rates and fee would have been already pre-defined in Section B of the contract and therefore fixed and not negotiable at time of task order negotiation. All future task orders provided to the contractor will state whether they are Firm-Fixed-Price or Cost-Reimbursable.

4. Section H.4 and Section H.12 - Section H.4 requires we indicate our proposed program manager as a key individual and Section H.12 requires we indicate our site manager. Does NASA intend that this be the same individual?

As stated in Section H.4, offerors shall list their proposed Program Manager as the only designated key personnel for the contract. As stated in Section H.12, offerors shall identify an on-site representative who has complete authority to decide on all matters related to this contract. It is the offerors choice/decision on whether this is the Program Manager or some other individual.

5. Section H.20 (b) - Please clarify this clause, contractors should charge labor required for procurement services directly to 1.7 of the FFP for all task orders including CPFF TOs.

PWS section 1.7 is part of task order ##EEX001 which refers to PWS 1.0 for management, oversight, and general operations of the WSTF environmental program. This task order requires firm fixed pricing for procurement services to support any task order work issued under the contract.

6. Section H.20 (b) - Please clarify, no other indirect rate or factor, with the exception of G&A, shall be applied to supplies or services….

As indicated in clause H.20(b), no other indirect rate or factor, with the exception of G&A, shall be applied to supplies or services purchased by either the prime contractor or subcontractor that is already directly charging their time to the contract as a procurement service. For example, an overhead rate shall not be applied to the purchase of supplies or services for this contract.

7. Section I (page I-5) - Clause 52.229-10 NMGRT – please clarify if this applies to all Task Orders not just Cost Reimbursable.

As indicated in Clause 52.229-10, this clause is applicable only to cost reimbursement task orders. However, please note that clause 52.229-3, Federal, State, and Local Taxes applies to fixed-price task orders.

DRD QUESTIONS

8. Section 17.4 /TA3 - Staffing & Critical Skills Plan DRD ECO2-006(v) requires a plan for retaining and maintaining a qualified workforce for “expected high attrition” positions throughout the course of the contract.

a. So that offerors can propose meaningful specific actions to meet this requirement can the government indicate what positions are likely and expected to be high attrition due to the unique requirements associated with ECO2 by providing information on what positions have historically experienced high attrition and/or that are of specific concern to the government in this regard on the current ECO contract?

In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised the DRD-ECO2-006 (Section 8.c.v.) language to state “Retention Plans for maintaining and retaining a qualified workforce throughout the course of the contract.” This removes the need to identify high attrition positions. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

9. Section 17.4 /TA6 Total Compensation Plan - DRD ECO2-012 requires inclusion of a TCP from subcontractors who meet the criteria within NFS 1852.231-71(d) as a part of the offerors TCP. How and in what format is compensation data which may be considered proprietary by the subcontractor to be submitted to the government?

Proprietary subcontractor data may be submitted via a non-rewritable compact disc directly to the Government at the address listed in L.7, Proposal Marking and Delivery. Subcontractor data is subject to the same formatting instructions as the prime; refer to L.17, Instructions for Proposal Preparation. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government modified this language to clarify.

10. Att. J-01, DRD ECO2-015 -Please clarify the due dates for various iterations of the IT Management Plan under the heading “IT Management Plan initial submittal.” Specifically, please clarify the following items under this heading:

a. What document or deliverable does item #1 (“Due at start of phase-in + 15 calendar days”) pertain to, given that draft and final IT Management Plans are due later as stated in items #3 and #4?

The first draft of the IT Management Plan is due at the start of phase in +15 calendar days. This first draft will be reviewed by the appropriate Government personnel, and the contractor will revise it during the phase-in period, and ultimately submit the revised draft at contract start as indicated in the DRD.

b. Does “transition start” in item #2 mean the start of the phase-in period? Please clarify.

Correct, the transition start means the start of the phase-in period.

c. Does “contract start” in items #3, #4, and #5 refer to the start of the contract period of performance (i.e., June 1, 2018)? Please clarify.

Correct. Contract start is the first day of the period of performance (i.e. June 1, 2018).

11. Att. J-01, DRD ECO2-010- In the submittal schedule for Initial and Final Safety & Health Plans (DRD item f), please clarify whether “Phase-in + 15 calendar days” and “Phase-in + 60 calendar days” refer to 15 and 60 days after the start of the phase-in period, or 15 and 60 days after the end of the phase-in period.

The submittal schedule for the initial draft is the start of phase-in plus 15 calendar days. The requirement for the final draft is the start of phase-in plus 60 calendar days.

12. Att. J-01, DRD ECO2-007 - The DRD for the Phase-In Plan (DRD ECO-007) requires description of “how an inventory will be performed with the Incumbent Contractor of all records that will be transitioned.” Please provide additional information regarding the number and volume of hard copy records currently maintained by the incumbent contractor, and whether a current inventory list of hard copy records is maintained.

As described in Section 1.5 of the PWS, the environmental program primarily manages records using an electronic records management system that maintains PDF copies of all documentation on servers and is accessed using a key word searchable database system. Current reporting requirements using hard copy submittals are relatively limited and are generally associated with environmental permit requirements, contingency plans, and certain regulatory compliance deliverables. Between the hard copy files and the electronic records management system it is estimated that there are more than 100,000 current and historical documents. Additionally, there are more than one million analytical data records in various database systems. All of these documents, records, deliverables, and data reports are accessible and have inventory records available for a timely evaluation and transition process.

13. Attachment L-1, IDIQ Task Order ##EEX001 -In determining the total number of 533 reports to be prepared, are the 533 monthly Task Order reports indicated in Attachment L-1, IDIQ Task Order ##EEX001, Environmental Operations, description of work part 2.b the same as those indicated in part 2.h?

In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised Attachment L-1 to clarify that Section 2.b includes the financial reporting requirements as described by both Section 2.g (DRD ECO2-001) and Section 2.h (DRD ECO2-002). Additionally, the task order estimating requirements of Section 2.i have also been consolidated in Section 2.b. To remove duplication of requirements, Sections 2.g, 2.h, and 2.i will then be removed from the Task Order ##EEX001. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

14. Section J-14 - Do team subcontractors have to do submit a COI Mitigation Plan?

Per section L.17.8 of the RFP, the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) information is requested from the prime Offeror only. Also, per DRD-ECO2-008, OCI risks related to a first-tier subcontractor are required to be addressed by the prime contractor in its OCI mitigation plan.

15. The RFP states that cost reimbursement or non-competitive fixed-price type subcontracts having a total potential value expected to exceed the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data will require a Total Compensation Plan; however, please clarify if the requirement applies only to planned subcontracts for known requirements (task orders ##EEX001 and ##EEX002) or if it also applies to agreements for future unknown but anticipated subcontracts to be awarded during the entire IDIQ contract period. For example, Prime contractor is planning on issuing a non-competitive subcontract that exceeds the certified cost or pricing data to Subcontractor A for the ##EEX001 task order, if awarded the contract. Prime contractor also has an agreement with Subcontractor B for potential future requirements and is anticipating that a non-competitive subcontract exceeding the threshold for certified cost or pricing data is likely to be awarded to Subcontractor B sometime during the IDIQ contract period, but not for current known requirements (task orders ##EEX001 or ##EEX002). Would a total compensation plan need to be submitted with the initial proposal for both Subcontractor A and B or Subcontractor A only?

In accordance with L.10, NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, the information required per the clause includes all service subcontractors that meet the threshold. This requirement applies to all applicable subcontractors employed to support the entire scope of the contract, regardless of known task order requirements at the time of contract award.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS

16. In L.17.5 Past Performance it states, “Offerors, including joint ventures, major subcontractors (subcontracts with an estimated annual value greater than $1M) and the proposed program manager shall provide information on up to a total of seven past contracts (subject to the page limitation constraints).” This implies that the Offeror may submit a project past performance that was managed by the Program Manager while working for another company (i.e., possibly a project that was not performed by the offeror but managed by proposed Program Manager)? Is this correct?

It’s possible based on the Program Manager’s unique experience: a Program Manager’s past performance may or may not identify a company (other than the ECO2 Offeror) to which he/she has previously performed work as long as it meets other requirements stated in the RFP for Past Performance Information.

17. Section L17.5 (c) under Past Performance for contracts that the offeror submits as “relevant”, it states: "…This submission shall clearly detail what portions of the Performance Work Statement, the prime, major subcontractors, proposed program manager, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner are responsible for and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon to perform the proposed effort." This requirement appears out of place for Past Performance. The Past Performance section requires offerors to provide up to seven past projects/contracts and to describe the work completed that is relevant to the ECO2 work elements. The statement here is looking forward to execution under ECO2. Is this text intended to be included elsewhere, such as TA3 (Staffing and Critical Skills Mix)?

This instruction requires offerors to show the connection between the past performance work submitted in the proposal and the planned work on ECO2.

18. This instruction requires offerors to show the connection between the past performance work submitted in the proposal and the planned work on ECO2. Attachment L-5, Past Performance Matrix: Can Offerors add more columns to the table if the past performance project includes more PWS sections than the 10 columns provided in the matrix file?

In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised Attachment L-5, Past Performance Matrix, to include all PWS Sections. Offerors are instructed to use this updated spreadsheet for their proposal submission. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

19. L.17.5 - Past Performance states: Complete the Past Performance “Matrix (Attachment L-5) as part of your response. No proposal narrative shall be included in the Past Performance Matrix. In the event of a conflict between the narrative and the relevance matrix, the narrative will take precedence as the offeror’s intended response.” The unnumbered “PWS” columns in the matrix do not correspond to the same number of primary elements in Section C PWS or even 1st level numbered sub subsections. What level of detail for PWS elements are required to complete the matrix?

See the response to Question 18.

20. Attachment L-7, Past Performance Questionnaire - Attachment L-7, Past Performance Questionnaire, contains a note on page 3 of the form which states, “NOTE – If past performance information on the Program Manager is being requested, the questions below need to be tailored accordingly.” Please confirm that the offeror is authorized to tailor the form appropriately prior to sending and indicate what limits or guidance NASA places on the tailoring of this form when used to obtain information on the Program Manager. This is particularly important if the Program Manager served in other than a Program Manager role on any assignment over the last 15 years.

The tailoring of the form should be done to modify any of the questions to specifics done by the Program Manager as opposed to tasks completed by the company. The overall intent/scope of the question shall not be modified. (e.g., on question #13 it states: “Other particular strong/weak points of contractor’s technical performance.” This would be tailored to “Other particular strong/weak points of the proposed Program Manager’s technical performance.”)

21. PPQ - The sample PPQ states that the PPQ format for the PM can be modified. Can the project description for the PM be similarly modified?

See the response to Question 20.

22. L.17.5(c)(vi), L.17.5(d) - L.17.5(d) states “In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors (as defined above), the proposed program manager, and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company), which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-7, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above.” L.17.5(c)(vi) states “If a Government Agency, include both the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative points of contact.” Is the Government looking to receive one PPQ for each contract or two – one from the CO and one from the COR?”

In the case of a Government contract, one single PPQ would be expected from either the CO, the COR, or a joint response from both. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government clarified this requirement.

23. L.17.5(d) - L.17.5(d) states “In addition to the information above, Offerors, any major subcontractors (as defined above), the proposed program manager, and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company), which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-7, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph (c) above.” Many program manager candidates currently hold senior positions on other Government contracts, making requesting PPQs from the CO and/or COR a particularly sensitive issue which could jeopardize an individual’s role on a current active contract. We request the Government consider allowing Offerors to obtain PPQs for the Program Manager from government staff other than the CO and/or COR.

For Government contracts, PPQs are required to be sent to both the CO and COR.

PRICING – EPM QUESTIONS

24. EPM tab TRST-IDIQ-FFP includes a table for 12 months only. We assume that we are supposed to repeat the format for the whole 5 years of the contract, 12 months in each table. Is that correct? Can you please modify the tab to add the additional years?

The purpose for the TRST-IDIQ-FFP worksheet is to provide the Government a snapshot of the necessary resources (labor and non-labor) needed for contract year one (12 month period). Offerors are only to provide data for one year, not the entire 5 year period.

25. EPM tab TRST-IDIQ-FFP has one column for PWS 3.0 (18EE002) and one for PWS 1.0 (18EE001). There appears to be a typo: Task Orders are ##EEX001 and ##EEX002, therefore should 18EE001 and 18EE002 be 18EEX001 and 18EEX002?

Yes. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised the EPM to clarify. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

26. EPM tab TRST-IDIQ-FFP has one column for PWS 3.0 (18EE002) and one for PWS 1.0 (18EE001). Since task ##EEX001 goes for 5 years and task ##EEX002 goes only for 2 years, would the table for years 3-5 have zeros in the column for 20EEX002, 21EEX002 and 22EEX002?

See response to Question 24.

27. EPM tab ISPT-FFP includes the estimate to perform PWS 3.0. Since BOEs are given for labor resources for task order ##EEX002 and not for PWS 3.0, and since the PWS 3.0 and the task ##EE002 are not identical in scope or duration, do we estimate PWS3.0 labor resources, instead of ##EEX002 labor resources in this worksheet even if they are not consistent with the BOEs, which are for the task order and not the PWS?

PWS 3.0 and task order ##EEX002 are not meant to be identical. Rather, task order ##EEX002 describes specific requirements that are included in the overall scope that can be ordered off PWS 3.0. However, for proposal submittal purposes, Offerors should consider these PWS 3.0 citations as just references to task order ##EEX002 (the Government intends to clarify this in a future revision to the EPM and RFP). Therefore, only one BOE is required for ##EEX002. Similarly, ##EEX001 is a task order to be issued under the scope of PWS 1.0 and only one BOE should be provided for such task order ##EEX001.

28. EPM tab TRST-IDIQ-FFP has one column for PWS 3.0 (18EE002) and one for PWS 1.0 (18EE001). Since PWS 3.0 goes for 5 years, whereas Task Order ##EEX002 only for two years, in years 3 to 5, do we include the estimate of the PWS 3.0 or the estimate for task order ##EEX002?

See the response to Question 27.

29. EPM tab TRST-IDIQ-FFP has one column for PWS 3.0 (18EE002) and one for PWS 1.0 (18EE001). Since PWS 3.0 work is not identical to the scope of work of task order ##EEX002, and since the duration of PWS 3.0 is 5 years whereas the duration of task ##EEX002 is 2 years, shall we include the estimate of PWS 3.0 or the estimate for task ##EEX002 in the column? EPM tab ISPT-FFP includes the estimate to perform PWS 3.0. Since the BOEs are given for labor resources for task order ##EEX002 and not for PWS 3.0, and since the PWS 3.0 and the task ##EEX002 are not identical in scope or duration, do we estimate PWS 3.0 labor resources, instead of ##EEX002 labor resources in this worksheet even if they are not consistent with the BOEs, which are for the task order and not the PWS?

See the response to Question 27.

30. IRAP Spreadsheet does not include all SLCs that will be proposed for the contract, and the instructions do not state that additional SLCs may be added. Is it permissible to add rows and include all Labor Categories being proposed to the spreadsheet?

The EPM includes all SLCs identified by the Government. However, Offerors are permitted to add rows to include any additional SLCs they might think are necessary.

31. IRAP Spreadsheet has NASA (JSC) Standard Labor Categories that appear to be encumbered specifically Administration Specialist 2, Administration Specialist 3, IT 2, IT 4 and Engineer I; however the Government –Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees (Technical Library under Additional Documents – file name RATES) , data does not include them! Was this an over sight?

No, this was not an oversight. There is not any incumbent data available for the aforementioned SLCs. For any SLCs that have the note “No incumbents in this SLC,” please leave the “Incumbent Retention %” and “Retention of Incumbents at Current Direct Labor Rates” as zero %.

32. Section L.18 Attachment L-8 - Can the OHT schedule be duplicated, if more than one overhead rate is utilized?

Yes, but the Offeror must provide the basis and application of the additional overhead rate(s) in the appropriate proposal volume as indicated in RFP section L.17.7.

33. Section L.18 Attachment L-8 - Will any LOE be performed from a home site office, or is all the effort expected to be on-site?

The ECO2 contract is not structured as a Level-of-Effort (LOE) contract. The approach to staff on-site or off-site personnel is a business decision of each individual Offeror.

34. Section L.18 Attachment L-8 - Due to the proprietary nature of direct and indirect rates, please confirm if it is acceptable for a team subcontractor to provide total Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBR) rates to the prime, and provide the build-up with the detailed direct and indirect rate information required for FBR-CPFF_FFP, OHT, GAT, TC (a), TC (b), and TC (c) schedules directly to the Government in a sealed package?

Yes, the subcontractor can provide total FBRs to the prime and provide supporting information for the rate build-up directly to the Government. Reference Question #9 for additional information.

35. Section L.18 Attachment L-8 - Is the application of fee/profit only on labor?

Yes. Please reference Attachment L-8 (EPM), tabs ISCT-CPFF SR and ISPT-FFP.

36. Att. L-08 Cost and Price Templates - The “Total ECO2 Price” tab, lines 5 and 6, indicate that PWS 1.0 and PWS 3.0 are equivalent to Task Orders 18EEX001 and 18EEX002, respectively. Please clarify whether the two task orders are intended to capture exactly the same work scope as the two PWS elements (1.0 and 3.0).

The PWS is a high-level roadmap delineating overall requirements. However, for proposal preparation purposes the offerors are advised that their Attachment L-08 cost and price templates should reflect the requirements as described in task orders 18EEX001 and 18EEX002. Also, see response to Question #27.

37. Att. L-08 Cost and Price Templates - The “ISPT-FFP” tab includes identifiers for “PWS 1.0” (cell E1) and “PWS 3.0” (cell E147). Please clarify whether these cells should instead reference Task Orders 18EE001 and 18EE002, respectively.

Correct. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised the EPM to clarify. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

38. In Paragraph L.17.4 Technical Acceptability Factor – Volume I it states, “The offerors are required to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements and the specific labor resources needed to successfully perform the requirements of the Firm-Fixed-Price Task Orders ##EEX001 and ##EEX002 (Reference Attachment L-1 and L-2)”. Since there is no reference to PWS Section 2.0 – Environmental Restoration Requirements are we to assume that no requirements to discuss or demonstrate our understanding of the Environmental Restoration tasks in this proposal?

The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government and meets all solicitation requirements, as stated in M.2. The Government does not require Offerors to demonstrate a specific understanding of requirements for PWS 2.0 in the Technical Acceptability section since the Government is already providing the “specified resources” estimated for this type of work (reference section L.17.7 (c) 1). However, as part of the Past Performance evaluation, Offerors will be required to identify prior past performance relevant to PWS 2.0 requirements (reference Section L.17.5.(a). In addition, the Government is requiring Offerors to demonstrate their technical remediation expertise when responding to VA1 - Restoration Program Innovations and Improvements which is part of the Trade-Off evaluation.

39. Section L.17.4 Technical Acceptability Factor – Volume I, (2) Basis of Estimate (BOE) states: “Explain the BOE by providing supporting rationale for all labor resources (WYEs and skill mix) and non-labor resources proposed.” The requirement is not clear regarding what is actually required for a BOE in response to task order 1 and task order 2.

a. Is a full BOE required ##EEX001 and 002 similar to the Value Attributes and subject to the requirements of DRD ECO2-003 Task Order Planning Sections A and B?

A Basis of Estimate as described in DRD-ECO2-003, Task Order Planning, (Section A only) will be required for both fixed price task orders in Volume I. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised this requirement to clarify. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

b. Is an explanation and rationale of the labor, skill mix and non-labor resources all that is required to address the L.17.4 (2) Basis of Estimate (BOE) requirement?

See response above for Question 39.a

c. Are the labor and non-labor resources listed on the Technical Resources Summary Templates (TRSTs) considered the BOE for ##EEX001 and 002?

See response above for Question 39.a

40. Paragraph L.17.4 Technical Acceptability Factor – Volume I, TA 5 Contract Phase-In Plan states: “The offeror shall provide a Contract Phase-In Plan that adequately addresses all aspects of attachment J-01, DRD-ECO2-007, Contract Phase-In Plan.” DRD-ECO2-007 paragraph g.(x) states: “Provide a Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the phase-in price proposed” Is a full BOE required similar to the Value Attributes and subject to the requirements of DRD ECO2-003 Task Order Planning Sections A and B?

A Basis of Estimate as described in DRD-ECO2-003, Task Order Planning, (Section A only) will be required for the Phase-In Plan. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised this requirement to clarify. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

41. Section L – Attachments L1 and L-2 - Both TO’s indicate that they are to require that the contractor to cover processing of routine fees to regulatory agencies and that the actual fee cost will be managed on separate project specific task orders. Are we to assume that these fees are part of the “Other” costs shown in tables 17.7.2 thru 17.7-4 (pgs. L-21-L-23) and if so, how will actual fees be adjusted by separate task orders?

As stated in Section 1.7 of the PWS and Attachment L-1, the Environmental Operations task order requirement is to provide procurement services for all ECO2 fee payments, so the “Other” value in the non-labor resources section of Section L, Table 17.7-3 does not include any actual fees.

For Attachment L-2, the fees associated with the Environmental Compliance and Sustainability Programs are currently included in the overall task order requirements. The only exception is described in the Materials and Travel Requirements Section of the Attachment L-2 task order, where it states that non-routine fees such as the RCRA permit renewal will be provided on a separate task order. As such, the “Other” costs shown in Section L, Table 17.7-4 would include all relevant routine fees for the compliance and sustainability program. This would be the same situation for the cost-reimbursable GRE as shown in Section L, Table 17.7-2. All cost-reimbursable fees are estimated in the non-labor resources section under “Other” and therefore funded by various project-specific restoration program task orders.

42. Task Order #EEX002 -What costs for laboratory analysis and waste disposal fees should be included as Other Direct Costs for Task Order #EEX002? The Task Order Description of Work includes references to characterization or analysis of wastes, surface water, and drinking water in the various compliance areas. The Description of Work also includes the following two statements: “Note that costs for on-site analytical support, where needed, will be provided through a separate ordered services task order.” on page 4 of 10 and “Note that any on-site waste analyses costs will be covered by a site operations contractor ordered services task order” on page 5 of 10. However, the Task Order Material and Travel Requirements states: “Materials will be required to support the requirements of this task order in numerous multi-media compliance areas. Analytical procurements to address permit requirements, waste shipping and disposal requirements, containers and labels, and other supplies and equipment are routinely required. The contractor will provide all materials and services required to comply with permit and environmental compliance requirements” on page 9 of 10. Please clarify what ODCs related to laboratories, waste disposal, and other fees (e.g., permit fees) should be included in the firm fixed price.

The contractor is responsible for all laboratory analyses, waste disposal, and other fees associated with the compliance and sustainability requirements of Attachment L-2. The analytical services procured from the on-site laboratory using the ordered services process is a minor subset of the overall analytical requirements, and would not be included in the Other Direct Costs for the Attachment L-2 task order. The specific analytical processes that can be procured from the WSTF Laboratory through ordered services are hydrazine analyses related to the Fuel Treatment Unit and the Discharge Permits DP-697 and DP-1170 analytical requirements. The RCRA permit requirements for the Fuel Treatment Unit and the two Discharge Permits are provided in the Technical Resource Library.

a. Is the ECO2 contractor responsible to provide safety supplies and things like fire extinguisher testing/refill for the facilities under ECO2 responsibility or is fire extinguisher testing and recertification the responsibility of the site operations contractor?

The ECO2 contractor is responsible for providing standard and routine safety supplies that are needed during day-to-day operations (e.g., gloves, face shields, eye protection, aprons, etc.). The ECO2 contractor is not responsible for fire extinguisher testing, certification, and refill requirements.

43. RFP Table 17.7.3 - RFP Table 17.7.3 identifies both a Business Specialist 1 and 2 as potential labor categories to perform Task Order ##EEX001. The Government-Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rates and Seniority Profile of Incumbent Employees contain only one entry for Business Specialist. Please identify if the Business Specialist labor category on the Government-Calculated Average Composite Direct Labor Rate sheet is considered to be a Business Specialist 1 or 2.

The Business Specialist category on the Average Composite Direct Labor Rate Sheet reflects the rate currently used under the ECO1 contract. The Government Resource Estimate (GRE) provided in Table 17.7.3 includes both Business Specialist 1 and 2 as it is the Government’s own estimate of the labor type required to perform the effort. However, since the GRE is provided to assist Offerors in determining the general scope and not intended to influence the Offerors’ proposal estimate, Offerors are required to develop their own resource estimate that support their unique management and technical approaches.

44. Task Order ##EEX002 - For Task Order ##EEX002: Our experience has been that the types and quantities of hazardous wastes requiring off-site disposal can vary widely from year to year depending on site operations. Will the government consider providing a “plug number” to normalize waste disposal costs among all bidders? If not, please state the government’s expectation for how waste disposal costs are to be estimated.

Historical waste stream information is provided in the Technical Resource Library. The 2016 Waste Minimization Plan’s annual waste matrix provides a list of site-wide waste streams, quantities, and characterization information. To provide further details regarding waste types and quantities, two additional documents have been added to the Technical Resource Library. These documents include all waste stream information (manifests, summary sheets) for the entire 2016 calendar year and year-to-date waste information for calendar year 2017. Additionally, the Section L, Table 17.7-4 GRE provides offerors with an estimate of overall costs, inclusive of the waste disposal costs.

45. Task Order ##EEX002 - For Task Order ##EEX002: Our experience has been that Other Direct Costs can vary widely depending on the assumptions made. Will the government consider providing a “plug number” to normalize ODCs among all bidders? If not, please state the government’s expectation for how ODCs are to be estimated.

The Government has provided a Government Resource Estimate for both fixed price task orders that includes Non-Labor Resources (NLRs). However, offerors are required to develop their own resource estimates that support their unique management and technical approaches (to include NLRs) and shall provide supporting rationale in narrative form.

46. Answer to Question 194 (from Draft RFP Q&A) states that: “Therefore the VA factor evaluation will not consider cost savings from VAs in any year of the contract. The cost and any savings for the two FFP Task Orders will need to be proposed in the EPM and will be evaluated under the Cost/Price factor as per the trade-off statement defined in section M.2”. Does this mean that if for example, we are able to reduce some of the labor required to perform the work in task ##EEX002, due to VA2 (which is related to reduction in compliance activities), we can use the VA2 in the BOE of task order ##EEX002 as justification for needing less resources?

Offerors are required to provide a proposal that addresses each of the ##EEX001 and ##EEX002 task orders independent from the proposed solution for the VA1 or VA2 task orders. Under an indefinite-delivery / indefinite-quantity contract, the Government reserves the right to issue or not issue any task order at any time based on need or changing conditions. Offerors must not submit a proposal for task orders that are interdependent with each other. Therefore, Task Order ##EX002 is required to be implementable regardless of the solution provided for the VA2 task order and all task orders need to be provided separately in their respective volumes.

47. VA2 entails reduction in compliance activities; as such, it may result in reduction in labor resources required to perform task ##EEX002 or PWS 3.0. Can we refer to VA2 as a justification for any reduction in labor hours for task ##EEX002?

See the response to Question 46.

PWS / TRL QUESTIONS

48. Have there been issues or challenges with drilling wells in the MPTS area in the past? For example, have there been any circulation problems during installation.

Information related to the mid-plume area well issues is provided in the Technical Resources Library (see MPWE.pdf). Two of the initial mid-plume pilot holes were plugged and abandoned due to sloughing and collapsing of the borehole, but the majority of the actual drilling operations have not shown any significant issues. However, as described in the Technical Resource Library documentation, working in a fractured bedrock lithology has caused issues with locating higher-concentration contamination within high production wells. Additionally, some biofouling has occurred that required rehabilitation efforts and dewatering of the fractured bedrock aquifer after high volume pumping operations has been observed.

49. We request a complete set of MPTS design drawings be uploaded for review.

A complete set of mid-plume design drawings has been added to the Technical Resource Library.

50. Section C, 4.0 – WBS item 2.1 - This indicates the unscheduled downtime for both treatments systems is less than 10%. We were told during the site visit that the run time is typically somewhere between 80-90%. Please clarify this difference.

The unscheduled downtime for the treatment systems is highly variable from month to month but is generally less than 10% overall. Metrics on plume-front and mid-plume treatment system operation are provided in the Technical Resource Library (see file TSMD.pdf). Please note that official Government responses are provided by the Contracting Officer in writing via the RFP. Written responses supersede any verbal information.

51. Section C Performance Work Statement, and Att.’s L-01 and L-02 IDIQ Task Orders - Please clarify whether it is intended for Task Orders ##EEX001 and #EEX002 to fully encompass the same scope as PWS 1.0 and 3.0, respectively. We note that previous Q&A #50 (from draft RFP Q&As) indicated that changes were being made to correct “minor inconsistencies” between the Task Orders and the PWS; however, there are still differences between the PWS and the Task Orders in terms of structure and content in the RFP.

The PWS delineates overall requirements. During the draft RFP process, several relatively minor modifications were made to the PWS and both of the task orders to provide general consistency between the three documents. There may still be minor differences in scope due to period of performance and timing requirements. However, the task orders for Section 1.0 and 3.0 of the PWS (18EEX001 and 18EEX002) are the requirements for proposal preparation purposes. In addition, see response to Question #27.

52. Attachment L-9, Workload Indicators, PWT element 1.9, Property and Facilities, identifies a workload element for “monthly safety inspections and evaluation of any resultant corrective action requirements”. Are these monthly safety inspections different from the safety requirements under PWS element 1.3, Safety, health and quality assurance program and/or the quarterly HSE safety inspections under PWS element 10, Facility Health Safety and Environmental Management?

The monthly and quarterly HSE inspections are two different activities. The environmental program performs monthly safety inspections at all environmental facilities as an internal best management practice. Additionally, the quarterly HSE inspections are performed in conjunction with the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Office.

53. PWS page 3, Section 1.7 - Please define the types of materials the government will furnish as “Store stock supply materials” as noted on PWS page 3, Section 1.7, Supplies and Services. Does this include copy paper and toner, routine desk supplies, flip chart pads, etc.

Store stock supplies are provided through the warehouse that is operated by the WSTF operations contractor. Store stock supplies provided through the warehouse include typical office supplies such as paper, pens, pencils, notebooks, toner, and other routine desktop supplies.

a. Please verify that the ECO2 contractor is not responsible for vehicle fuel and maintenance for NASA (GSA) furnished vehicles.

The ECO2 contractor is not responsible for vehicle fuel and maintenance for the GSA fleet vehicles.

54. Attachment L-9, item 1.8, Training Coordination, indicates the ECO2 contractor is responsible to provide certain environmental training to other contractors. Please identify which training listed on Attachment J-11 the ECO2 contractor is responsible to provide to other contractors.

As stated in Section 1.8 of the PWS, the ECO2 contractor conducts applicable environmental training category sessions for site-wide personnel. These environmental training categories as described in Attachment J-11 include hazardous waste sampler, hazardous waste handler, awareness training, and a small portion (environmental module) of the comprehensive new hire training program. The specific Section 1.8 training support requirements are described in task order ##EEX001 (Attachment L-1).

55. HWC - Technical Library Document “HWC,” WSTF Manifest Package #16010 shipped on April 21, 2016: Please clarify how often similar hazardous waste shipments are typically made from WSTF.

Hazardous waste similar to the manifest package provided in the Technical Resource Library is typically shipped on a monthly basis. Occasionally, there may be additional simultaneous shipments for universal waste, used oil, TSCA waste, medical waste, or project-specific non-hazardous or special waste. Additional information on waste shipments that is typical for WSTF operations during all of calendar year 2016 and year-to-date (2017) has been added to the Technical Resource Library.

56. Task Order ##EEX002, HWC - For Task Order ##EEX002 and Technical Library Document “HWC,” WSTF Manifest Package #16010 shipped on April 21, 2016: Are the waste types and quantities in the example hazardous waste manifest representative of those typically generated at WSTF, and may we assume similar types/quantities for estimating purposes? If not, please provide additional data for estimating purposes regarding the expected types and quantities of hazardous waste to be generated at WSTF during the period of performance.

See the response to Question 55.

SECTION L AND M QUESTIONS

57. Given that FAR 52.204-7 - System for Award Management is included in the solicitation, please confirm that offerors may check the box in (b)(2)(i) of FAR 52.204-8, indicating that paragraph (d) applies, in lieu of completing the corresponding individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.

Correct, Offerors may proceed in this manner in accordance with clause K.2, FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, (b)(1) which states: “If the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in this solicitation, paragraph (d) of this provision applies.” Therefore, Offerors should consider paragraph (d) of clause K.2 which enables Offerors to complete the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM Web site accessed through https://www.acquisition.gov.

58. Section L.17.7 (e) 2 - Cost of Money for Facilities Capital states: “In the event the Offeror does not propose cost of money for facilities capital, FAR clause 52.215-17 - Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money, shall be included in the Model Contract”. If the offeror does not propose cost of money for facilities capital, will the Government add this clause to the model contract, or should the offeror manually add the clause to the Model Contract as part of the submission to indicate that FCCM is not being proposed?

As per section L.17.7 (e) 2, the Offeror is instructed to include clause 52.215-17 if it does not propose cost of money for facilities capital. The Offeror may include this clause as part of Clause I.2, Listing of Clauses Incorporated by Reference, in the Model Contract submission. In RFP Amendment 002, the Government clarified these instructions.

59. Section L17.5 (e) requires the Offeror to submit Environmental Data, H&S data, and a letter from the insurer related to workers compensation and EMRs. Is this information required only for the prime contractor? Or are the prime, any major subcontractors, and JVs all required to provide it?

As stated in Section L.17.5 (e) “If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed.”

60. Section L17.4 requires a Basis of Estimate for the Technical Subfactor. Does this Basis of Estimate need to be completed in accordance with the requirements of DRD-ECO2-003, Section A?

Correct. See response for Question 39.a

61. Section L17.8 - Safety and Health Plan. Many of the sections listed in DRD-ECO2-010 as being required to be submitted with the proposal require on-site knowledge to complete. For one example, Section 2.1 of DRD-ECO2-010 requires that "Contractor worksite hazards shall be systematically identified through a combination of surveys, analyses, and inspections of the workplace, investigations of mishaps and close calls, and the collection and trend analysis of safety and health data such as: records of occupational injuries and illnesses; findings and observations from preventive maintenance activities; reports on hazardous substance spills and inadvertent releases to the environment; facilities related incidents related to partial or full loss of systems functions; etc." Non-incumbents will not be able to provide this information in detail without access to WSTF facilities and other records to provide specificity in its plans. Please remove Section 2.1 and other specific requirements that require onsite knowledge (to be obtained during the Phase-In period) from the requirement to submit as part of the proposal.

The Safety and Health Plan is part of the Responsibility Considerations that the Contracting Officer will use to determine responsibility of an Offeror. As such, for items like Section 2.1, Analysis of Worksite Hazards, offerors shall explain their process for performing these analyses and how the results of the analyses will then be utilized. Then during the phase-in period the additional site specific information can be added to the plan and coordinated with the NASA-WSTF Safety and Mission Assurance Office.

62. M.2.3 Value Attributes: NASA has removed references to efficiencies for VA’s. Attachment L-8, TRST-IDIQ-FFP Instructions tab requires the offeror to utilize the reference column to cite specific paragraphs where efficiencies result in resource deltas in both TA1 task orders and Volume III VA’s. Since efficiencies are not evaluated for Value Attributes please provide an updated instruction for the use of the reference column for the Value Attributes.

In RFP Amendment 002, the Government revised the EPM to clarify and remove this instruction. Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

63. Section L17.2/Proposal Page Limitations - Proposal Section L.17.2(c) indicates that Tab pages containing proposal material will be counted against the appropriate volumes page limitation.

a. Since this is an electronic file submission does the government expect or require Tab pages? It would seem that the electronic file header would serve this purpose. Please clarify In RFP Amendment 002, the Government removed the sentence from Section L.17.2(c) that states “Each side of the sheet, tab, or divider containing proposal material will be counted as part of the appropriate volume’s page limitations.” Any RFP amendments will establish the current proposal requirements and supersedes any information in the original RFP posting or in these Q&A responses.

64. Section L.2(g)/Proposal Page Limitations - The RFP requires that each proposal volume be submitted as a single separate electronic file that contains only those specific volume sections defined in its specific L.17 subsection (e.g.