ECO2_RFP__Q&As__Part_2.docx

80JSC017R0017- ECO2

Questions and Answers – RFP – Part 2

85. The Workload Indicators (Attachment L-9) for PWS elements 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.5 appear to be similar. Please clarify whether these workload indicators are mutually exclusive; or if they are not, please provide a total number of expected waste moves/transfers/pickups.

These PWS sections are three separate items as described in attachment L-9 and therefore mutually exclusive.

86. In Task Order ##EEX002, laboratory analysis is referenced in the scope descriptions for items #1.p (RCRA waste characterization sampling & analysis), #3.k (discharge permit sampling & analysis), and #4.m (waste stream analysis). Language in item #3 and item #4.m indicates that an on-site laboratory will perform laboratory analyses under a separate task order, as follows: Item #3 – “Note that costs for on-site analytical support, where needed, will be provided through a separate ordered services task order.” Item #4.m – “Note that any on-site waste analyses costs will be covered by a site operations contractor ordered services task order.” Similar language does not appear in item #1 of the Task Order for RCRA support, leading to the following questions:

a. Please clarify whether the on-site laboratory is available for all work elements in Task Order ##EEX002.

The on-site laboratory is not available for all work elements in Task Order ##EEX002. The work elements available from the on-site laboratory are described in Attachment L-10 of the RFP, Section 2.4.3 and Table 1, (this section explains the ordered services process in detail). See response to Question #42 of the previously posted “ECO2 RFP QAs” document from amendment 002 of the final RFP.

b. Please confirm that work performed by the on-site laboratory is not charged to the ECO2 contractor and that such costs do not need to be included in our proposal.

For on-site laboratory ordered services, the ECO2 contractor is not responsible for the costs. See response to Question #42 of the previously posted “ECO2 RFP QAs” document from amendment 002 of the final RFP. Additionally, Attachment L-10 of the RFP, Section 2.4.3 and Table 1, explains the ordered services process in detail.

c. Please verify that the on-site laboratory can perform all analyses needed for all work elements in Task Order ##EEX002. A list of the laboratory’s capabilities and services would allow us to evaluate this; please provide such a list if available.

See response above in question 86. a. Also, see response to Question #42 of the previously posted “ECO2 RFP QAs” document from amendment 002 of the final RFP. Additionally, Attachment L-10 of the RFP, Section 2.4.3 and Table 1, explains the ordered services process in detail.

87. Section L.17.5(e)(1) of the RFP requires submittal of “Copies of any and all environmental non-compliance correspondence and citations from federal, state or local agencies or authorities with explanatory remarks.” Please clarify if environmental non-compliance correspondence received at a site or project where the offeror was working should be submitted if it has been established that the offeror did not cause or contribute to the non-compliance.

See response to Question #68 of the previously posted “ECO2 RFP QAs” document for a definition of an environmental non-compliance. Offerors are only required to submit the non-compliance correspondence and citations if the violation meets the definition described in Question #68.

88. Section M.2.2, Past Performance, states: “The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance. . . .” If the offeror is a small business and therefore not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan for the contract, how will NASA evaluate the small business subcontracting criterion?

Because the ECO2 solicitation is issued as a small business set-aside, the small business subcontracting criterion that would require certain goals to be met is not needed and thus would not be evaluated for the past performance factor. Amendment 003 revised the RFP to clarify.

89. Section L.17.8 (a) requests Subcontracting Arrangement Information (items 1 through 10). We assume that this information is required only for subcontracting arrangements with major subcontractors. Is this correct?

Correct. This information is required for any Offeror that proposed a subcontracting arrangement with major subcontractors as defined in section L.17.8 (a). Amendment 003 revised the RFP to clarify.

90. Section J-01, DRD-ECO2-007, Contract Phase-In Plan was amended in Amendment 002 to require a BOE. If the offeror plans to use some corporate support to perform Phase-in that is not going to be billed as direct labor, we assume that we do not need to include these hours in the BOE. Is this correct?

As stated in DRD-ECO2-003, the BOE documents the reasonableness of an offeror’s proposal. Therefore, offerors should include enough information to ensure the Government can make an assessment of their approach. If corporate labor is being proposed at no charge to the government this should be clearly described in some way so the Government can evaluate the reasonableness, feasibility, effectiveness and completeness of the offeror’s approach.

91. The historic rates provided in the Technical Library for the incumbent employees are as of 3/23/2017. We assume that they were escalated by the incumbent contractor in June 2017--is that correct? So, we assume that the rates in the last year of the contract are the ones provided plus the incumbent contractor escalation -- is that correct?

No, the rates provided in the Technical Resource Library (File name: RATES) are based off incumbent data current as of 3/23/2017 with no additional escalation for later years. Please note that this information is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as the Government’s requirements or preferences regarding contract staffing or compensation.