VE Day HUD Response to Solicitation 86614120R0001 Questions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Chicago Regional Office, Region V

Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building

77 West Jackson Blvd Chicago, IL 60604-3507

OFFICE OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

CHICAGO CONTRACTING OPERATIONS BRANCH

TO: Prospective Offeror

SUBJECT: Response to Comments/Questions

Draft Request for Proposal 86614120R00001

HUD Office of Single-Family Housing (SFH) Programs, Nationwide Lead-Based

Paint Evaluation Services

May 8, 2020

Dear Prospective Offeror

Thank you for your participation in our agency’s procurement process.

Here are our responses to all comments/questions:

GENERAL QUESTIONS

General Question 1 (GQ1): The Beta.Sam website indicates that the due date for the response for this RFP is due on May 15th. Due to Covid-19 Virus, I and many of my staff that will be working on the response to this RFP are working from home with limited equipment and resources which slows the pace of work and hinders employee collaboration. Would HUD consider extending the due date for the response to allow additional time to respond due to the current circumstances affecting workers?

General Response 1 (GQ1): We understand the novel coronavirus may affect a company’s business. We posted the draft solicitation on February 6th and the solicitation two months later, so potential contractors had access to the solicitation for over sixty days.

GQ2: Page #45 of the solicitation lists Volume I as being for the Technical Instructions/Technical

Capability Factor (Technical Approach & Management Capability) but the last paragraph on Page #47 and Paragraph (e) and (h) on Page #48 both say that Volume I should be the

Business Proposal? Page #46 lists Volume II as the Price Instructions but the last paragraph on Page #47 and Paragraph (e) and (h) on Page #48 both say that Volume II should be the Technical Proposal? Page #46 lists Volume III as the Business

Instructions/Business Proposal, but per the last paragraph on Page #47 and Paragraph

(e) and (h) on Page #48 neither makes reference to a Volume III?

GR2: Offers will submit a proposal in two sections, separating the business and cost proposal from the technical proposal. To clarify the instructions, we are amending solicitation provision 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items.

GQ3: Please confirm we are to submit two volumes for the submittal, volume 1 with the business proposal and cost proposal and volume 2 with the technical proposal.

GR3: Offers will submit a proposal in two sections, separating the business and cost proposal from the technical proposal. To clarify the instructions, we are amending solicitation provision 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items.

GQ4: Can you consider making two (2) awards 8(a) and two (2) Small Disabled Veteran-Owned

Small Business (SDVOSB)/Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)?

GR4: We had exchanges with industry according to FAR 15.201, Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals, and our technique was market research

(FAR 15.201(c)(3). Based on the market research, the contracting officer concluded we did not have a reasonable expectation that we would receive offers from 2 or more SDVOSB (see FAR 19.1405(b)(1)) and receive offers from 2 or more WOSB (FAR 19.1505(c)(1)).

GQ5: We would like to submit multiple offers. Would you be willing to accept this as just one bid with multiple HOC regions filled out on the pricing sheet? Or do we need to duplicate our proposal and send a separate one for each region?

GR5: All offerors must comply with solicitation provision 52.212-1, paragraph (e) and (f):

If submitting more than one offer, follow the instructions above which states “[f]or each HOC proposal, offerors response must consist of two (2) separate sections;

Section I – Business Proposal (Price and Pricing Data, Representative and

Certifications, Past Performance Information, and all other documentation), and

Section II – Technical Proposal” (self-added emphasis).

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

Technical Question 1 (TQ1): Regarding the project schedule required by RFP Section 4 – Volume

I – Technical Instructions, would you kindly provide additional information to help us prepare a more detailed schedule? What is the location and square footage? Which of the activities from PWS 5.1 – 5.4 are being conducted on this schedule?

Without more specifics, the schedule can only be generic and not fully representative of a firm’s true understanding of the scope.

Technical Response 1 (TR1): The project schedule is “generic”. The minimum acceptability requirements regarding the project schedule in solicitation provision

HUD-M-101, Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable Evaluation Factors:

reads:

The offeror’s project schedule must demonstrate a clear understanding of the required operations and HUD requirements with realistic timeframes for performing PWS Tasks 5.1 through 5.4 tasks.

The offeror must demonstrate how they will successfully coordinate various delivery dates for various properties located throughout the geographic boundaries of the HOC using both the prime and subcontractors with the established timeframes in the PWS.

Offerors must use their business acumen to demonstrate their ability to meet the above minimum acceptability requirements

TQ2: Buildings can be up to 4 floors, and we are wondering how do we account for using a lift for those types of buildings? It’s more a safety move for our team.

TR2: For a building to be certified for occupancy, building codes requires the building to provide safe ingress/egress. It is a business decision whether or not you decide to use a lift for multiple-floor buildings.

TQ3: In section 4.3 page 9, if we receive an incorrect key code and we report it as instructed and they are not able to ascertain the correct one on that day, and we have to wait for hours or even a day or two, how do we account for delays or and change orders?

TR3: If the contractor attempts to perform the services within normal working hours but received an improper key code, the contractor should immediately notify the COR and should contact the FSM contractor. The FSM contractor should be able to immediately correct the problem of an incorrect key code within a reasonable timeframe (2 hours). If after the contractor has exercised reasonable diligence to timely perform the services and notify the FSM of the incorrect key code, but the issue remains, the contractor shall consult with the COR.

When the contractor needs to perform a Visual Assessment and a Lead-Based

Inspection, it is presumed no additional risk or cost to the contractor exists since the contractor would bill for both services so a change request could be unnecessary. The COR is not permitted to approve any change order requests which would create additional costs to the government. Only the CO may approve change order requests which would create additional costs to the government.

TQ4: If during a visual inspection the inspector communicates with the COR, and a [sic] LBP inspection is needed, can the inspection take place on the same day as the visual inspection.

Or, can the contractor make the decision in the field if an inspection is needed at the time of the visual inspection?

TR4: The PWS requires the contractor to take pictures of the results of the visual assessment and limits inspections to instances where the contractor identified lead-based paint hazards. If during a visual inspection the inspector communicates with the COR a LBP inspection is needed and submits via email pictures that identify the lead-based paint hazards the inspection can take place on the same day as the visual assessment.

TQ5: Page 13 of the PWS states that the contractor is to acquire or create a floor plan and a site plan for each property - Does HUD provide those to the contractor? If so, what percentage are provided by HUD as opposed to being made by the contractor?

TR5: We do not typically provide the floor plans at the time of property assignment. The contactor creates hand-drawn floor plans modified by computer program to meet the PWS requirements for floor plans and site plans.

TQ6: Section 5.4, first paragraph (page 17) indicates that clearance reports are due within 6 days of assignment, But -- subsection f (page 19) states that clearance reports are due within 6 days of completion of the clearance examination.

TQ7: The standards states within 6 business days after the LBP Stabilization process/after remediation. Is there a reason for the quick timeline of the clearance report of (within 6 business days of completion of the clearance examination.) This would require a rush.

TR’s 6 and 7: We revised page 19 to state due from date of assignment instead of due from date of examination and after the LBP Stabilization process/after remediation.

TQ8: Can you provide an average number of wipe samples historically collected per each clearance event?

TR8: We do not pay for number of wipes collected per clearance event, so do not have information.

TQ9: Would the government accept having a single Project Manager (PM) for all four (4) areas with multiple alternate PMs? Based on a total inventory of 2388 units, we feel that a single

PM is sufficient to handle this volume.

TR9: The solicitation states an offeror must submit a proposal package for each area they’re submitting a proposal. You must use your business acumen to decide whether or not you will have the same PM for each area.

TQ10: Given the historical reduction in volume, we would like the government to reconsider the performance requirement for visual assessments, lead-based inspections and stabilization plans to 8 days after initial assignment. This would result in additional savings for the government and reduction in travel.

TR10: The government has a 6-business day turn around because these HUD Real Estate

Owned (REO) properties are under contract and sold through Federal Housing

Administration (FHA). The recommended eight business days to perform visual assessments, lead-based inspections and stabilization plans may jeopardize contracts for properties needing work.

TQ11: Based on the historical number of sites completed in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 all trending down, does HUD expect this trend to continue?

TR11: We anticipate the “trend” to stabilize. However, there is a possibility events (e.g., covid-19) may cause an increase in LBP studies.

TQ12: Can you provide a breakdown, per state and per year for the past 3 years, of the number of visual inspections, inspections and clearance sampling events that took place? Currently the information provided does not give all individual state breakdowns.

TR12: We are providing the following table to show the percentage of work based upon the number of visual assessments performed from three HOCs, which should provide a representative sample of breakdown by CLIN.

Max Min Ave

LBP Insp. 98% 91% 94%

Stab. plan 56% 29% 43%

Clear. Exams 42% 11% 23%

Re-exams 13% 4% 7%

We are working to provide a breakdown per state and per year (past three years) of the number of visual inspections, inspections, and clearance sampling events. Once we receive the information, we will revise solicitation provision HUD-L-11-101, Historical Quantities.

TQ13: Statistically, what percentage of properties have historically been more than one unit? Are you able to break these out by number of units from 1 to 4?

TQ13: The quantity will vary depending on location (i.e. city versus rural areas) but generally is about 1% but could be has high as 10%.

TQ14: Can HUD provide a range and average of the properties assigned at each time?

TR14: The table below represents the average number of properties assigned in a day using the historic quantities identified in the solicitation. Typically, assignments are made as they occur, one at a time.

Homeownership

Center (HOC)

2019 2019#/250= average number of a day

Atlanta 733 3

Denver 402 2

Philadelphia 1,073 4

Santa Ana 180 1

*250=[364-102 weekend days – 10 holiday days]

TQ14: Is the crosswalk matrix counted towards the total page count for the technical volume?

TR14: No, the crosswalk matrix for the technical proposal is not included in the total page count for the technical volume.

BUSINESS QUESTIONS

Business Question 1 (BQ1): How do we account for travel in our costs?

Business Response 1 (BR1): Solicitation clause HUD-A-132-100, Pricing for Lead-

Based Paint Services, paragraph (a) reads, “The prices for routine Lead-Based

Paint Evaluation Services must include all technical and clerical services, materials, supplies, reviews, reports, communications, travel (self-added emphasis) printing, photographic expenses, postage, courier fees and other fees related to the delivery of information to HUD, general oversight, general and administrative costs, fringe benefits, and profit/fee”.

BQ2: Pricing can vary within cities and states. How do we calculate our pricing (standardized) as it is on the spreadsheet?

BR2: You should include you pricing calculations in a supporting worksheet in the workbook to support the one proposed unit price per CLIN. You may show your pricing by cities and states and show how you proportioned or allocated those costs into the entire unit price.

BQ3: Are all prices supposed to cover properties with up to 4 units?

BR3: Yes, pricing must include properties with up to 4 units.

BQ4: What is the incumbent information on this contract? Contractor, dates, dollar amounts, etc.

BR4: See below.

• Atlanta HOC: Ruiz-Tidewater JV, awarded 9/29/2015, $13,591,688.

• Denver HOC: Inspection Experts, Incorporated, /29/2015, 13,572,328.

• Philadelphia HOC: Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, 9/24/2015, $11,744,700;

• Santa Ana HOC: Inspection Experts Incorporated, 9/24/2015, $8,516,604.

BQ5: Was the incumbent contract(s) an 8(a) award?

BR5: We awarded the contracts under the 8(a) program.

BQ6: SECTION 4 - Section 4/ Volume III- BUSINESS INSTRUCTIONS/ (iii)Part III-LICENSES requests that Offerors "Submit as supporting evidence, copies of all current licenses and certifications for contractor and subcontractors’ employees, and any business consultants."

Can HUD please confirm that the intent of this requirement is for Offerors to submit

Lead-Based Paint licensure for each state governed by the Proposal as part of the submitted proposal, prior to award?

BR6: Yes, offerors must submit evidence to demonstrate the capability to perform inspections in each state within a HOC region.

BQ7: Will HUD accept pending applications for state specific LBP Inspector certifications as proof of certification in a state for submittal from an offer?

BR7: Yes, offerors may submit pending applications if they do not have current licenses.

Offerors must provide sufficient evidence to support the offeror submitted an application for the pending license.

BQ8: Are project descriptions limited to 5 total for the submittal, or if an offer is composed of multiple teaming partners, can each teaming partner submit 5 project descriptions?

BR8: Based upon the only limitation of five represented in the solicitation instructions, the past performance reference information is limited to five per organization. Each team partner may submit up to five, recent and relevant references.

Sincerely, 5/8/2020

X Gene Hamilton Jackson

Contracting Officer

Signed by: Office of Administration