2016-0602-PreproposalConferenceNotes.pdf

Pre-proposal Conference Notes

Bitterroot and Flathead National Forests

Solicitation No. AG-0343-S-16-0040

Attendees of the meeting were as follows:

Name Organization Address / Phone

Loren Ebner, Contracting Officer

USFS, Region 1

Regional Office

Building 24, Fort Missoula

Missoula, MT 59804

(406) 329-3858

David Fox, Fire and Fuels USFS, Bitterroot N.F. Bitterroot National Forest

Sula Ranger District

7338 US Highway 93 South

Sula, MT 59871

Amy Campbell, Silviculture

USFS, Bitterroot N.F. Bitterroot National Forest Service

1801 N. First Street

Hamilton, MT 59840

Mike West, Fire and Fuels

USFS, Flathead N.F. Flathead National Forest

650 Wolfpack Way

Kalispell, MT 59901

Karl Anderson, Silviculture USFS, Flathead N.F. Flathead National Forest

650 Wolfpack Way

Kalispell, MT 59901

Jim Skorgard Anchor Environmental PO Box 2513

Mills, WY 82644

A. Skorgard Anchor Environmental PO Box 2513

Mills, WY 82644

Forest and Kate Wehr King Mountain Forestry PO Box 161

Deer Lodge, MT 59722

Moises Gomez 3Bs Forestry (541) 840-4689

Perfecto Ledesma Summitt Forests, Inc. (541) 535-8920

Roberto Ochoa RCO Reforesting, Inc. (530) 410-8884

Robert Ochoa RCO Reforesting, Inc. (530) 336-8230

Wayne Turnipseed Grayback Forestry (406) 830-8739

Chelsea P. McIver UM – BBER 32 Campus Drive

Missoula, MT 59812

(406) 243-5614

NOTE: As a result of this pre-proposal meeting, the Government is issuing Amendment No. 01 to the solicitation.

THE MEETING RECORD:

The meeting commenced on June 2, 2016 at 0930 hrs at the Lolo National Forest Supervisor’s Office in

Missoula, Montana. The above individuals were present at the meeting.

The Government and Contractors present discussed the following items:

Contracting Officer Loren Ebner reviewed the following items:

Section A (Standard Form 33). Reviewed

Due Date is June 16, 2016

Complete Blocks 12-18

Offer Acceptance: 60 days

Amendment Acknowledgements – sign amendments and return, or acknowledge in Block 14

Ensure Block 15 is completed with DUNS and TIN as well

Sign and date in Blocks 17 and 18

Section B, Schedule of Items. Reviewed:

Categories of Work

There is a separate Schedule of Items for each of the two National Forests included in the solicitation.

The schedule of items includes pricing for the base year and each option year. We reviewed the notes in Section B and discussed the estimated quantities identified on the schedule. The quantities are estimated, and may vary as allowed by the IDIQ contract clauses. In the last column, the first number is the quantity identified for evaluation purposes.

There was discussion of the Pruning and Pruning/Daylight Thinning Items. (Note:

Amendment No. 01 further defines the range Offerors shall propose prices on).

There was clarification of the Supplemental Slash Treatment items: Standard Slash Treatment is included in tree thinning work items, but if the Government orders Supplemental Slash

Treatment the Government will order treatment of EITHER the 8.1”-10” DBH class OR the

8.1”-12” DBH class. The Government will never order BOTH of these items for the same piece of ground. (Note: Amendment No. 01 includes new categories for this work item, that will more appropriately price the work for instances where such supplemental slash treatment could be considered “incidental” (less than 100 stems/acre of additional work).

See revised Schedule of Items in Amendment No. 01).

There was discussion of the Hand Piling Method One. (Note: Amendment No. 01 puts an upper limit on C.5.9.1 of 50 tons.)

There was discussion of Item C.5.13.A Payment will be made by the “clump”. The Task

Order will describe how many and what size(s) the clumps shall be. The Contractor will be responsible for identifying and flagging the clumps before working the unit.

There was discussion of Item C.5.13.B, Hourly Rates. Attendees suggested the rate vary by

State. (Note: Amendment No. 01 includes new categories for this work item by State)

Paragraph B.9 identifies the minimum and maximum contract amounts. (Note: Amendment

No. 01 changes the upper limit of the contract from $5.0 million to $6.5 million cumulative total over the entire period of the contract. See discussion below for more information regarding this change).

Contracting Officer informed attendees that the Government will utilize the quantities identified in the Schedule of Items for evaluation purposes, but the Government is not constrained in any way by the stated quantities. Also, the Contracting Officer will be evaluating every price for price reasonableness, so CO recommends considering that when pricing all items, regardless of their weight in the evaluation process.

Section K, Representations, Certifications…. Reviewed:

Paragraph K. 1(a)(2) – Small Business Size Standard

Paragraph K. 1(b)(i) and (ii). CO explained paragraph.

Paragraph K. 1(d) – SAM. Contracting Officer explained paragraph.

Paragraph K. 2.(f) Ensure you obtain CAGE code. Do not delay submission of offer pending receipt of CAGE code.

Paragraphs K. 3, K. 4, K. 5 and K. 6 are additional certifications. Complete and submit with your offer, in addition to ORCA.

Section L, Instructions, Conditions…. Reviewed:

Section L contains instructions to Offerors on the preparation of their proposals.

Paragraph L. 2. CO discussed SAM and the availability of Procurement Technical Assistance

Centers (PTACs) to help interested offerors negotiate the requirements of contracting with the federal Government. www.aptac-us.org.

Paragraph L. 5 – FAXs and Emails are not accepted.

Paragraph L. 6 – Offerors are encouraged to read this in detail and respond accordingly.

Paragraph L. 6(a)(4) – Identifies the number of copies of proposal required.

Paragraph L. 6 – Non-price evaluation factors include past performance, capacity & workforce, and work methods.

Paragraph L. 6 – Note the cross-references under the “capacity and workforce” evaluation criteria. Elements of Offerors proposal will be inserted into the awarded contract.

Paragraph L. 6 (b)(3)(a) Work Methods – Safety. Note the instruction is to respond with information demonstrating Offeror’s safety record, and information explaining Offeror’s safety program/policies.

Paragraph L. 6(b)(3)(b) Work Methods – Quality Control. Note that the Offeror’s Quality

Control record will actually be evaluated under Past Performance, but the Offeror’s proposed

Quality Control methods will be evaluated under this criteria.

See Amendment No. 01 for revisions to the Evaluation Criteria

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Reviewed:

Section M contains information for Offerors on how the Government will evaluate.

The non-price factors listed will be equally considered for the purposes of evaluation. An unacceptable rating for any of the factors will preclude contract award.

Currently the solicitation states that award will be made to one Contractor on the basis of best-value to the Government. See Amendment No. 01 which changes this statement to allow, but not require, the award of two contracts.

Section C, Scope of Contract. Reviewed:

Paragraph C. 1 Scope of Contract. CO reviewed the scope, which was written to include the

Bitterroot National Forest, the Flathead National Forest, and other National Forests and

National Grasslands within the boundaries of the USFS Northern Region when conditions specified in the contract are met. See Paragraph C.1 for details.

Contract requires Contractor to prepare a Quality Control Plan (C.5.18)

Contract requires Contractor to prepare a Work Plan and Schedule for each Task Order

(C.5.19) http://www.aptac-us.org/

Section E, Inspection and Acceptance. Reviewed:

Paragraph E.2 Quality Control Plan requirement. CO pointed out the different parts of E.2 that addressed different work items.

Section F, Deliveries or Performance. Reviewed:

Paragraph F. 2 Contract Period – Be advised that the prices to be paid on Task Orders will be the prices in effect on the date the Task Order is issued. The Government may issue Task

Orders up to the very last day of the base or any option year periods, even if the pricing would change the following day.

Paragraph F. 3 Contract Time Required Rate of Progress – Offerors are encouraged to read this section in detail in order to understand contract time for task orders. The successful

Offeror’s responses regarding production rates, capacity, etc., will be directly inserted into the contract. Contract time will run continuously from the effective date of the Notice to

Proceed. Suspensions without charge to contract time will only be issued for excusable delays as defined by Federal Acquisition Regulations, or as allowed by Paragraph F. 3.5.

Section G, Contract Administration Data. Reviewed:

Paragraph G. 1 Ordering procedure. CO pointed out requirement for Government to give 20 calendar days of lead time when issuing Task Orders. Contractor may accept work with less lead time, if desired.

Paragraphs G. 3 and G. 4: Method of Calculation Payment. CO pointed out the different ways payment is calculated.

Paragraph G. 5 Invoice Processing Platform: Contractor required to register in IPP to receive payments.

Section H, Special Contract Requirements. Reviewed:

Paragraph H. 2 – Key Personnel

Paragraph H. 6 – Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers – CO identified requirements in sub-paragraphs I Registration, (d)(2) Wage and Payroll Standards, (d)(3) Motor Vehicle

Safety, (d)(4) Housing, and (d)(5) Field Sanitation.

Paragraph H.7 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act Registration.

Paragraph H.10 Safety, this clause is in addition to the other contract requirements for Safety.

Paragraph H.14 Weed Free Practices – this is a requirement for cleaning non-construction equipment and vehicles.

Section I, Contract Clauses. Reviewed:

Paragraph I. 3 FAR 52.204-13 System for Award Maintenance (SAM)

Paragraph I. 9 Ordering – Contracting Officer explained that Government may place orders until the very last day of the base or any option period. Government is motivated to place orders before prices go up.

Paragraph I. 10 Order Limitations – Contracting Officer gave an explanation of how these order limitations would function, and how the clause is written liberally to the benefit of the

Government.

Paragraph I. 11 Indefinite Quantity

Paragraph I. 12 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract

Interested contractor representatives asked questions and expressed concerns:

There was a question about contract time and how much flexibility the Contractor would have regarding contract time: The Contracting Officer explained that contract time for each Task Order would be generated based on the Contractor’s proposed production rates. Offerors that want more flexibility with contract time can build that into their proposed production rates. In addition:

o Paragraph G.1 of the contract commits the Government to issue Task Orders 20 calendar days in advance of the start work date.

o Paragraph F.3.3 of the contract requires the Contractor to start work within 10 calendar days of the

Notice to Proceed. These 10 days allow the Contractor some flexibility in mobilization, although the Contractor is still expected to ensure that their production rate ensures they will complete Task

Orders within the total contract time.

o The Government may administer the contract by issuing task orders that have contract time running concurrently or consecutively. The evaluation factors allow Offerors to propose restrictions on the number of crews they have available at any one time.

There was a concern expressed regarding the Government’s requirement that the Contractor perform work during fire season. This contract does require Contractors to provide crews and perform work during fire season. Excusable delays are the exception to this rule. For example, one exception to this would be if the

National Forest for which work is ordered is shut down because of fire danger on that National Forest. The

Contractor does have some flexibility to reduce or increase crew sizes within specified ranges in the contract, but the Contractor is still ultimately required to complete the contract work within contract time unless there is some excusable delay. In addition:

o Bitterroot NF representative Amy Campbell also explained to Contractor pool that it may often be necessary to perform Task Orders during fire season because one of the objectives of the

Government is to reduce the threat of beetles to the treated stand. If downed material is not sufficiently dried out by the Fall/Winter, beetles may survive in the downed material, fly in the

Spring, and destroy the remaining trees in the stand.

One contractor raised a concern about the quantity of labor that may be needed for each Task Order. The

Government explained that the Government will not necessarily order all work items on every task order, and the Contractor has the ability to manage their crew sizes within the ranges specified in the contract.

There was a concern expressed that the Government did not include an evaluation factor that would give some additional consideration for Local Contractors in the evaluation of the proposals. Some participants expressed their respective views concerning this issue. The Contracting Officer appreciates the comments received and at the meeting indicated that the comments and views expressed would be considered. After the meeting, the Contracting Officer obtained some materials concerning the legal authority that allows the

Forest Service to consider Local Contractors in evaluations. The Contracting Officer reviewed language from the law, as well as the Forest Service Publication “The Principal Laws Relating to USDA Forest

Service State and Private Forestry Programs”, and U.S. Forest Service policy memos from the Washington

DC Headquarters Office and the Region 5 Regional Office. In addition, the CO conducted some research on the internet concerning the terms “rural community”, “economically disadvantaged” and “Metropolitan

Statistical Area”. The Contracting Officer’s research concerning this issue raised some questions regarding the use of this evaluation criteria and how the use of it is applicable to the members of the Contractor pool expressing interest in this solicitation, including those advocating its use. As best as can be determined by the CO, the use of this authority for this procurement is discretionary for the Government. Based on the questions raised and uncertainties discovered during the Contracting Officer’s research of the issue, the

Contracting Officer has determined not to add language into the solicitation that would change the evaluation criteria at this time. The Contracting Officer is continuing to research the issue and would welcome additional data that would help inform how the Government might make the best use of this authority.

*End of Text*