Minutes_from_Preproposal_meeting.docx

Minutes from Pre-Proposal Meeting Malheur National Forest Fuels Reduction and Slash Treatment IDIQ

AG-04KK-S-17-0003

Malheur National Forest Supervisor's Office April 21, 2017

Attendees:

1. Sarah Ackerman, Contracting Officer, opened the meeting by going over the solicitation requirements as outlined in the attached PowerPoint slides and highlighted below:

a. All notes from this meeting will be posted on FBO as an amendment.

b. This is a HUBZone set-aside.

c. Funds are NOT presently available for CLIN 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15.

d. Awards to be completed before June 1.

e. Summarized requirements for technical, past performance and price proposals.

f. Wage Determination has been verified by DOL.

g. All technical evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important that price. The significance of the spread in scores will be determined on the basis of what the difference might mean in terms of performance and what it would cost the government to take advantage of it. The Government reserves the right to make price/technical tradeoffs that are in the best interest and to the advantage of the Government.

h. Proposals are due by fax or hard copy mail by May 8, 2017 at 4:30 pm PST.

2. Sarah noted that the schedule of items will be changed by amendment to correct Items 1 through 9 from Thin/HP to Thin/GP.

3. The following questions were answered by the panel of Forest Service representatives as follows:

a. Question: Why is there no Contractor burning?

Answer: Burning can be issued under this IDIQ, but there are not any initial task orders that have included burning.

b. Question: Will the task orders that are not currently funded be awarded later or sent back out for re-bid?

Answer: If we do not have enough funding to award all task orders, we will plan to re-solicit these task orders under the IDIQ at a later date.

c. Question: Will partial items be awarded based on available funds?

Answer: If we do not have enough funding to award all sub-items under a CLIN, we may contact the Contractors to look at potentially awarding a reduced number of acres.

d. Question: Contract days seem very short.

Answer: We try to create contract times that are feasible, but still fall within the law.

e. Question: Can we discuss the technical evaluation factors?

Answer: There are three technical evaluation factors: benefit to the local community and its workforce, relevant past performance, and concurrent contractual commitments. Benefit to the local community under this solicitation is defined as Grant and Harney County. See the response under 1g above and L-2 and M-1 in the solicitation.

f. Question: How many awardees do you expect?

Answer: We do not have a set number of awards. Once we receive the proposals, we will determine an amount that will allow all work to be done in the future, but not so many that we flood the pool.

g. Question: Would you accept alternative methods of treatments?

Answer: Contractors are allowed to submit alternate proposals unless otherwise noted in a task order. It is recommended that if Contractors would like to submit an alternate proposal, that they submit two: one that applies to the specifications as stated and their alternate with all deviations spelled out.

h. Question: Will there be a useful visual guide to determine the tons per acre?

Answer: There is no one perfect photo that will fit every project. We have the photo series books (PNW-105 (1980)) and the (PNW-52 (1976)) that we reference during inspections. These are available online for use.

i. Question: On grapple piling projects is that all work mechanized?

Answer: The grapple piling is mechanical and the thinning is hand thinning.

j. Question: On the ECRD task orders it states that wildlife exclusions are to be between 1/10th of an acre and ½ of an acre and you want one on each acre. Can you explain?

Answer: We reviewed the wildlife clump specifications on the ECRD task orders and have revised the specifications. Those revisions are a part of this amendment.

k. Question: On the mastication, are they thinning with the masticator as well?

Answer: Yes.

l. Question: Can Contractors from Klamath County submit proposals?

Answer: Yes. There is an evaluation factor on benefit to the local community and for this solicitation, local community is defined as Grant and Harney County, but look at Section L and Section M. Any HUBZone certified Contractor can submit a proposal.

m. Question: Can we access all the units?

Answer: Not all of the units right now, but they should be accessible prior to the closing date. Elk 16 units are anticipated to be laid out on the ground by May 1st.

Sarah Ackerman

SARAH ACKERMAN

Contracting Officer

Attachments:

1. Amendment 0002 with corrected documents