prework_conference_notes_gypsymoth.pdf

PRE-WORK CONFERENCE NOTES

PROJECT: AG-56A1-S-17-0001 Gypsy Moth Aerial Spray

DATE: 01/10/2017 10AM ET

ATTENDEES:

Forest Service:

Melissa Johnson, Contracting Officer (melissaajohnson@fs.fed.us) 814-728-6241 Donna Leonard, Contracting Officer’s Representative, Entomologist Contractors:

Brent Hendrick- Farmers Fertilizer Company

Al & Mike Schiffer– Al’s Aerial Spraying Bill Hatfield – Hatfield Spraying Service David Strohl – Strohl Aviation

REVIEW OF SOLICITATION:

FBO Posting of Solicitation consists of 1) Solicitation 2) Scope of Work 3) 2017 Treatment Block Table, 4) Exhibits, 5) Maps 6) Wage Determinations 7) Amendment 1 (updates wage determinations).

Add the project to your FBO watch-list to monitor any future amendments. Notes from this call will be posted to FBO as well.

Offers are due 1/31/2017 at 2 PM ET. Proposals shall be submitted hardcopy per instructions in the solicitation starting on page 22.

*Proposals shall be submitted to:

USDA Forest Service Attn: Melissa Johnson 4 Farm Colony Drive Warren, PA 16365

(*This is a change to the solicitation which will be documented on Amendment #2)

1). Solicitation Document - SF-1449 Complete blocks 17 and 30. This form becomes part of your price proposal. Some clauses and provisions are incorporated by reference (IBR) and some are full text. The full text of any clause or provision can be viewed at https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar by choosing chapter 52. Some clauses and provisions incorporated by reference are discussed below: (These are highlights only, contractors are responsible to review all clauses, provision, and other solicitation documents and their requirements prior to submitting an offer).

Clauses:

52.212-4 is IBR and includes information on changes, disputes, excusable delays, invoicing, termination, SAM registration requirement, etc.

52.212-5 includes many clauses by reference and indicates which clauses need to flow down to your subcontractors.

52.204-10 Reporting Executive Compensation and First Tier Subcontract Awards - If in the preceding fiscal year, the contractor (or subcontractors) received 80% or more of gross revenue from federal contracts and has $25M or more in gross revenue from federal contracts, they must report total compensation for the five most highly compensated executives. All primes must report any subcontracts valued at $30,000 or more at http://www.fsrs.gov by the end of the month following the subcontract award.

52.204-14 Service Contract Reporting Requirements – Contractor and any subcontractor must report by Oct 31 of each year the total amount invoiced and the number of direct labor hours expended on the contract.

52.209-9 Updates of Publicly Available Information – The contractor shall update the information in SAM on a semi-annual basis and respond to performance evaluations completed through CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System).

52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting – At least 50% of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the prime.

52.222-26 Equal Opportunity – Clause addresses non-discrimination. EEO Posters must be posted and an EEO-1 report may be required 30 days after contract award.

52.222-37 Employment Reports on Veterans – Contractor must submit a VETS-4212 report annually by 9/30.

52.222-54 Employment Eligibility Verification - Contractor is required to enroll in E-Verify at the time of contract award and verify employees assigned to the contract (http://www.dhs.gov/E- Verify).

52.222-59 Compliance with Labor Laws – This clause will only apply once the court injunction is lifted. Requires reporting of labor law violations for prime and subs.

52.232-33 Payment by EFT – SAM – All payments are made by EFT to the bank account set up in SAM.gov. It is the contractor’s responsibility to keep the information updated and inform the government of any changes.

52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards – Minimum wages as set forth in the attached wage determinations must be paid to prime and subcontractor employees on this contract. Fringes may be made through bona fide fringe benefits or paid in cash. Contractor must display wage determinations and the associated Department of Labor poster at the worksite. Wage rates are updated each year if/when the option year is exercised.

52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act-Price Adjustment – the contract price will be adjusted annually upon issuance of new wage rate determinations for increases or decreases in wages and fringe benefits applicable to the new wage determinations. The contractor shall submit a request within 30 days for any increase requested as a result of a new wage determination.

52.222-55 Minimum Wages - Minimum hourly wage is $10.10 regardless whether the wage determination shows an hourly wage less than this amount. Contract price adjustments may be made if this minimum wage changes throughout the course of the contract.

52.222-62 Paid Sick Leave – The contractor shall permit each employee engaged in performing work on or in connection with this contract to earn not less than 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. This does not count toward requirement for fringe benefit requirements shown on the wage determinations.

52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates – this clause indicates what the government would pay employees to do this type of work. It is for your information only. The wage determinations represent the only requirements for employee wages.

52.222-49 Service Contract Act – Place of Performance Unknown. The government identified possible counties from the airports that may be used in the first year of spraying. If you anticipate working from a county that isn’t included, you should request an additional wage determination by 1/16/2017.

Provisions:

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – This clause addresses submission requirements that are not included in the “proposal preparation instructions”. Any offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is late and will not be considered.

Intent is to award without discussions so initial submission should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Requirement for an active SAM registration prior to award and throughout the course of the contract. Submitted offers must remain valid for 90 days.

52.212-2 Evaluation – This clause includes the factors that will be used to evaluate technical proposals.

Offer Submission Package:

Follow the detailed instructions starting on page 22 for submitting offers. All offeror’s shall submit a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. In clause 52.212-3, if you fill out all the reps and certs in SAM.gov you only need to indicate whether there are any reps and certs that do not apply to this solicitation. If you don’t do the reps and certs in SAM.gov, you must print and complete the full text of clause 212-3 and return it as part of your price proposal.

2). Scope of Work This document describes the work to be conducted and what the contractor is expected to provide. The work is divided into two items and each item is further subdivided into project areas (Table 1 on page 4). Hourly production rates required in each of the project areas for the base year of the contract are displayed in Table 2 on page 7.

3) 2017 Treatment Blocks This is a separate excel spreadsheet with 4 worksheets. One worksheet lists the block name, state, item project area, dose, polygon acres, estimated treatable acres and start date associated with each 2017 treatment block. The other three worksheets are summaries extracted from the list that display pertinent information for each item and project area.

4) Exhibits This 40 page document contains 15 exhibits and provides all of the technical specifications.

References to the exhibits may be found throughout the solicitation and the scope of work.

5) Maps - Available on a separate site (see page 18 of the solicitation and scope page 6).

Two map products are available for downloading from the STS website (see page 6 of the Scope of Work). The vicinity maps, which display the location of each project area and treatment block, can be downloaded from the map library at http://www.gmsts.org/library.html . There is also a KML service for viewing the 2017 treatment blocks in Google Earth, which can be accessed at http://www.gmsts.org/treatments.html

6) Wage Determinations –These are the wages that must be paid to employees working on this contract for both the prime and any subcontractors. The determinations posted with the original solicitation have been updated on amendment 1.

7) Amendment 1 – This amendment updated the wage determinations. Click the links to access the new determinations which replace the ones included on FBO. Awardees will be provided with a copy of all applicable wage determinations. This amendment shall be acknowledged by signing the SF-30 and submitting with your price proposal.

Questions and Answers:

Received by email prior to the call:

1. Would the Forest Service be interested in pursuing application with drones? No, UAS application platforms in the testing stage (drones) would not be considered for this large operational project that involves treatment of several hundred thousand acres.

2. Will the project need entomology expertise for pre and post assessments? No, entomology expertise is not required. It is provided by FS entomologists.

3. Can you confirm that this bid will allow for helicopter applications? Fixed or rotary would be acceptable as far as the type aircraft. However we are not aware of any custom spray systems that have been developed for rotary wing aircraft that would work for the products required in this contract.

4. Can you tell me if this contract has been awarded previously? If so can you provide either the incumbent name or contract number? The Forest Service completed a similar gypsy moth spraying contract AG-56A1-C-14-0001 with Al’s Aerial Spraying LLC.

5. Where can I get information on the dispersal systems to perhaps buy one? Dave Schumacher at Hercon Environmental and Bill Hatfield, Hatfield Spraying Service in Nunica, MI are possible contact points for information.

6. It appears that a company has already developed a way to disperse the bio flake. This was with the help of hercon. If that is the case the only one who would be able to apply for this bid would be those few people. And then it would not be a very competitive bid. The hopper on the aircraft could carry more chemical than the pods they have. Also if this is a pheromone why does every acre have to be covered. Seems like they would be attracted to the chemical and operator could do 50' swath and skip 50' to the next swath. Background: Federal and State agencies and private companies have attempted to use mating disruption to manage populations of the gypsy moth since 1971. Before 1989 various entities conducted mating disruption activities independently, with inconsistent and discouraging results.

Numerous formulations containing the active ingredient (AI) racemic disparlure were evaluated during these early years (Conrel hollow fibers, NCR gelatin capsules and Hercon plastic laminated flakes). Although these formulations provided a relatively uniform release of pheromone under laboratory conditions, in field tests the release of pheromone was disappointing, and major problems were encountered with the custom spray systems used to apply these products. By 1989, only one commercial product containing racemic disparlure, Hercon’s plastic laminated flakes Disrupt II, was registered by the US EPA for use in mating disruption. Therefore, operational use of mating disruption was limited to use of these layered plastic flakes that must be coated with sticker during application.

By the mid-1990s, the efficacy of mating disruption using Disrupt II (plastic flakes) had been demonstrated on research plots. But the custom and patented equipment (Hercon pods) needed to apply the flakes continued to cause major problems during applications because the system was old, poorly maintained and replacement parts were no longer available. The FS initiated a two pronged approach to bring mating disruption to operational use: (1) small contracts focused on developing and testing a better application system for the flakes and (2) finding an effective alternate mating disruption formulation that could be applied through a conventional spray system.

Methods development for a better flake application system o 1992-2001: Until their patent expired in 2001, Hercon provided their pod application system to any interested applicator and many improvements and refinements to the pod system were developed.

o 1998: FS received multiple competitive offers on a technology development contract for the design and testing of a new application system for flakes. Although this contract was successfully completed, the ‘new’ application system still had problems associated with evenly coating the flakes with sticker o 2001 – 2006: FS advertises and awards multiple “test acre” contracts for any applicator that had designed and built a flake application system for use. All of the application systems tested were improved versions of the now expired, patented Hercon pods

Alternate formulations o Numerous alternate formulations were tested - AgriSense beads, 3M microcapsules, several varieties of ShinEtsu’s flowable product, Valent BioSciences granules, Conrel hollow fibers and ISCA Technologies SPLAT.

o None of these alternate formulations could be successfully applied through conventional spray systems and o Only one alternate formulation (SPLAT) provided the desired efficacy.

By 2006, as a result of the test acre and technology development contracts, there were a number of applicators with custom application systems that functioned well to apply the flakes or SPLAT over large acreages (>100,000 acres). At that point our focus changed from development to operational treatment of large acreages.

Specific answers to #6:

(1) Hercon didn’t assist contractors, they simply provided access to their pod application system and once the patent expired, allowed development and improvements to the old system.

(2) From 1998 to 2006 as the use of mating disruption was increasing, the FS advertised their test acre/technology development contracts widely so any interested applicator had an opportunity to develop a system to apply the flakes. If there is renewed interest from new contractors, we could offer test acre/technology development contracts over the next several years in order to increase the contractor pool for the next advertisement of this project.

(3) The aircraft hopper can carry a much larger load than the pods and one applicator developed such a system. However, larger loads are not an issue with mating disruption because very low application rates are used, typically just 34 grams per acre. The newer pod systems all carry enough flakes to treat 3,000 – 4,000 acres on each load, which is approximately equal to the fuel capacity for the aircraft (i.e.

2.5 to 3.5 hours per load)

(4) Unlike pesticides that must be ingested to be effective, 100% coverage of the target foliage is not required with mating disruption. Research has documented that gaps in coverage can be tolerated but the size of the gap decreases with decreasing dosages. A careful reading of Exhibit 12 reveals that in determining the effective swath to be used during application “gaps with no deposits are acceptable but no single gap may exceed 30 feet in width.”

Received on the call:

1. How many acres were sprayed in 2014? 399,755 acres were treated in 2014. A similar number of acres were treated in 2015 and 2016.

2. Does the Forest Service prefer the use of SPLAT or Disrupt? Is SPLAT more difficult to work with? The government doesn’t have preference as to which product a contractor uses. They are both equally effective. Historically 90% of the acres treated have been done so using Disrupt. The choice is up to the applicator because different dispersal systems are required for the different products. SPLAT can be challenging to work with. For specific questions, you should contact the manufacturer.

Any additional questions shall be directed by email to Melissa Johnson at melissaajohnson@fs.fed.us by 1/24/2017 so they may be posted on FBO for everyone to see prior to offer submission.

Please be sure to read the solicitation in its entirety including the Economic Price Adjustment Clause and the Liquidated Damages Clause.