Attachment A19 Response to Industry comments.pdf

Responses to Industry Comments on draft ERS RFP*

*In the event of an inconsistency between language in the RFP and responses to questions in this document, the language in the RFP shall take precedence.

Comment

Section/ Paragraph

Page

Question/Comment Response

1 VOLUME 1:

FACTOR 1 –PAST

PERFORMANCE

The Draft RFP states, "Offerors shall describe how past performance information relates to specific paragraphs of Section C of the PWS…" Can the government clarify if Section C Part 5 of the PWS are the specific paragraphs that the offeror needs to address? If not, which specific paragraphs of Section C does past performance need to refer to?

The comment is correct in that the Offeror needs to address Section C – Part 5 in their proposal submissions for Past Performance and Work Experience. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

2 VOLUME 2 -

FACTOR 2:

WORK

EXPERIENCE

142 The Draft RFP states, "At least 50% of the projects submitted for Factor 2 (Work Experience) are required to have been performed by the Offeror, excluding Team Members." The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled in favor of allowing evaluations to consider affiliate/sister company experience and past performance information as equivalent to that of the Prime Offeror. Further, FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iii) allows the evaluation to consider an affiliate/sister company’s relevant experience as experience performed by the Offeror, especially for Native 8(a) Small Businesses under 13 CFR

124.110. This methodology and past

precedent allow for increased competition, which ultimately benefits the Government, taxpayer, and business community. Please

In order for an Offeror to rely on the experience or past performance of the Offeror’s parent, sister, subsidiary or an affiliate company, the offeror shall identify the relevant parent, sister, subsidiary company or affiliate company as a Major Subcontractor in its proposal and identify what portion of the work that entity will perform under this contract (must be at least ten (10) percent (%) or more of the total proposed price for this effort). The language in the RFP has been updated.

confirm that the work experience and past performance of an affiliated/sister company, especially that of a Native or Tribal 8(a) or Small Business, will count as Prime Offeror work experience and NOT a Team Member.

3 VOLUME 2 -

FACTOR 2:

WORK

EXPERIENCE

142 The Draft RFP lists 'Design and Field Project Management and Oversight (PWS C5.14) as one of the primary competency work areas.

The draft PWS lists section PWS C5.14 as Non-Routine Requirements. Can the government clarify?

Design and/or Field Project Management and Oversight may be required to support a number of areas within the RFP. Non-routine actions is one of the areas where this work is envisioned. Section C.5.1.1 Project Management, of the RFP has been revised to include design and field project management and oversight to make clear that this work is not just limited to Section C.5.14 Non-Routine Actions.

4 VOLUME 4-

FACTOR 4:

TECHNICAL, 1.,

b), 1)

145 The solicitation requires the offeror to provide resumes, signed letters of commitment, and agreement to be located full time at RMA for each key personnel position. This creates an unreasonable challenge to respond within the timeframe allotted and effectively creates an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent.

Would the Government consider revising these requirements, so they are not unduly restrictive in the interest of achieving fair competition?

To address this comment, commitment letters for key personnel will be required to be submitted two weeks after the rest of the proposal is due. This requirement is identified in Section L of the RFP.

5 PHASE 1: Factor 2: Work Experience:

160 This section of the Draft RFP lists PWS Sections C5.2, C5.3, C5.4, C5.5, C5.7, 5.8, and C5.14 as being evaluated, however Attachment A16 Work Experience Summary only lists C5.2, C5.3, C5.4, C5.5., and C5.14. Can the government please clarify which PWS sections are evaluated in Work Experience?

Offerors do not need to include work experience involving C.5.7 (Record Management) or C.5.8 (IT Support) in their work experience proposal. Section L of the RFP has been updated to reflect the change

6 VOLUME 1:

FACTOR 1 –PAST

PERFORMANCE,

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts

141 We strive to reduce the onus on our Government clients who need to complete the same PPQs repeatedly for proposals.

Also, contracting representatives are reluctant to (or even discouraged from) completing PPQ forms if formal performance CPARS evaluations have been completed. Will the Government please consider allowing offerors to submit completed CPARS evaluations or previously completed/signed PPQs in lieu of new PPQ forms?

Past Performance Questionnaire forms are still required to be submitted regardless of whether CPARS evaluations have been completed. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

7 General

N/A Will the government provide the list of current subcontractor functions and current subcontractors?

Examples of some of the functions where subcontractors are currently being employed are snow removal, HVAC maintenance, elevator inspections, weed control, fence maintenance, and high voltage line electrical maintenance and repair. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

8 VOLUME 2 -

WORK

EXPERIENCE

142 The bulleted list of non-routine requirements in section C5.14 on page 75 that Offerors are required to demonstrate work experience in contains many items specific to Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

Demonstrating highly location specific work experience in this area is heavily favored to the incumbent and stifles competition due to the site specific items.

The bulleted list of examples of non-routine actions on page 75 of the RFP is intended to reflect the major work areas of the PWS Sections C.5.1 through C.5.5. If a contractor has work experience in the major work areas of the PWS, this work experience would also satisfy the work experience as described in C.5.14. A contractor will be given equal credit for their work experience whether it has occurred at RMA or another site. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

9 VOLUME 2 -

WORK

EXPERIENCE

142 The bulleted list of non-routine requirements in section C5.14 on page 75 contains 15 items that Offerors are required to demonstrate work experience in. How does the government evaluate these tasks as work experience? Is each item weighed separately, or are some weighed more heavily than others? Is the government going to view more favorably a task order that accomplishes more bullets in C5.14 or fewer of the bullets well?

Non-routine actions are expected to be related to the work areas outlined in Sections C5.1 through C.5.5 so work experience provided in those areas should address the work experience requirements of C.5.14. As mentioned in the response to comment #3, Section C5.1 has now been modified to make clear that design and field project management and oversight experience is a general requirement and not one specific to Section C5.14. The government will not weight the evaluation of work experience by area in its evaluation. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

10 VOLUME 3

FACTOR 3: A-E

SERVICES

QUALIFICATIONS

143 Can the government clarify why A-E Services and Standard Form 330 are needed when construction management is not listed as a task in the PWS?

Design and field project management and oversight (equivalent to construction management) are requirements included in the RFP. Therefore, submission of

Standard Form 330 is appropriate to support the government’s evaluation of the contractor’s qualifications in these areas. Section 5.1.1 has been modified to make clear that design and field project management and oversight are requirements of this RFP.

11 VOLUME 4-

FACTOR 4:

TECHNICAL, 1.,

b), 1)

145 In previous protest documents (B-406975;

B-406975.3; B-406975.4) related to this contract, the government stated, "...both proposals relied heavily on the incumbent (contract) staff at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and both were evaluated as having low performance risk." How can the government assure fair competition if Offerors do not have access to incumbent staff?

All offerors are free, and even encouraged, to propose the use of incumbent staff. The example cited in the comment is an illustration that multiple offerors in the 2012 procurement proposed the use of incumbent staff.

12 C5.13 Contract Transition

74 The contract transition is listed as a 60 day period. If the anticipated award as listed in the Sam.gov Notice W91CRB23R0005-RFI is 10/31/2023 and the incumbent contract expires 11/30/2023, how can a 60 day transition occur?

The contract transition period is 30 days.

The RFP has been corrected.

13 VOLUME 2 -

FACTOR 2:

WORK

EXPERIENCE

142 The RFP states, "A maximum of six (6) projects can be submitted to demonstrate relevant, recent experience." This section lists 5 primary competency work areas that must be addressed with a 6th bullet that has no text. Can the government clarify if Offerors can use single projects to cover multiple areas or if there is another competency work area missing?

Contractors can use single projects to cover multiple areas of the PWS. There are only five (5) competency work areas. The erroneous sixth bullet has been deleted.

14 General

N/A Due to the volume of documents associated with this RFP, will the government consider

The draft RFP was posted to BetaSam on March 3. Proposals are anticipated to be a 90 day proposal window to allow adequate time to analyze the documents and create a fair opportunity for competition. Currently the incumbent has a significant advantage over any competitor since they are the authors of many of these documents and have had access for years.

due no earlier than May 15 which provides over 70 days for proposal planning and preparation. Proposal submission deadlines will be posted with the final RFP on/about April 14.

15 General N/A A-E Services Qualifications doesn’t fit with the scope. Is this a Brooks Act procurement?

Most of the services are not A-E. Specifically Section L states “may be required to perform”. Why are you adding this limited and even known requirement as a principal selection criteria? If A-E services are needed during the period of the contract, we can simply conduct a procurement for the services at the time they are needed. Are any of these services listed in the Cost Model to be priced? If not, then why is this part of the selection criteria when the price for these types of services will not even be submitted and therefore evaluated?

The Agency has defined the scope to include a small amount of A-E Services at

PWS C.5.14.

Section L has been updated. All costs related to A-E Services will be included in the plug number for non-routine actions at PWS C.5.14. Non-Routine actions are not part of the proposal evaluation.

16 General N/A The Draft RFP Section C includes optimization, however there is no corresponding criteria in Sections L or M. Please consider including optimization Section L and Section M and replacing A-E qualifications with optimization criteria. Optimization will result in cost savings to the Army.

Comment noted. No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

17 Please set aside for Women-Owned Small Businesses that are certified by the U.S.

Small Business Administration for the Women-Owned Small Business Federal

Comment noted. No change to the RFP

Contract Program, as set forth in Title 13, Part 127 of the CFR.

18 May we propose key personnel and if awarded have the option to hire the existing incumbent key personnel and still maintain the incentive fee? Or if awarded to an offeror other than the incumbent must the existing incumbent key personnel be prohibited from working on the contract?

All offerors are free, and even encouraged, to propose the use of incumbent staff. As stated in C1.15.2 of the PWS, any personnel that replace the proposed key personnel must meet all of the qualification criteria. The Offeror’s incentive fee, with respect to the retention of key personnel criterion, will not be adversely impacted by the hiring of incumbent staff.

19 Since the website with the Section J list of attachments was just made available, can you provide more time for additional questions pertaining to these attachments?

No change to the draft RFP review schedule will be made.

20 Please consider conducting a site-walk. No site-walk will be held for this procurement. The site video provides similar information that could be gained from a site visit.

21 Please confirm that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are excluded from the page limitation.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are excluded from the page limitation (see Section L, Proposal Submission Requirements

22 Could you please provide as an attachment a specific list of all items that will be covered by the cost reimbursable line item so that we know anything else would need to be covered by our FFP?

Providing a list of all reimbursable items is not feasible. A detailed list of items that should be included in the Firm-Fixed Price CLIN is provided in the PWS in Attachments A1, A2, and A3. Most other items are likely to be reimbursable. No change to the RFP

23 In addition to the replacement of approximately 24 tires per year on the current vehicles, can you please provide the total miles driven per year per vehicle and gallons of fuel purchased per year per vehicle over the last 5 years? If on a per vehicle basis is not possible, can you please provide in the aggregate?

Information about the age and mileage of each vehicle is provided in Attachment A3.

No change to the RFP will be made in response to this comment.

24 Could you please provide more details to explain the option to purchase vehicles and trailers listed in Attachment 3 from the incumbent contractor for an administrative cost of $1/vehicle or trailer?

a. Are there any additional costs to be paid to the incumbent or lease fees that must be paid after the administrative cost of $1/vehicle or trailer is paid to the incumbent contractor?

b. How was each current vehicle and trailer purchased?

i. May future vehicles be purchased under this same mechanism?

c. Please confirm the entity that currently owns each vehicle and trailer

In order to transfer title of the vehicles/trailers to the successful offeror, they must be sold. Each will be sold for $1/vehicle/trailer and the successful offeror will be responsible for titling, insuring, and maintaining the vehicles.

a. The vehicles can continue to be used at RMA without any further payment to the incumbent or the government. If the successful offeror is interested in disposing, selling, or using the vehicles/trailers for another project, the government must be paid fair market value for the vehicle/trailer being removed from the site.

b. Vehicles were leased by the incumbent contractor and lease payments were a reimbursable expense under the contract. The contractor arranged to acquire the vehicles once lease payments exceeded the value of the vehicle.

i. No future vehicles may not be purchased under this same mechanism.

The cost model has been revised to include additional pricing options for vehicle replacement if it is determined that replacement is necessary as described in Attachment A3.

c. The vehicles and trailers are titled to Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc.

25 Are the supervisor/manager and two crew members that are on-call eligible to be compensated in some form, such as a stipend, for their on-call status?

This is the contractor’s responsibility to determine. The contractor is responsible for meeting state and federal labor regulations.

26 Is Aerial photography of cover areas reimbursable?

If aerial photography becomes a requirement under the contract, it would be a reimbursable expense.

27 Could you please provide the current commercial cloud service agreement to include data transfer speeds, size and number of user/connections? Could you also please provide the complete system architecture of the Contractor Operated Systems (C5.8.1)

Details regarding the commercial cloud service are provided in Attachments A13 and A14.

The Contractor Operated Systems are applications that were developed at RMA and have been used to operate and maintain the remediation systems for over 30 years. The function of each application is summarized in the PWS (Section C5.8.1).

Note: The Offeror may use the existing RMA applications or propose other applications/systems that can meet the RMA performance standards. The RFP has been revised to reflect this clarification.

28 Could you please provide the databases (5.8.1) or exported tables of all databases identified in Section C5.8.1 Contractor Operated Systems that is equivalent to what the incumbent has access to? Can you also provide any table parent/child relationships?

The output of the applications is summarized in the example reports provided in the Attachments.

Note: Every environmental remediation project has similar applications/systems to collect and manage data. The Offeror may

a. If the incumbent has exclusive access to this information, it is an Organizational Conflict of Interest. Please mitigate.

use the existing RMA applications or propose other applications that they have experience with that are capable of meeting the RMA performance standards.

29 Could you please change the format and/or resolution of Attachment A12 – WBS Matrix?

Attachment A12 is legible as is and will not be changed.

30 Does each Summary Section required for each file of the proposal count against the page limit?

The Summary Section will count against the page limit.

31 Section L states “The staffing levels and positions indicated on the ERS Cost Model (Attachment L1) approximately reflect the current positions and level of effort of the current contract”.

The ERS Cost Model shows only 1 FTE as Lead Treatment Plant Operator. Can you please confirm there are no additional Support Treatment Plant Operators that work under the direction of the Lead Treatment Plant Operator?

An incorrect (older version) of the cost model was included in the attachments.

The cost model has been revised and has been included in the final RFP.

32 Volume 4, Factor 4, Section (b) Key Personnel states “The Offeror shall provide resumes for each of the personnel replacing key personnel to indicate that they clearly meet the education and/or experience specified in PWS C1.15.2”. Is this a requirement that is only applicable during the contract or are we to identify

This requirement is applicable to contract execution. Section L has been revised.

replacements for Key Personnel and provide their resumes with our proposal?

33 For Part II of the Volume 1, Factor 1 – Past Performance, Section 3 – Subcontracts, for government contracts where we were a major subcontractor, the contracting activity would not be aware of our work nor did we have communication with the contracting activity. The government technical representatives are well aware of the work we provided and can provide feedback. May we provide two governmental technical representative contacts for these cases? Or may we provide the Prime contractor’s contracting activity as the reference?

Offerors should provide the contracting activity and technical representative involved in the contract between the offeror's prime contractor and themselves, not their Prime Contractor's Government contract.

34 Are we allowed to modify the layout of Attachment A16 so long as the sequence of items and content remain the same or must we use the exact form “as-is”.

Yes, as long as the contractor provides the required information.

35 VOLUME 5 –

FACTOR 5:

COST/PRICE

VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE states “Competition is anticipated therefore Certified Cost and Pricing Data are not currently required in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b)(3); however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award if none of the exemptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply.” and “The information submitted in this volume shall comply with the cost element format FAR 15.408, Table 15-2.” Table 15-2 is titled Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals When Certified Cost or Pricing Data Are Required.

The instructions for the ERS Cost Model state “FAR 15.403-5(b) allows the contracting officer to

The requirement to submit information in FAR 15.402, Table 15-2 has been removed from the solicitation.

specify the format of cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data. The completed workbook shall be part of the cost/price proposal.”

a. Do you intend that in addition to the ERS Cost Model we provide all of the information required by Table 15-2 (information on first page of proposal, index, information to explain our estimating process, relationship between line item prices and total contract price, summary total amounts, consolidated priced summary of individual material quantities, time-phased (e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc.)

breakdown of labor hours, rates, and cost by appropriate category, derivation of indirect rates, other costs, royalties, facilities capital cost of money and new contracts submission of line item summaries format? Or does the

ERS

Cost Model satisfy the requirement to comply with the cost element format FAR 15.408, Table 15-2.

b. If neither, can you be more specific about the components of Table 15-2 that we should provide in addition to the ERS Cost Model?

For example, do we just need to provide backup for our direct labor rates and the FFP line items in addition to the ERS Cost Model worksheets? Do we need to demonstrate adequate price competition or obtain certified cost or pricing data from our teaming subcontractor? Is the expectation that we provide at least three quotes for every item in our FFP.

36 Because this is a competitive procurement, will you please consider removing the requirement to comply with FAR 15.404-3(b)(1) and conduct appropriate price and/or cost analysis to establish the reasonableness and realism of proposed subcontractor cost/prices?

This requirement will not be removed.

37 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE states “The total evaluated price will be the summation of Section B CLINs, including any probable cost adjustments made by the Government.” Are there criteria for how the Government will determine if a probable cost adjustment is warranted and a model that will be followed to calculate the probable cost adjustment?

If so, can that information be provided in Section M? What about the A-E related

Probable Cost Adjustments are made to adjust an offeror’s price up or down because of unrealistic costs. There is no model used. Cost/Price proposals should be prepared based on the base scope and in accordance with the Cost Model provided. A-E services may be included as part of the Non-Routine Actions (Section C5.14) which are included in the solicitation as a normalized amount and are not part of the price evaluation.

pricing. If A-E is a selection criteria, how is it not part of the price evaluation?

38 All ERS Cost Model labor categories labor type is professional. Is this intended or should some be SCA/Non-Professional:

a. If there are FLSA non-exempt personnel/wage categories, will you place the corresponding 5-digit SCA code in SCA Identifier column for the corresponding labor category in the ERS Model?

The ERS cost model will be modified to identify FLSA non-exempt positions.

39 Bullet 7 of Section 2 - Overall Instructions of the ERS Cost Model Instructions refers to the ODC Cost Detail worksheet. Is this bullet meant to refer to the Reimbursable Cost Detail Spreadsheet?

Yes, this refers to the reimbursable Cost Detail sheet. Cost Model instructions have been revised

40 Section 7 of the ERS Cost Model Instructions is identified as ODC COST DETAIL WORKSHEET. Are these instructions meant to refer to the Reimbursable Cost Detail Spreadsheet?

Yes. This refers to the Reimbursable Cost Detail Spreadsheet.

Cost Model instructions have been revised

41 The ERS Cost Model Instructions do not have a dedicated section for the Transition/Mobilization and Demobilization or ODC, Vehicle, Equipment Cost Detail Spreadsheets.

Cost Model instructions have been revised.

42 Are any portion of supplies, tools, equipment, computer hardware and software, and incidentals

Small Tools and Consumables, and computer hardware and software as required for facilities maintenance or repairs of dams, sewage lagoons, Monitoring Point and cap cover repair included in the reimbursable line item? Are repairs for items/systems under SOOs reimbursable? Is propane fuel part of the cost reimbursable? Are re-paving and sanding included in the cost reimbursable?

Are sampling supplies included in the cost reimbursable?

described in Attachments A1 and A2 are not reimbursable and are covered by the ODCs, Vehicles, and Equipment FFP CLINs.

Contractor operated computer systems as referenced in Section C.5.8.1 of the PWS are reimbursable.

Propane as currently used at RMA is reimbursable.

Re-paving and sanding are reimbursable.

Sampling supplies as described in Attachment A2 are reimbursable.

43 Sec�on C.1.9 of the RFP states “Stability and Con�nuity of the workforce are Essen�al”.

Sec�on C1.14.1 states RMA is a VPP Star Site and contractors are encourage to par�cipate with the Army in this program and if the total staff consist of at least 75% of employees from the incumbent the VPP Star Cer�fica�on can be transferred to the new contractor. The requirement for the contractor to provide 7 key personnel appears to prevent the contractor from maintaining stability and con�nuity of the opera�ons and will prevent the new contractor from retaining at least 75% of the incumbent workforce. Will the government consider reducing the key personnel to 2 in order to allow the successful contractor to meet the preferences defined in the RFP?

The number of key personnel should not affect the offeror’s ability to attain VPP Star status. Retention of 75% of employees only impacts the contractor’s ability to retain the incumbent’s VPP certification. Offerors could attain VPP certification on their own initiative without retaining incumbent staff. Offerors may also hire incumbent staff as key personnel.

44 Will the government consider waiving the Past Performance Ques�onnaire if the performance of the project was done as a

No.

prime contractor and the evalua�ons can be found in Contractor Performance Assessment Repor�ng System (CPARS)?

45 The requirements in the RFP ask that a past performance ques�onnaire be sent to Government Contrac�ng Ac�vity and the Government Technical Representa�ve. Is the expecta�on of the client that 2 ques�onnaires be completed for each contract performance?

The Government’s expectation is that questionnaires will be sent to both the Government Contrac�ng Ac�vity and the Government Technical Representa�ve.

46 156 Page # 156 of the dra� RFP states the current CBA may be found in atachment 5.

This atachment appears to be missing. Can the current CBA please be provided?

RMA does not have a CBA. The RFP has been revised to reflect this.

47 155 Page #155 of the dra� RFP ask that each offeror provide documenta�on suppor�ng the reasonableness and realism of each proposed direct labor rate. It also cau�ons offerors not use rates at the lower end of the salary survey bell curve as they may be viewed as unrealis�c. Will the client consider providing exis�ng labor rates in order to ensure realis�c and compe��ve bids?

Offerors are requested to propose labor rates at or above the 75th percentile.

Backup survey documentation shall be included and justification for any rates proposed below the 75th percentile should be provided. Section L of the RFP has been revised to incorporate this change.

48 Can informa�on be provided regarding No�ce of Viola�ons, if any, over the past period of performance?

There have been no NOVs during the periods of performance of the current and previous contracts. The Five-Year Review Reports (Attachment L31 is the most recent report) summarize the environmental compliance related issues for RMA.

49 Has the EPA issued an Opera�onal and Func�onal Determina�on for the ICS cover?

If not, what is preven�ng this from being issued?

The O & F determination was not issued for the ICS due to an ongoing funding dispute with EPA. The dispute is expected to be resolved in 2023 and the determination should be made following that resolution.

50 When was the last leachate system inspection?

Wastewater conveyance system inspections are performed quarterly. The last inspection was conducted on 3 April 2023.

51 When was the last leachate system cleaning?

Leachate system cleaning is not a requirement of the post-closure plans.

52 Would the government consider hos�ng an on-site site visit?

No site visit will be held for this procurement. The site video provides similar information that could be gained from a site visit.

53 Would the government provide the average salaries of the incumbents by labor category? This is important to ensure retention of the incumbent staff and to prevent a bidder from providing rates so low that they that cannot retain the incumbent staff.

Offerors are requested to propose labor rates at or above the 75th percentile.

Backup survey documentation shall be included and justification for any rates proposed below the 75th percentile should be provided. Section L of the RFP has been revised to incorporate this change.

54 Multiple positions are listed as technicians that should be changed to specialist based on their actual job duties (two field samplers and the caps and covers field specialist).

These positions require a BS degree, and they are professional scientist positions in the incumbent contract.

Cost Model has been updated.

55 The Water Treatment Operations Manager is listed as requiring an A Colorado

The requirement has been changed to Class C in the RFP.

Wastewater license in one location and a C license in several other locations. Based on the type of treatment plants on the RMA, please change the A license requirement to a C license.

56 The new ERSC Cost Model dated 3/23/2023 (from the website at https://erscrfp.rma-cloud.com/) contains several inconsistencies in the labor categories on the Direct Labor Rate Schedule and the Labor Cost Detail tabs. The Water Treatment Operations Manager is missing; this is a key position per Section C1.15.2(a). Three other key position labor categories—Sampling and Mwionitoring Manager, Regulatory Compliance Manger, and Caps & Covers Manager—have new names that are inconsistent with Section C1.15.2. The new names are Sampling Manager, Regulatory Manager, and Cover/Maint. Manager.

Cost Model has been revised.

57 Please provide detailed instructions for the completion of the SF330. For example-

a. How many resumes (Section E) are allowed? How will resumes be evaluated?

b. How many project descriptions (Section F) are allowed? Can we use different projects than those provided in Factor 1 and 2? How will projects be evaluated?

c. What information should be provided in Section H (Additional Information) of the SF330?

a. Offeror’s should limit the number of resumes submitted to the minimum required to demonstrate their qualifications to perform A-E services for this contract (maximum of five). Example projects for which offerors must demonstrate qualifications to perform are provided in Section C.5.14 of the RFP.

b. Offeror’s shall submit descriptions of no more than three projects that are similar in nature to the example projects listed in Section C.5.14 of the RFP. The projects can https://erscrfp.rma-cloud.com/ https://erscrfp.rma-cloud.com/

d. A 10-page limit for Factor 3, A-E Services Qualifications, is low considering the number of forms required. Please consider increasing the page limit for Factor 3 based on the number of resumes, projects, etc., actually required.

e. Can offerors include a subcontractor’s qualifications in the

SF330?

be the same as provided for Factor 1 and 2.

Projects will be evaluated to confirm the Offeror’s capability to perform design and fieldwork oversight on projects similar to the examples listed in SectionC.5.14 of the

RFP.

c. There is no specific additional information required to be submitted as part of Section H. Offeror’s may submit additional information that supports their qualifications to perform A-E Services.

d. Resumes are not included in the page limitation. The page limitation has been changed to 20.

e. Yes

Additional detail has been added to Section L of the RFP.

58 Draft RFP Section C.1.9 Section C1.14.1

The number of key personnel required in the draft RFP, when considering the requirement for providing resumes for all key personnel, provides the incumbent a distinct advantage.

a) Will the Government reduce the required number of key personnel?

The Government does not restrict offerors from proposing the use of incumbent staff as key personnel.

a) No.

b) Does the current contract include a requirement for current staff to be available to discuss employment options with potential bidders?

Draft RFP Section C1.1 and C1.4, #2

Has an NOV been issued for any remediation system or cover system over the past 10 years?

60 Draft RFP Section C1.2.3

The Draft RFP indicates an EPA Operational and Functional determination for the ICS has not been issued.

a) Will the Government provide the reasons for this

b) Expected determination date?

The O & F determination was not issued for the ICS due to an ongoing funding dispute with EPA. The dispute is expected to be resolved in 2023 and the determination should be made following that resolution.

61 Draft RFP Section C5.4.2.1

a) Please provide the date and results of the last leachate and leak detection system inspections

b) Please provide historical data re quantities of leachate collected for off-site disposal

a) These systems are inspected daily or weekly and the last inspections identified no concerns.

b) This information can be found in Attachment L36.

62 Draft RFP Section C5.14

Please provide level of Litigation Support required over the past 10 years and any pending legal actions that will be supported by this contract.

b) Litigation support by the incumbent contractor was limited to a few hundred hours of the Regulatory Compliance Manager’s time over the past six years. Additionally, a small amount of time was invested by support staff in completing records searches and document production. There is one outstanding lawsuit with the State of Colorado that may require a limited amount of support from a few individuals if they are retained by the successful offeror.

63 Draft RFP Volume 5- Factor 5:

Cost/ Price

155 This seem to indicate the Government has an expectation of salary/direct labor rates.

a) Will the Government provide those rates?

b) In lieu of rates, will the Government provide salary bands for current staff?

Offerors are requested to propose labor rates at or above the 75th percentile.

Backup survey documentation shall be included and justification for any rates proposed below the 75th percentile should be provided. Section L of the RFP has been revised to incorporate this change.

64 Section C 11 Please clarify what kind of A-E services may be required in support of the work under this contract

A-E Services will include design, construction oversight, program management, etc.

65 12 Can the cost inventive and performance incentive fees vary between the base period and two separate option periods?

Yes, offerors’ proposed incentive fees can vary for each of the nine years of the contract period of performance. (see cost model)

66 12 Will Shell be involved in the evaluation of proposals and selection of the awardee for this contract?

Yes, Shell’s contractor will be on the Source Selection Evaluation Board as a non-voting member and will not determine ratings.

67 13 This section states there are four groundwater treatment systems and C1.2.3 states there are five groundwater treatment systems, please clarify

There are five groundwater treatment plants. The PWS has been revised accordingly.

68 13 This section states the OGITS has been replaced by new treatment systems. Are there plans to replace any treatment systems during the term of this potentially 10-year contract?

The North Boundary Containment System and The Northwest Boundary Containment System will be replaced by the Consolidated Water Treatment Plant after design and construction are completed (see PWS Section C5.2.1.6) under a different contract.

69 18 The last sentence of the first paragraph, work force stability and continuity. Please provide a current list of the existing work force by labor category and quantity so that this objective can be achieved.

See Cost Model

70 18 The first bullet mentions training. Is the training conducted by USFWS? Is there a cost associated with the training?

No cost for the bison herd management training conducted by USFWS

71 18 The title of this section includes “Training.”

However, there is no mention of description of any type of training. Please clarify.

There are several training requirements identified in Section C1.12.

72 20 Are there any EM/CP events that would require the facility to shut down during work hours?

Read EM/CP Plan provided on website (see Attachment L29)

73 20 Have there been any EM/CP events in the past that have required the facility to shut down and if so, what was the duration?

Historically, plants have been occasionally shutdown for weather and power related issues.

74 20 Please confirm the work force required to perform the scope of the PWS does not require any UXO trained/certified personnel.

No UXO personnel required (see Cost Model)

75 21 Does the government require a drug testing program for this contract and if so, does the Contractor bear the cost of the program?

The contractor is responsible for maintaining a drug-free workplace. The contractor is responsible for all costs associated with complying with this requirement and those costs should be included in the FFP CLIN.

76 22 Please confirm there are no costs to the Contractor to obtain a NACI.

No costs to contractor for NACI

77 22 Is there a cost to the Contractor to complete PII training? If yes, please provide the cost per employee.

No costs to contractor for PII training

78 22 Is Contractor responsible for the cost to complete the IA certifications? If yes, please provide the cost per employee.

No costs to contractor for completing the IA certifications

79 23 Is there a cost to the Contractor to complete iWATCH training? If yes, please provide the cost per employee.

No

80 23 Is there a cost to the Contractor to complete OPSEC training? If yes, please provide the cost per employee.

No

81 23 Is there a cost to the Contractor to complete TARP training? If yes, please provide the cost per employee.

No

82 24 Are USACE EM 385-1-1 certifications/guidance a requirement for this contract?

SACE EM 385-1-1 is not a requirement under this contract. Note that this document could be a useful resource for reference.

83 26 Is it acceptable for the Water Treatment Operations Manager to be in the process of obtaining a Class A Certification?

No, must have certification at time of award.

84 27 Is it acceptable for the Water Treatment Plant Operators to be in the process of obtaining a Class C Certification?

No, must have certification at time of award.

85 27 Is it acceptable for the Surface Water Operator to be in the process of obtaining a Class D and Class 1 Certification?

No, must have certification at time of award.

86 27 Is it acceptable for the sewage lagoon operator to be in the process of obtaining a Class D Certification?

No, must have certification at time of award.

87 29 Please confirm the incumbent contractor has provided all data that is required to successfully perform the requirements of this contract in order to prevent an organizational conflict of interest.

The Army has provided all information that we believe is necessary for the bidding of this contract.

88 30 Water Treatment Plants, Maximum Plant Downtime of 5% per year. Does this

No, each treatment plant.

criterion apply to all of the water treatment plants combined?

89 30 Water Treatment Plants, Maximum Plant Downtime of 5% per year. Has this criterion been historically achieved over the past ten years? Please provided the historic downtimes for each individual plant over the past ten years.

Yes, criterion has been historically achieved over the past ten years. Please see the 2021 Annual Summary Report (Attachment L33) for downtimes in FY21 as an example.

90 30 Water Treatment Plants, Meet Reverse Gradient IAW LTMP. How many incidents have occurred in the last ten years where loss of reverse gradient has occurred?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

91 30 Water Treatment Plants, Meet Reverse Gradient IAW LTMP. When loss of reverse gradient has occurred, has the condition been remedied within 90 days for each incident?

Yes

92 30 Water Treatment Plants, Meet CSRG Standards IAW LTMP. Have there been any exceedances of CSRGs at any of the water treatment plants within the last ten years?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

93 30 Water Treatment Plants, Meet CSRG Standards IAW LTMP. When CSRG exceedances have occurred, has the condition been remedied within 90 days for each incident?

Yes

94 30 Water Treatment Plants, Demonstrate Plume Edge Capture. Has loss of containment at any of the water treatment plants occurred within the last ten years and if so, how many?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

95 30 Water Treatment Plants, Demonstrate Plume Edge Capture. When loss of containment has occurred, has the condition been remedied within 90 days?

Yes

96 30 Landfills – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 4.8 inches. Has erosion exceeded 4.8 inches at any of the landfills within the last ten years?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

97 30 Landfills – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 4.8 inches. If erosion has exceeded 4.8 inches how many occurrences and which landfills experienced erosion?

Yes

98 30 Landfills – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 4.8 inches. If erosion has exceeded 4.8 inches at any of the landfills, what has been the range of areas requiring repairs?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

99 30 Landfills – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 4.8 inches. If erosion has exceeded 4.8 inches at any of the landfills, what has been the range of erosion depths requiring repairs?

100 30 Landfills – Leakage Rate, Meet Action Leakage Trigger Rate. Has the leakage trigger rate been exceeded at any of the landfills within the last the last ten years?

101 30 Landfills – Leakage Rate , Meet Action Leakage Trigger Rate. If the leakage trigger rate has been exceeded, has the condition been remedied within 90 days?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

102 30 Landfills – Leakage Rate , Meet Action Leakage Trigger Rate. If the leakage trigger rate has been exceeded, what types of remedies have been performed?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

103 30 Cover – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 6 inches. Has erosion exceeded 6 inches at any of the landfills within the last ten years?

104 30 Cover – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 6 inches. If erosion has exceeded 6 inches how many occurrences and which landfills experienced erosion?

105 30 Cover – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 6 inches. If erosion has exceeded 6 inches at any of the landfills, what has been the range of areas requiring repairs?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

106 30 Cover – Inspections, Meet Erosion less than 6 inches. If erosion has exceeded 6 inches at any of the landfills, what has been the range of erosion depths requiring repairs?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

107 30 Covers – Inspections, Meet Vegetation Cover Standards (25%). Has the vegetative cover standard been exceeded any of the landfills within the last ten years?

108 30 Covers – Inspections, Meet Vegetation Cover Standards (25%). If vegetative cover standard has been exceeded, how many occurrences and which landfills experienced vegetation remedies?

109 30 Covers – Inspections, Meet Vegetation Cover Standards (25%). If vegetation standards have been exceeded, what has been the range of areas requiring repairs?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

110 30 Covers – Inspections, Meet Vegetation Cover Standards (25%). If vegetation standards have been exceeded, has the condition been remedied within 180 days?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

111 30 Covers – Lysimeter Monitoring, Meet Percolation Rate Limits. Has the percolation rate limit been exceeded any of the landfills within the last ten years?

112 30 Covers – Lysimeter Monitoring , Meet Percolation Rate Limits . If the percolation rate limit has been exceeded, how many occurrences and which landfills experienced exceedances?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

113 30 Covers – Lysimeter Monitoring , Meet Percolation Rate Limits. If the percolation rate limits have been exceeded, what types of remedies have been has performed?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

114 30 Covers – Lysimeter Monitoring , Meet Percolation Rate Limits. If the percolation rate limits have been exceeded, what has been the range of areas requiring repairs?

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

115 30 Conduct Facility Maintenance. What type of major maintenance activities have been performed within the last ten years (e.g., roof repairs, flood damage repairs, sewer repairs, etc.).

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

116 30 Land Use Controls Monitoring. What type of repair activities have been performed within the last ten years (e.g., fence repairs, sign replacement, deed restriction updates, etc.).

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

117 30 Land Use Controls Monitoring. Please provide the quantities of repairs performed within the last ten years (e.g., length of fence repairs, number of sign replacements, frequency of deed restriction updates and associated fees, etc.).

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

118 30 Environmental Compliance. How many consultive process trigger events have occurred within the last ten years

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

119 30 Environmental Compliance. Please list the consultive process trigger events that have occurred within the last ten years.

120 30 Environmental Compliance. How many notices of violation trigger events have occurred within the last ten years.

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

121 30 Please list the notice of violation trigger events that have occurred within the last ten years.

Review Fifth Five Year Review Report (Attachment L31-1 and L31-2)

122 30 This paragraph states “the base cost for reimbursable materials established in the solicitation is a normalized amount used for all offers prior to the application of G&A costs. When establishing the Target Cost for the Three-Year Base Period, the price proposed by the contractor during the competitive procurement will be used” When the government evaluates the price, will the normalized amounts provided by the government on row 12 of the “cost summary” tab be used in the evaluation process?

For this requirement normalized amount is the same as the plug number. The RFP has been revised to clarify this.

123 30 This paragraph states “the base cost for reimbursable materials established in the solicitation is a normalized amount used for all offers prior to the application of G&A costs. When establishing the Target Cost for the Three-Year Base Period, the price proposed by the contractor during the competitive procurement will be used” All CLINs ending in 02 shown on the “Section B” tab in the RMA Cost Model file are titled “Reimbursable Labor Cost” compared to “Reimbursable Material” described in C1.22.2. Please clarify.

Cost Model has been updated

124 30 This paragraph states “the base cost for reimbursable materials established in the solicitation is a normalized amount used for all offers prior to the application of G&A costs. When establishing the Target Cost for the Three-Year Base Period, the price proposed by the contractor during the competitive procurement will be used” Where are contractors to provide their price for reimbursable materials in the RMA Cost Model file – on the “ODC, Vehicle, Equip FFP” tab?

Offerors do not need to provide a price for reimbursable materials in the RMA Cost Model. The normalized amount will be used for all offerors.

125 30 This paragraph states “the base cost for reimbursable materials established in the solicitation is a normalized amount used for all offers prior to the application of G&A costs. When establishing the Target Cost for the Three-Year Base Period, the price proposed by the contractor during the competitive procurement will be used” If the offeror’s price for reimbursable materials is to be provided on the “ODC, Vehicle, Equip FFP” tab, will the government omit those costs when evaluating the contractors cost shown on row 22 of the “Cost Summary” tab of the RMA Cost Model?

Offerors do not need to provide a price for reimbursable materials in the RMA Cost Model. The normalized amount will be used for all offerors.

126 32 The first paragraph refers to Attachment A5, Period 1 Performance Incentive Fee Criteria to evaluate the first six-month performance period. Attachment A5, Period 1 only has a note stating: “The Government will consider circumstances beyond the control of the contractor as a factor in its evaluation.”

Please clarify how the first six-month performance period will be evaluated. Also, please clarify or provide examples of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor.

Please…