Solicitation FA4814-11-R-0019 MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration Services Q A.docx

Solicitation FA4814-11-R-0019 MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration Services Site Visit Q&A

As a result of the MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration Services site visit held on 18 August 2011, the following questions were submitted and their answers have been included.

1. What is the USAF’s preferred treatment for Cogon grass - glyphosate, imazapyr, or both?

CEVN reply: This will be a performance based contract and the Government relies on the contractor to select the herbicide type (and application method) that they feel will work best or is most appropriate for each type of plant being treated. Both glyphosate and imazapyr have been used successfully to treat Cogon grass at MacDill AFB and the herbicides are both approved for use on base. All chemicals must comply with Green Procurement list and be coordinated through the HAZMAT Pharmacy, located in bldg. 49 at Paperclips, Etc. before use on base.

2. What is the USAF’s preferred treatment for Lead Tree?

CEVN reply: This will be a performance based contract and the Government relies on the contractor to select the herbicide type (and application method) that they feel will work best or is most appropriate for each type of plant being treated. For large trees the Government has found that girdling the trees (and painting with herbicide) is the most effective treatment. For large areas of lead tree infestation the Government has also used ground application of pellets (Velpar ULV) which was successful. Foliar application seems the least effective, successful only on smaller trees. All chemicals must comply with Green Procurement list and be coordinated through the HAZMAT Pharmacy, located in bldg. 49 at Paperclips, Etc. before use on base.

3. Is the contractor responsible for purchasing the one-gallon size plants and three-gallon size plants? If so, what type of plant? (Page 4 of PWS, Paragraph 1.4).

CEVN reply: Yes, the contractor is responsible for purchasing (as well as planting) the one-gallon and three-gallon plant material. One-gallon material will be some type of herbaceous plant such as Muhlenbergia capillaries, Spartina bakeri, Spartina alternaflora, Spartina patens, Juncus roemerianus, or Juncus effuses. The three-gallon plant material will be one of the following native tree species: Pinus palustris, Pinus elliottii, Quercus virginiana, or Acer rubrum. Previous experience indicates that all of the species listed for the one-gallon size material are all generally about the same price, and likewise, the tree species listed for the three-gallon size material are all also nearly identical in purchase price. If your research indicated otherwise, please develop an average cost.

4. Also, there is a discrepancy on the number of plants. The PWS states 400 and 100 quantities while the pricing section indicates 245 1-gallon plants and 80 3-gallon plants for the base year, 1 1-gallon plant and 1 3-gallon plant for the first option year, 800 1-gallon plants and 100 3-gallon plants for the second option year, 1 1-gallon plant and 1 3-gallon plant for the third option year and 1000 1-gallon plants and 500 3-gallon plants for the fourth option year. What are the correct quantities?

CEVN reply: For purposes of bidding, please submit costs for the amounts listed on the bid schedule for each of the five years you are bidding on. The actual number of plants being planted each year (of each size) will vary and could range from zero to 1,000 or more. Since everyone is bidding on the same amounts, all pricing will be evaluated equally.

5. Page 5 of PWS states that the QC plan should be on file within 10 days of contract award. However, the RFP states (p 47 General Conditions ¶ (b)) that the proposal should include a QCP. Is the government’s intent for offerors to provide their entire QCP in the proposal? If not, are you just looking for a summary?

6 CONS Reply: A summary will be sufficient for the RFP. If the QCP is provided in its entirety, the 10 day requirement will already be accomplished.

6. Assume we should include the Reps and Certs in the Pricing Volume, correct?

6 CONS reply: The Reps and Certs can be separate or included in any volume as long as clearly identified (i.e., listed in table of contents).

7. At the site visit it was mentioned that we must complete the representations and certifications and include in the proposal. However, on page 55 of the solicitation, it states “An offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically at http://orca.bpn.gov.” May we provide our ORCA record in lieu of completing the Representations and Certifications section provided in the RFP?

6 CONS reply: Section (b) pertains to vendors utilizing the ORCA website. Vendors submitting their online registrations are verifying the information within to be current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation per paragraph (b)(2). If an offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically at the ORCA website, the offeror shall complete only paragraphs (b) through (i) of the provision.

8. In the amended PWS on page one, paragraph 1.1.1 states, “This inspect/retreat cycle will be repeated until the identified invasive species are killed within the designated area.” Are these retreatments only required for the 300 acres of initial treatment to be priced under CLIN 0001AA or do they apply to both CLIN’s 0001AA and 0001AB (and subsequent option years).

CEVN Reply: The inspect/retreat cycle only applies to the initial treatment acreage and only extends for the length of the task order award. If you were initially awarded a task order to treat 300 acres and the performance period of that task order was 290 days (task order award periods will always be between 250 days and 365 days in length); then you would only be responsible for inspecting/retreating that 300 acres, and you would only have to inspect/retreat for 290 days. The Government expects the contractor to be able to kill a substantial portion of any exotics on a site during the initial treatment and that typically only one follow-up treatment would be required to ‘clean-up’ any missed plants after a few months.

9. Our most applicable previous experience is conducting the exact services requested in this RFP. This would require Mr. Jason Kirkpatrick to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire. I want to make sure this is acceptable and will not cause a conflict.

6 CONS reply: The Government understands some of the proposing vendors have past experience at MacDill AFB and other installations. As long as the PPQs are completed and handled as directed, there should not be any conflict of interest issues.

10. Concerning Section 1.3 of the Performance Work Statement and what was discussed at the pre-proposal conference, it is our understanding that burn blocks are going to be 50 acres or less so they can be accomplished in 1 day (plus mop-up). According to the Planned Work there may be 1 burn “day” issued in FY11 and 3 burn “days” issued in following years. Will these be 3 separate burn events rather than combining multiple “days” into a single larger burn?

CEVN reply: From a cost estimating standpoint, assume that each burn day will be separate events (not consecutive days). It is unlikely that multiple burn events will be conducted back to back (although possible) – so estimate a worst case scenario where there are several weeks between each burn event.

11. Can you clarify how the Initial Treatment/Spraying task will be determined?

a. What is the estimated areal coverage of nuisance species and what is the vertical coverage in those areas? This is important because treatment of an acre of cogon grass is very different from treating 20’ tall Brazilian pepper or grapevine climbing 30’ into pines.

CEVN Reply: The SOW provides an estimated coverage of invasive species for each quadrant. This is a conservative estimate that generally overestimates the percent coverage of exotics. The estimated percentage of grapevine coverage in each Quadrant is as follows: 5% in Q1, 10% in Q2, 15% in Q3, and 5% in Q4. For treating grapevine, the approved treatment process in the past has been to spray the grapevine from the base up as high into the plant as possible (given your equipment) using a foliar application. Again, this is a performance based contract and the Government expects the contractor to select the most appropriate method for successfully treating each type of species included in the SOW. If that method doesn’t work, then try something else until you find one that does the job.

b. Are the acreages for initial treatment contiguous or simply small blocks scattered within already treated areas?

CEVN rely: Acreages will always be contiguous. The minimum size awarded would be one Quadrant (the smallest quadrant is 400 acres (Quadrant 4)) however, the Government anticipates typically awarding 2-4 Quadrants worth of treatment annually. The goal is to maintain control of the invasive species in the areas that have already been treated previously (all four quadrants). Grapevine is the only species within the quadrants that has not been fully treated in the past. See percent coverage estimates for grapevine in “11a” above for each quadrant.

12. How was the 300 acres calculated? Is that total acres or total coverage of nuisance species in a larger block?

CEVN Reply: The 300 acres of ‘initial treatment’ was based on the percent of grapevine coverage (presented in 11a above) multiplied by the acreage of each quadrant (roughly: 38 acres in Q1, 66 acres in Q2, 75 acres in Q3, and 20 aces in Q4) since grapevine has generally not been treated yet. That gave a total of roughly 200 acres. An additional 100 acres of ‘initial treatment’ over the entire four quadrants to cover any exotics that were missed or untreated by the previous contractor was also added.

13. What is the procedure for dispute resolution should the coverage estimates in the RFP differ from actual conditions once work has begun? Can the percentages of initial vs. maintenance in each task order be negotiated prior to acceptance of each task order after field conditions are assessed?

CEVN Reply: Yes, the percentage of initial treatment vs. maintenance treatment in each task order can be negotiated PRIOR to the award of each task order provided that a field visit by the contractor and CEVN determines that CEVN’s estimates are not accurate. The actual percentage of initial treatment vs. maintenance treatment will be agreed to in the field by both parties prior to award of the task order. If the previous contractor has successfully accomplished the treatment required, then 100% of the listed invasive species in Quadrants 1, 2 and 4 have been fully treated previously (within the last 12 months), and 50% of Quadrant 3 has been fully treated for listed invasive species (within the last 12 month), therefore, most of the treatment required in these areas is ‘maintenance’ (i.e. treating new material as is begins to grow).

14. The RFP is requesting a per acre cost for all quadrants yet the documentation states that each quadrant has different levels of nuisance coverage. It may be advantageous to divide the quadrants into separate line items for cost estimating.

CEVN reply: The minimum treatment area will always be one quadrant or 400 acres per task order. 6 CONS will have to concur.

6 CONS reply: Each task order will have a guaranteed 400 acre minimum for the Maintenance/Upkeep Phase (CLIN 0001AB) under the Chemical Treatment/Apply Herbicide task if these services are included on the task order. The Bid Schedule will be amended accordingly.