NM-AZ_PBR_Draft_RFP_Additional_Questions_and_Responses_12_Mar_13.pdf

ADDITIONAL NM-AZ PBR (FA8903-12-R-0050) Q&As

1. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and 2.3.6, Tab Indexing: Per Section 2.3.6, we are to include Tabs for items identified in the Title column of Table 2.2. In Table 2.2, each volume includes a tab titled “Volume Organization.” It is not clear what is to be included in our proposal under these tabs, since the items under 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 6.1 are a list of what is to be included in each volume. For example, the Volume Organization for Volume I includes

Executive Summary, Master Table of Contents, Table of Contents, List of Tables and

Figures, Glossary, Validity Statement, Contact Information, etc. And there are also tabs that are to include Contact Information, Executive Summary, Standard Proposal Information, etc.

Therefore, we suggest deleting “Volume Organization” from each Volume in Table 2.2.

Government Response: Volume Organization was renumbered as 2.3.7, 2.3.8 and 2.3.9.

2. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and 4.3, General: It is not clear what should be included in the tab for 4.3, General, since these appear to be instructions and not requirements. We suggest deleting tab 4.3, General from Table 2.2.

Government Response: General Instructions are instructions only and not a requirement.

3. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and Section 5.1, Volume Organization: The Volume

Organization section for Volume III requires that the Executive Summary be included;

however, Table 2.2 does not list the requirement. Similar to the requirements in ITO 4.2, Standard Proposal Information for Volume II, we suggest that ITO 5.2 be modified to include the Executive Summary.

Government Response: No, Executive Summary not required for Past Performance.

4. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization: Similar to post-POP LCCs, we ask that the landfill closure costs also be excluded from the page limitation so that detailed information to meet the requirements can be provided.

Government Response: No.

5. Table 2.2, Proposal Organization and 6.1, Volume Organization: Please note that the information listed in Table 2.2 is not consistent with the items listed in 6.1 Volume

Organization. For example, Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale are missing from Table

2.2 and Section 6.1 does not include all items to be provided in the volume per Table 2.2.

Therefore, we suggest revising both sections so that they are consistent.

Government Response: 6.1 was revised to include all the items in the Table; however Exceptions, Assumptions, and Rationale was deleted from 6.1. The information can be found in 3.8, Exceptions to

Solicitation Requirements

6. Table 2.2., Proposal Organization and 6.3 General Instructions: It is not clear what should be included in the tab for 6.3, General Instructions, since these appear to be instructions and not requirements. We suggest deleting tab 6.3, General Instructions from Table 2.2.

Government Response: General Instructions will be left in as we are following the source selection template.

7. 2.3.5, Cross-Referencing: We noted that there were several questions regarding this ITO and that the answer to the questions was that Section L would be revised. The Section L dated

February 25, 2013 still has this clause. Because of the page limitations and requirements within Section L and M that are requiring us to cross-reference among factors and subfactors

(4.4 Technical Risk, Subfactor 1.2, Subfactor 1.3, and Subfactor 1.4 in particular), we suggest that this clause be deleted.

Government Response: No, each volume must be written so that it can be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.

8. 2.3.10(d), Proposal Copies: The requirement is to apply appropriate markings in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) and FAR 3.104.4. We request that the requirement for FAR 3.104.4 be deleted since it provides many of the same protections as 52.215-1(e). Also, we are required to submit several documents in Microsoft Excel and this program limits the amount of characters allowed in footers; therefore, both restriction statements cannot be placed in the footers of these documents.

Government Response: where the necessary number of characters is not allowed, at least include the

FAR Reference; however, FAR 3.104-4 only asks contractors to mark each page “Source Selection

Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” 52.215-1(e) is substantially longer but only on the title page;

subsequent pages only need be marked thusly: “Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

9. 2.3.10.3, Compact Disc (CD) Copies: Paragraph b) lists “Master copy CD-ROM requirements.” It is not clear whether this is a separate CD from the other CDs required by the requirements in Table 2.2 and in paragraph a) of this section. For example, in paragraph b)i it states that we are to provide complete electronic copies of all volumes in Adobe

Acrobat PDF and paragraph b)ii states that a separate CD-ROM shall be provided for each volume. Other sections require some files to be included in Microsoft Word and Excel. If a

“Master copy CD-ROM” is required to include all volumes with files in PDF format, we suggest deleting the requirements in ii and iii from paragraph b). Also, Table 2.2 should be modified to state in which volume the Master Copy CD-ROM should be included. If a separate Master Copy CD-ROM is not required, we suggest striking paragraph b) in its entirety.

Government Response: Deleted ii and iii from paragraph b and added iii as viii under paragraph a. Also added “Master copy CD ROM is to be submitted with cover letter to CO bound in Volume I, Contract

Documentation” and marking requirements.

10. 2.3.11.3, Page Limitations: To be consistent with the page limits for Volume II in Table 2.2, we suggest modifying Paragraph (b) to state: “Each side of each 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted as 1 page for page limitation purposes, with the exception of the requirements in ITO Paragraphs 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. For these requirements only, each side of each 8 ½ x 11 inch sheet that displays printed material shall be counted as 0.5 pages for page limitation purposes.” Note that per question #2 above, if Offerors do not have to provide any information for ITO Paragraph 4.3, General, then this paragraph should be deleted from the page limitation requirement as well.

Government Response: The page limitations have been determined; refer to the revised Section L for compliance guidance.

11. 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 6.1, Volume Organization: We suggest that the items listed under each volume organization be consistent with Table 2.2. Primarily, “Standard Proposal

Information” should be listed instead of the individual items to be included under that tab

(e.g., Table of Contents, List of Tables and Figures, and Glossary).

Government Response: Duly noted but isn’t the Section L the same across the board with the PBRs that are due to go out. We follow the same templates that have been vetted and approved by everyone and their mothers. I think it’s pretty self explanatory.

12. 3.1, Volume Organization: Please note the following:

a. The order of information to be provided for Volume I per Section 3.1 Volume

Organization is different than Table 2.2. We suggest reordering the information in

Section 3.1 to be consistent with Table 2.2.

Government Response: Reordered to be consistent with Table 2.2

b. OCI Analysis and Mitigation Plan is missing.

Government Response: Added OCI to 3.1.

c. Representations and Certifications is listed here; however, it is not listed in Table 2.2 and the ITO paragraph for Representations and Certifications was deleted in the February 25, 2013 version of Section L. If the government will only be relying upon obtaining this information from the System for Award Management (SAM), we suggest deleting this item from

3.1, Volume Organization.

Government Response: Reps and Certs were added to 3.1 (k) and also added to the table and the corresponding ITO paragraph reinserted.

d. Note there is a discrepancy of the title for the bonding information. Table 2.2 and

ITO 3.7 states “Construction Bonding” whereas 3.1 states “Proof of Bonding

Capacity.” We suggest revising 3.1 to be “Construction Bonding.”

Government Response: Paragraph 3.1 was corrected to read “Construction Bonding.”

13. 3.2, Contact Information and 3.5, Validity Statement: Both of these ITO paragraphs refer to a cover letter. Should the cover letter be bound within Volume I, or submitted separately with the entire proposal? We understand that the requirements within these paragraphs also need to be addressed within the appropriate tab.

Government Response: Cover letter should be bound within Volume I, Contract Documentation and addressed to the CO.

14. 4.4 Technical Risk: Per Table 2.2, this is to be provided as a separate tab, and therefore separate from the subfactors. We are also required to meet many of these requirements in the subfactors themselves. Are we to summarize the risks for each subfactor at a very high level within this requirement and then just cross reference to the specific risks that are addressed within the subfactors? For example, in Subfactor 1.2, Plan B Contingency Approach, we are to identify all the risks associated with the project and the proposed technical approach. We assume that in 4.4 Technical Risk, the overall technical risk rating for this subfactor would be addressed vice site-specific risks. Please clarify.

Government Response: Risks in 4.4 should be identified as overall technical risk ratings per subfactor; not site-specific risks.

15. 4.4 Technical Risk: Paragraph (d), “Provide as specifically as possible, the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing and satisfying the requirements,” appears to be duplicative of the information in the actual subfactors. Please clarify that this is to be a high-level summary.

Government Response: 4.4 (d) is to be a high-level summary.

16. 4.4 Technical Risk: Paragraph (e) Technical Subfactors (include capabilities of Prime and

Team Members and describe the Offeror’s proposed strategic approach to meeting the requirements of each Technical Subfactor), appears to be duplicative of the information to be provided in the Executive Summary, as well as the detailed information that will be provided in each subfactor. Please confirm that the government wishes to see a high-level summary of our capabilities and approaches in both the Executive Summary and Technical Risk tabs.

Government Response: The Government wishes to see the same high-level summaries under both the

Executive Summary and Technical Risk tabs.

17. 5.1 Volume Organization: Note that item (e) is stated as “Present/Past Performance

Summary” whereas Table 2.2 and ITO 5.3 are titled “Past Performance Summary.” We suggest

5.1 be modified to match Table 2.2 and ITO 5.3.

Government Response: Modified to read “Past Performance Summary.”

18. 5.6 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): The last sentence in paragraph (a) states

“Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification.” If early submittal of PPQs is preferred, we suggest adding instructions in Section L for this requirement.

Government Response: PPQs should be submitted no later than 3 business days prior to proposal submission.

19. 5.9 Specific Content: Please confirm if the requirements under this ITO should be included in our response to ITO 5.3 Past Performance Summary.

Government Response: 5.9 Specific Content was deleted from Table 2.2.

20. 8 List of Section L Attachments: Please note that Section M refers to Attachment L-1 Key

Personnel Qualifications, so the list in Section L (and/or the attachment number in Section M) should be modified accordingly.

Government Response: The attachment reference in Section M has been modified; Key Personnel

Qualifications can be found at RFP Attachment 4.

21. M002.B, Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach: The fourth bullet under paragraph (a) states

“Experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the State of New Mexico.” There are no requirements in Section L to include experience in this subfactor, and this is one of the evaluation criteria in Subfactor 1.3, so we suggest deleting this bullet.

Government Response: Section M has been revised, bullet deleted.

22. M002.B, Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience: Will the government consider listing the items under “Positive Consideration” in order of importance? Since it is highly unlikely that any small business prime contractors have a project that meet all these requirements, we would like an idea of what the government considers more important so that we can select appropriate projects (e.g., is having a PBR project more important than having a project with 20 or more sites).

Government Response: Refer to Section M for guidance on providing Corporate Experience. There is no order of importance, although achievement of SC is the primary objective of PBR.

23. Other Questions

In reviewing the draft RFP questions and answers released on February 27, there are conflicting answers on whether this will be a services contract or construction contract; and therefore, the percentage of work to be performed by the prime contractor (see answers to Questions 22 and 56 in the RFP questions). During the site visit, it was noted that this would be a construction contract, and therefore, the percentage to be performed by the prime contractor should be 15 percent in accordance with 52.219 - 14 - Limitations on Subcontracting.

Government Response: This will be a construction contract.

Questions NM-AZ PBR FA8903-12-R-0050

March 11, 2013

1. Luke AFB: Please provide the ADEQ comments on the Draft-Final First 5-year Review

(2002).

Government Response: Refer to Question # 8 of the Draft RFP Q&As.

2. Luke AFB: Please provide the current Institutional Control Plan.

3. Luke AFB, RW002: Please provide the outcome of the 2012 5-year review action items scheduled for May 2012 to work with ADEQ to assess appropriateness of current gamma radiation monitoring action level.

4. Luke AFB, ST018: Please confirm who is going to perform the cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the concrete cap should be replaced or continue to be repaired as needed: PBR contractor, 3 rd party, or AF?

Government Response: Refer to Section L and Section M of this Solicitation.

5. Luke AFB, ST018: In the event concrete cap replacement is recommended in the forthcoming cost-benefit analysis, please confirm who is responsible for replacing the concrete: PBR contractor, 3 rd party, or AF?

Government Response: As indicated in Sections L and M, the Air Force will find a proposed approach acceptable if it is technically valid, meets the proposed performance objective while accelerating restoration toward site closure, includes consideration of contingencies and risk mitigation strategies, and would not result in adverse impact to mission-critical functions at the installation.

The following questions are follow-on questions revised Sections L & M and Response to Questions posted on 27 February, 2013.

1. Regarding questions 15, 16 and 18 from the Additional Site Visit Q&As dated 26 Feb

2013: The CACR for Sites SS65 and SS67 has not been submitted to NMED. This report is in preparation using the historical data from 2007 and will be submitted to

NMED by Sept 30 2013 under contract W9128F-11-D-0029/TO2.

Government Response: Noted.

2. AFCEC response to previous questions indicated LF-029 at Holloman AFB must be managed as a Chemical Warfare Munitions (CWM) site. Under DoD regulations, work at a CWM site requires DoD Technical Escort Unit (TEU) involvement. Therefore, a portion of the overall site remediation cost is borne by the Government and a portion is borne by the Contractor. Please identify the resources (e.g., personnel, containment structure, PPE, etc.) that the Government will provide for the TEU so we can evaluate the cost of the portion of the work that will be borne by the Contractor.

Government Response: Activities conducted at the site will be subject to IRP requirements. The UXO support would be determined by the contractor. Include everything (if possible) as part of the TO upfront- for the contractor to perform- and NOT rely on the base EOD.

3. Since LF029 at HAFB has been designated as a CWM site, the Government must provide a DoD Technical Escort Unit (TEU) to be involved with performance of work at this site.

Since the Contractor has no control over the availability of the Government’s TEU, how should this work be shown in the IMS since the work start date will be determined by the Government based on the availability of the TEU?

Government Response: Assume availability of the Technical Escort Unit is not an issue. Refer to

Question 2 above.

4. The definition of Site Closure (SC) states “Regulatory concurrence may include “no further action” (NFA) but does not include variations such as “no further active remediation”, “regulatory closure with restrictions”, “conditional site closure” or functional equivalents. These variations would involve requirements for LTM and would therefore not allow for unrestricted use.” For a MMRP site, no current technology exists that can guarantee 100% clearance so a typical closeout includes administrative controls on future land use (e.g., cannot build structures on a former range such as ML125 Field

Firing Range at Kirtland without Construction Avoidance Support). Please clarify the definition of SC as it relates to MMRP sites.

Government Response: Site Closeout signifies when the USAF has completed all active management and monitoring at an environmental cleanup site, no additional environmental cleanup funds will be expended at the site and the USAF has obtained regulatory concurrence. For practical purposes, Site Closeout occurs when cleanup goals have been achieved that allow unrestricted use of the property (i.e., no further LTM, including institutional controls, is required) and that all site decommissioning has been completed. Achieving Site Closeout may include, but not be limited to, the dismantling, removal, recycling, reclamation and/or disposal of all remedial activity systems and ancillary equipment above and underground to return the site to its natural state, well abandonment, and site restoration in accordance with Base and regulatory requirements. Note:

Regulatory concurrence may include “no further action” (NFA) but does not include variations such as “no further active remediation”, “regulatory closure with restrictions”, “conditional site closure” or functional equivalents. These variations would involve requirements for LTM and would therefore not allow for unrestricted use.

5. If a former MMRP site is remediated to cleanup to residential standards (i.e. no COCs exist above screening levels) and cleared to that which current technology allows, does the AF consider this SC?

Government Response: Refer to Question 4 above.

6. If a former MMRP soils and groundwater remediated to cleanup to residential standards

(i.e. no COCs exist above screening levels), is cleared to that which current technology allows and has a administrative control stating that Construction Avoidance Support is required during invasive site activities due to its previous use, does the AF consider this

SC?

Government Response: Refer to Question 4 above.

7. Sec L, 5.6 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): Will we be allowed to use previously obtained PPQs (provided they are for projects completed within the past 5 years)? How should these PPQs be delivered to Capt. Richard Spencer, Past

Performance Evaluation Chair, and by when? May we email NLT the proposal due date/time?

Government Response: Yes, you can use previously obtained PPQs. PPQs should be delivered to Capt Spencer via e-mail (richard.spencer.9@us.af.mil) NLT 3 days prior to proposal due date.

Section L has been revised adding this information.

mailto:richard.spencer.9@us.af.mil