BECSRC_EAST_CONSOLIDATED_QUESTIONS_011416.pdf

BECSRC EAST CONSOLIDATED QUESTIONS – 4 DEC 2015

1. L-6 cites projects from EPA regions 1 through 4 but Table 1 of the SOW lists performance locations in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan which are in EPA Region 5. Does this solicitation include EPA Region 5?

ANSWER: This solicitation includes five bases in EPA Region 5. Section L has been revised to account for the five Region 5 bases.

2. Will contracts be accepted for past performance examples or can we only use specific task orders?

ANSWER: Stand-alone contracts will be accepted. If submitting past performance on an IDIQ contract, then only use specific task orders and not the entire contract.

3. With respect to Section L, Definitions (page 1 of 26), the AFICA has defined “Eastern Region” as including EPA regions 1 through 4. AFICA has also indicated that the Team should have projects in EPA regions 1 through 4 to considered “Geographically Dispersed”. Please clarify how AFICA will evaluate a contractor’s ability to respond to the five installations located in EPA region 5 that are referenced on page 5 of the SOW (K.I. Sawyer, Wurtsmith, Grissom, Gentile and Rickenbacker).

ANSWER: The five Region 5 bases have been added to the Definitions page of Section L.

4. With respect to Section L, 1.0 Program Structure and Objectives, AFICA states that the scope of the requirement “includes rapid response and removal of environmental media contamination and site restoration activities located on BRAC installations in EPA regions 1 through 4 (Eastern)”. Please clarify if the five installations (K.I. Sawyer, Wurtsmith, Grissom, Gentile and Rickenbacker) included on page 5 of the SOW located in EPA region 5 are part of the scope.

ANSWER: Yes, the five Region 5 installations are part of the scope. Section L has been revised accordingly.

5. With respect to Section L, Attachment L-4 (page 20 of 26), please clarify if AFICA will evaluate

“concurrent geographic operations” to include EPA region 5 in addition to EPA regions 1 through 4.

ANSWER: Yes; the five Region 5 bases have been added where applicable in Section L.

6. With respect to Section L, Attachment L-5 (page 21 of 26), please clarify if the duplicated BECRSC SOW task area “Other Environmental Operations and Services, SOW Par. 6.0” will be replaced with a different

SOW task area and what that would be.

ANSWER: SOW “Paragraph 6.0” has been corrected to read “Section 6.0” to give the offeror a choice of any task area included in SOW Section 6.0.

7. With respect to Section M, Relevancy Assessment (page 6 of 10), please clarify if a contractor’s experience in the regulatory environment in EPA region 5 will be considered, as five installations in the

SOW are located in this region.

ANSWER: Addressed in revised Section M.

8. The sample statement of work (SOW) indicates that a removal action is required at a Solid Waste

Management Unit (SWMU). Should it be assumed there is a decision document in place requiring this removal action or is this effort considered an interim corrective measure?

ANSWER: Assume there is a decision document in place.

9. Given that the activities must consider the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) and other applicable stakeholder’s concerns, can the Government provide typical provisions and other requirements known in the areas affected by the sample SOW?

ANSWER: Assume the areas are easily accessible; work will require notification (via email describing the work and timeline to completion) to the LRA.

10. Section B, Pages 2 – 4: Please clarify that Offerors are NOT required to populate Section B, Line

Items 0001 and 0007 for inclusion in the proposal.

ANSWER: Offerors are not required to populate Section B, Line Items 0001 and 0007 for inclusion in the proposal.

11. Section C, SOW, Page 5: The scope of work identifies the places of performance as 14 AF BRAC

Eastern Region installations within EPA Regions 1 - 5 (MI, OH, WI). However, Attachment L-4, limits the locations of work performed to EPA Regions 1 - 4. Would it be acceptable to include past performance in EPA Region 5? If so, would that be graded as less relevant than work performed in Regions 1 - 4?

ANSWER: Include past performance in EPA Regions 1-4 as well as the five Region 5 bases listed in the revised Section L. No base is considered more or less relevant than another.

12. Section L, Page 2: Definition of Team/Team Members. Will subcontractors be considered a part of the TEAM for the purpose of past performance if the Offeror submits signed teaming agreements?

ANSWER: IAW Attachment L-4, three of the five projects shall be provided for the Prime. The other two may be provided for other team members for whom the Prime has submitted signed teaming arrangements.

13. Section L, 2.2.1.1 (b), Page 7: Please clarify whether or not 11 x 17 pages will be counted as two pages for page count.

ANSWER: 11 x 17 pages will be counted as two pages if pages of text only. Foldouts are only used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for pages of text.

14. Section L, 3.7, Page 10: Are Representations and Certifications required for all team members?

ANSWER: Reps and Certs are required only for the Prime.

15. Section L, 4.1, Page 12: Would introductory text included prior to Subfactor 1.1 be counted toward the page limits?

ANSWER: Yes, all text on pages of text count towards page limits.

16. Section L, 4.2, Page 13: "Additionally, each offeror shall submit a total of five (5) Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) with five project descriptions to be placed in the Volume II binder under the Past

Performance Tab." Should Offerors include copies of the blank PPQs in the proposal within this section?

ANSWER: Only include the five project descriptions under the tab.

17. Section L, 5.1(e) states that as part of the price proposal, Offerors shall provide a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees (Feb 1993). This clause appears to be for follow-on contracts with incumbent workers. If that is the intent, then it is requested that the Government provide us with information on the potential incumbent workers, including their pay rates and benefits.

ANSWER: There are no incumbent workers. The provision is required IAW FAR 22.1103.

18. Section I Contract Clauses Section B, DFARS (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement) sites clause 252.204-7012 (NOV 2013). This clause was updated on August 26th, 2015. It has been stated that all DOD contracts issued after August 25, 2015 must include this updated clause. Will the updated AUG 2015 version of the clause apply to this contract?

ANSWER: Yes, the updated clause is included in the amendment.

19. Can applicable Responses to Questions presented under the BECSRC West solicitation be applied to this BECSRC East solicitation?

ANSWER: Yes, applicable Q&As from BECSRC West can be applied to BECSRC East.

20. SOW, Section 1.1 – former bases listed in Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio are in EPA Region 5. This solicitation is for former bases in EPA Regions 1-4. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The five Region 5 bases have been included where applicable in the revised Section L.

21. SOW, Section 1.1 – Since the BECSRC East includes bases located in Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio (EPA Region 5) will this contract be used for the former bases located in Region 5?

22. General – Will the BECSRC Central (when it comes out) include former bases located in EPA Region 5?

ANSWER: It will include the remaining bases in EPA Region 5.

23. For this BECSRC East solicitation, is the contractor required to show ability to provide rapid response to former bases located in EPA Region 5 as well as EPA Regions 1-4?

ANSWER: Only in the five Region 5 bases as addressed in revised Section L.

24. Section L, Attachment L-4 – Past Performance for this solicitation is based on providing work within EPA Regions 1-4; however, the SOW references former bases in EPA Region 5. If we have past performance for work at one of the bases located in EPA Region 5 how do we represent this given the table in L-4 only allows for Past Performance in EPA Regions 1-4?

25. STO – Two of the sample problems include soil removal. The first sample problem (OWS) calls for “one compaction test per lift” and the SWMU #4 Soil Removal does NOT call for the compaction testing.

Please clarify if compaction testing is required for the SWMU #4 site.

ANSWER: Assume compaction testing is not required for SWMU #4.

17 DEC 2015

26. Section L, East - The previously issued RFP requested a Volume Specific Table of Contents, in addition to the Master Table of Contents for each Volume (I, II, III). The revised RFP only lists a Volume specific Table of Contents for Volume I. Are volume specific Tables of Content required for Volumes II and III as well?

ANSWER: A volume specific Table of Contents is only required for Volume I.

27. Section L, 5.1(e) states that as part of the price proposal, Offerors shall provide a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). Does the Government want a compensation plan strictly from the Prime offeror, or should a plan also be provided by any subcontractors who are providing professional employees under this contract?

ANSWER: The answer to this question is currently being vetted and will be posted as soon as we receive it.

28. Please provide an Excel spreadsheet format for the Fully Burdened Labor Rates tables.

ANSWER: An Excel spreadsheet will be provided with solicitation amendment 1 anticipated to be released before Dec 25, 2015. The Government will consider extending the proposal due date at the time of amendment release.

29. With respect to Section M, Factor 2, Past Performance (page 2 of 10), the AFICA has defined 3 years as the limit on past performance recency. Other Best Value selections by the AFICA (for instance, the 2015 Environmental Remediation Services contracts for BRAC Bases in the East, Central, and Western Regions) have used a 5-year window to define recency of past performance. Considering how much of the USAF’s highly-relevant environmental portfolio is bound up in PBR task orders and contracts that are not yet 50% complete, the 3-year window limits the contracting community’s ability to offer directly relevant past performance information. We respectfully request that the AFICA define recency as projects conducted within the past 5 years.

ANSWER: For purposes of this solicitation in respect to past performance, recency is redefined as projects conducted within five (5) years of the date of this solicitation.

12 JAN 2016

30. Are full resumes for key personnel required in Subfactor 1.2 (Sample Task Order) under the Management Plan, or just summaries of their qualifications?

ANSWER: The Management Plan should include a description of key personnel (i.e., qualification summaries); full resumes are not required.

31. Regarding the required Compensation Plan - can you further describe the level of detail that you are looking for in this?

ANSWER: FAR 52.222-46, paragraph a states "Offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure."

Paragraph b states "The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty."

Paragraph c states "The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements."

32. Section L, 5.1(e) states that as part of the price proposal, Offerors shall provide a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract IAW FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). Does the Government want a compensation plan strictly from the Prime offeror, or should a plan also be provided by any subcontractors who are providing professional employees under this contract?

ANSWER: Provide a compensation plan for the prime offeror only. Supporting information will include data such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

14 JAN 2016

33. We saw amendment 1 to the subject solicitation and the consolidated questions. There is one disconnect between Section L and Section M and the responses to questions. Section M and the responses to questions state that “the Government will not consider nor evaluate past performance on an Offerors submission concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of the solicitation”. Section L, Attachment L-4 still states “credit will not be given for projects that concluded more than three (3) years prior to the date of this solicitation”. Please clarify if offerors can submit projects that concluded more than three but less than five years prior to the date of the solicitation.

ANSWER: Section L, Attachment L-4 is corrected to read, “5. Credit will NOT be given for projects that concluded more than (5) five years prior to the date of this solicitation.”