ESC-PACAF-Q As_DRAFT_RFP_Final.pdf

Environmental Services Construction-PACAF (ESC-PACAF)

DRAFT RFP Responses- FA8903-16-R-0006

Questions/Comment Matrix

QUESTIO

N # Section Page /Paragraph QUESTION / COMMENT RESPONSE

1 L Page 14/4.4.2 Subfactor

1.2-Resources, (c)

Please provide clarification of the following statement. "Provide a map or graphic identifying the Offeror and/or Team members' office locations in the Asia Pacific region and demonstrate presence in all of the three major PACAF areas

(Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Islands, Japan/Korea). Utilize different symbols to distinguish Offeror (O) and Team member A, B, C, etc."

The last sentence of this text implies that AFCEC wishes for each team member's office to be clearly identified using different symbology. However a similar statement provided in Section M does not include the requirement to utilize different symbology for the Team Member's office location. We are assuming that, especially in light of this being a small business set aside, there is no requirement to differentiate between the Offeror and Team member's office locations as indicated in Section

M.

Section L, para 4.4.2(c ) and Section M, para B,1.2(c ) have been revised to be consistent, requiring different symbols to distinguish Offeror (O) and Team member A, B, C, etc.

2 M Page 3/1.2 Subfactor 1.2-

Resources, (c)

Please indicate how the office location of a Small Business Offeror will affect scoring/ranking with respect to the following scenarios:

A Small Business Offeror having no office locations in any of the three major PACAF areas, but their combined Team has office locations in all three major PACAF areas compared to a Small Business Offeror who has one or more offices located in the three major PACAF areas and has a combined Team with office locations in all three major PACAF areas.

Section L, para 4.4.2(c ) and Section M, para B, 1.2(c ) have been revised. Offeror and/or Team members will be evaluated based on the combined Team's locations and/or demonstrated presence.

3 M Page 3/

2. Factor 2 - Past

Performance

Would a Small Business Offeror that submits more than two past performance projects completed as a Prime contractor within the three major PACAF areas, be considered as providing the AF with higher confidence than a Small Business Offeror that only provides two PACAF past performance projects as the Prime with the other three PPIs coming from its Team members.

See also Section L, para 5.4 for PPI submission requirements.

No, there is no preference given. All PPI's submitted will be treated equally. It is the prime's responsibility to ensure that they have TAs/LOIs submitted in Vol 1 & Vol 2 of their proposal. If no TAs/LOIs are submitted then their team member's PP will not be evaluated.

1) See also Section M, para A.1: Yes, "Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision."

2) Yes, the TEP will be used to 'rack and stack offerors' from lowest to highest and compared to the average of all TEPs, which will be used to facilitate the past performance/price trade off decision. Further in Section M, para A.1., "The

Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) of

"Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

See also Section M, para B: "Award will be made to the

Offeror(s) who present technically acceptable offers and the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of

Past Performance and Cost/Price.

5 M Pages 2-3/ 1.2 Sub-factor

1.2-Resources, (b)

Would a Small Business Offeror that has executed/complied host nation agreements be scored higher than an Offeror that has none but has a Teaming partner with this experience/qualification?

Section L, para 4.4.2(b) and Section M, para B, 1.2(b ) have been revised. Proposals will be evaluated based on Team qualifications as presented in the proposal.

Any conflict with information provided during theh Draft RFP responses and the information released with the Final RFP - the Final RFP will be the binding authority.

4 M Pages 5-6/

3. Factor 3 - Price

This is a two part question regarding the evluation criteria in Section M 1) The two technical sub-factors are weighed equally and collectively will be judged solely as either acceptable or unacceptable. Therefore all offerors that are rated as acceptable for Factor 1 are ranked equally and the only remaining relative ranking factor will be how each firm scores on Factor 2 - Past

Performance. Is that a correct assumption? 2) Please provide additional clarification on how cost will be used in the evaluation process. Is price less important than Factor 2? Are firms ranked or scored depending upon the Offeror's Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) compared to the average TEP. Please provide additional information and how this evaluation will determine the selection of an Offeror in comparison to proximity (either by percentage or standard deviation) to the average TEP.

Questions/Comment Matrix

6 L Page 3/ 2.1 information to

Offeror(s), (c)

Is the Offeror required to have an established security clearance (such as DD Form 254) at the time of proposal submittal of this RFP? Or is the requirement stating that an awarded Offeror must be able to obtain the proper security clearance prior implementing a work task that would require this level of security, that would include a foreign-owned Teaming partner?

Yes, if a foreign firm or foreign-owned firm would like to submit a proposal as the Prime, then the Offeror must be in compliance with this Section.

7 ATCH L-9a Attachment L-9a is provided for the Prime and each Team Member to complete in presenting their Fully Burdned Firm Fixed

Price Labor Rate - Field Rates for Years FY17 through FY22. Will supporting documentation be required to show the build-ups for the Prime and each Team Member's hourly rate build-ups? If so, what would that form look like?

See Section L, para 6.2. Yes, supporting documentation must be submitted. There is no specific form to be provided, but the supporting information must clearly document your pricing position.

8 ATCH L-9a Also, must the Prime submit an hourly rate for each category listed on Attachment L-9a, or is it sufficient that each category be covered by at least one Team Member (prime plus all subs)?

See Section L, para 6.2.1(a): "All labor categories identified in the Rate Tables shall be covered and proposed collectively by the Prime /Team Members. The Offeror shall ensure that all labor categories are covered but NOT all labor categories must be covered by any one business entity."

9 L Definitions, Page 1 of 19 Geographically Dispersed definition, states the Team shall have projects in at least four (4) major PACAF locations. Under

Section L, Volume III-Factor2: Past Perfromance, I have not located a requirement for Geographically Dispersed projects, other than Para 5.4(a) requiring up to five (5) projects (No mention of geographically dispersed) and Section M, Factor 1-

Techncial, Para 1.1(a)(1) requiring concurrent project execution in the three major regions (Alaska, Pacific Islands, and Asia).

There is no mention of geographically dispersed requirements or relevency assessment with Section M, Factor 2 - Past

Performance. Please clarify if Factor 2 - Past Performance outlined in Sections L & M require Geographically dispersed projects, as defined.

Section L, Para 4.4.2(b) also requires submission of geographically dispersed locations of the Team Resources. The cooresponding Section M, Para B, 1.2(b) explains how this will be evaluated.

In addition Section L, para 5.4(a), and the cooresponding

Section M para 2(b)(2), are revised to include requirement for geographically dispersed locations in the three major PACAF locations.

a. Correct, per para 2.3.11.4: "Each page shall be counted except for the following: cover pages, table of contents, list of figures, glossaries, tabs, dividers, blank pages.

b. A one page resume for the key personnel will be sufficient.

See Section J, Attachment #2 Personnel Qualifications, para

1.1.(a): Key personnel consists of the Program Manager only.

11 B 5 of 46; para (d) Paragraph (d) references "ESC USAFE Contractor School." Suggest revising to "ESC PACAF Contractor School." Correct; para (d) revised to read "ESC-PACAF"

12 L Page 1 of 19, Definitions "To be considered geographically dispersed the Team shall have projects in at least four (4) major PACAF locations. At least one (1) location must be in the Pacific Islands (e.g. – Hawaii, Wake Island, etc.), at least one (1) location must be in Alaska, and at least one (1) location must be in Japan or Korea." Please confirm that the fourth location may be anywhere in PACAF, including one of the locations noted above. For example, this criteria would be met by having 1 project in Alaska, 1 project in

Japan, and 2 projects at 2 different locations in Hawaii.

Section L-Definitions; Geographically dispersed has been updated to remove the fourth location requirement, thus only requiring the three locations identified in the definition.

13 L Page 2 of 4 DFARS 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist is incorporated by reference. Is this to be included with this proposal, or does it only apply to specific task orders? If it is to be provided with this submittal, please advise which Volume/Tab it should be included.

Per DFARS 215.408(5): This is used when certified cost or pricing data is required to be submitted. This checklist facilitates the submission of a thorough, accurate and complete proposal. So, therefore it is not required upon your original proposal submission, but it may be required and/or requested if the Gov't does not receive enough proposals to establish competition.

14 L Page 6 of 19 Per Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, 4.4.2(a)1, Attachment L-1 has a page limit of 1 page. Please confirm that this limitation is 1 page each for each of the following five key personnel positions: Program Manager, QC Manager, Program Health and

Safety Manager, Program Chemist, and Contract Manager.

See Section J, Attachment #2 Personnel Qualifications, para

1.1.(a): There is only one key personnel position, therefore a one page resume will be sufficient.

15 L Page 6 of 19 and Page 18 of 19

Note that the ITO Paragraph numbers in Table 2.2 do not align with the ITO paragraphs for the following sections: Volume II page 14 paragraphs 4.4.2(a), (b), and (c); and Volume IV page 18 paragraphs 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5. Please clarify/correct the referenced items.

Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

10 L a. Volumes 1, 2, 3, & 4. Is Cover Page for Each Volume included in Page Count? Please confirm, as Para 2.3.11.4 states

Cover Pages are exempt from page count.

b. Vol 2 - 4.4.2(a)1-Personnel Qualifications (Attch L-1). Table 2.2 limits the page count for L-1 to one page. Suggest a larger page count or one page for each submission, as key personnel include Program Manager, QC Manager, Program Health

& Safety Manager, Program Chemist and Contract Manager.

Table 2.2 Proposal

Organization, Pages 5&6 of 19

Questions/Comment Matrix

16 L Page 7 of 19, para 2.3.6 Per the Tab Indexing instructions, "A tab is to be used to identify each ITO paragraph number and title as identified in Table

2.2 Proposal Organization." For Volumes I, II, and III, there is a tab identified for "Standard Proposal Information" in Table 2.2 and then separate tabs for the information requested under that Standard Proposal Information (e.g., Table of Contents, List of

Tables and Figures, Glossary). Please clarify what, if anything, is to be placed behind the tab named "Standard Proposal

Information."

This is a divider tab only that is to be placed in the proposal in front of the required information for that volume. Example:

Section L, Table 2.2, ITO para 3.2 Standard Proposal

Information. Go to Section L, para 3.2, it explains what the standard proposal information shall consist of: Master TOC, Volume TOC, List of Tables and Figures, Glossary of

Abbreviations. Each volume states what the Standard Proposal

Information required for that volume is.

17 L Page 7 of 19, para 2.3.6 Per the Tab Indexing instructions, "A tab is to be used to identify each ITO paragraph number and title as identified in Table

2.2 Proposal Organization." The following tabs appear to be general directions and not require a specific response: Volume II

"4.3 General" and "4.4 Technical Factors" and Volume IV "6.1 General Instruction" and "6.2 Other Pricing Information." Since these tabs have no page limits listed in Table 2.2, are we to assume that there is no information to be provided in those tabs?

Correct. If the page limit in Table 2.2 is greyed out, then that is just a tab to break up/divide the sections of each volume.

These tabs will NOT be counted in the page limits of other sections.

18 L Page 10 of 19, para 3.0 Note that "Financial Capability Risk Assesment" or "Financial Responsibility" is missing from paragraph 3.0 Volume

Organization.

Correction made to para 3.0, to include "(l) Financial

Responsibility".

19 L Page 10 of 19, para 3.1 For the Executive Summary, we are to describe "key contract features describing...delivery schedules for the POP including schedules for the basic and all options." It is not clear what information the government is requesting to meet this requirement.

Is the intent to simply acknowledge the ordering period and performance periods stated in Section I, or to actually include a schedule of the IDIQ ordering period and performance period?

The Contractor must address their ability to perform from the time of contract award through the entirety of the performance period. A schedule for the ID/IQ contract award is not required.

20 L Page 12 of 19, para 3.9(b) and 3.9.2

Per Section L.3.9, paragraph (b), "(b) The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract (Sections A thru J of the SF33)." Section J incorporates Exhibits A-C CDRLs, as well as Attachments 1-4. Per Table 2.2 Proposal

Organization, we are to include a separate tab for 3.9.2 Attachments to Model Contract. These include Exhibits A-C CDRLs, Attachment #1– Performance Work Statement, and Attachment #2 – Labor (Personnel) Qualifications and Experience. Please confirm if the CDRLs and Attachments 1 and 2 should be included in both tab 3.9 Model Contract (Sections A-J) and tab 3.9.2

Attachments to Model Contract?

A signed copy of the Model Contract shall be submitted as instructed in Section L, para 3.9. Section L, para 3.9.2 explains all of the attachments that will be part of the awarded contract and therefore do not need to be submitted again. However, para 3.9.2(d) FFP Fully Burdened Labor Rate charts shall be submitted in Vol, IV-Factor 3: Price and will become

Attachment #3 upon contract award.

21 L Page 12 of 19, para 3.9(b) Per Section L.3.9, paragraph (b), "(b) The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract (Sections A thru J of the SF33). Signature by the Offeror on the Standard Form 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept." Since Sections B-J are standardized for all awardees, is submittal of just a signed Standard Form (SF) 33 sufficient to meet this requirement?

No, include a signed "originial" copy of Sections A-J in your model contract.

22 L Page 12 of 19, para 3.9.1 Per Section L.3.9.1, Representations and Certifications, "The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the

Representations and Certifications from the System for Award Management (SAM) website." Please confirm that Section K in the solicitation is not to be submitted in addition to SAM Reps & Certs.

Correct, submission of Reps and Certs from SAM will be sufficient. Section K provisions state the mandatory Reps and

Certs that must be included in your SAM submittal.

23 L Page 12 of 19, para 4.0 Note that Section L.4.0 Volume Organization does not align with Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, e.g. Table 2.2 has tabs for

4.3 General, 4.4 Technical Factors, 4.4.1(a)3 Prime/Team Members Organizational Chart, 4.4.2(a)1 Personnel Qualifications-

Credential Synopsis of Key Personnel, and 4.4.2(a)3 Prime/Team Members' Corporate Resoure Locations, whereas paragraph

L.4.0 does not list these items. Please clarify/correct the referenced items.

Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

24 L Page 13 of 19, para 4.2 Section L.3.7 and L.4.2 state Teaming Arrangements/Agreements and Letters of Intent; whereas Table 2.2 Tab 3.7 states

Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent. Please clarify if both a teaming agreement and letter of intent needs to be provided for Team members.

Table 2.2 has been updated. The correct wording should be

"Teaming Arrangements/Agreements and Letters of Intent"

25 L Page 14 of 19, para 5.0 Note that Section L.5.0 Volume Organization does not align with Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, e.g. Table 2.2 has a tab for

5.1 Standard Proposal Information, whereas paragraph L.5.0 does not list this item.

Section L, Para 5.0, was corrected to included "Standard

Proposal Information"

Questions/Comment Matrix

26 M Page 1 of 6, para A.1 The Basis of Award states, "The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) of 'Satisfactory Confidence' or lower."

Since the PCA appears to be the primary basis to "support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals" per FAR Part 15.304 (assuming Factor 1 is "Acceptable"), what combination of Relevancy and

Performance Quality Assessment will result in Substantial Confidence versus Satisfactory Confidence? For example, if all five projects are "Relevant" and have "Very Good" quality assessment, would that result in a Substantial Confidence or a

Satisfactory Confidence rating? Or are there a certain number of "Very Relevant" projects and "Exceptional" ratings required to obtain Substantial Confidence?

There will be no quoata of PCA's given. Each Offeror/Teams' past performance stands on its own. The Offeror/Team's recent past performance proposal which is rated highest in relevancy and quality assessment will receive the highest PCA rating afforded them based on their project. This is an integrated assessment and the decision would be made by the past performance evaluation team.

27 M Page 1 of 6, para A.5 Section M.A.5 Bonding: Please confirm that there are no minimum total bonding capacity or excess bonding capacity requirements. A proposal will be acceptable regardless of limits as long as the appropriate narrative and surety information is provided.

Correct. Per Section M, para 5: No bonds are required for proposal submission at the basic contract. Only the bonding information listed in this paragraph will be required upon proposal submission.

28 ATCH L-3 Attachment L-3, Example of PPI Summary Sheet, shows one Applicable ESC-PACAF PWS Paragraph for each project. If a project scope included more than one PWS paragraph, may multiple paragraphs be noted?

Attachment L-3 is only an example. Attachment L-2 is to be completed, and multiple PWS paragraphs may be listed for each project.

29 ATCH L-9 It appears that the Pricing Model is weighting the Prime Contractor's rates at 50% if they have team partners or 100% if they do not have team partners. This does not appear to take into account a Prime Contractor that self performs more than 50% of the work, but may have a specialty team member to perform a smaller portion of work (e.g., less than 20%). To align the

Pricing Model with each Offeror's proposed Management Approach, we suggest weighting the rates based on the same percentages of the proposed effort each firm will perform during the life of the contract. This could be done by adding a row in the model that provides the percentage of participation under the Prime and each Team Partner, and modifying the equation in the Average Rate to incorporate these percentages. This is particularly important since as Section M.A.1 states price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

The Pricing Model will not be changed. Offerors are not required to submit pricing for any sub-contractors that will perform less than 20% of the anticipated work.

Section M, para A.1 also states "competing Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations".

30 ATCH L-9a There are certain labor categories that have been included in Attachments L-9a and L-9 that could be determined to be subject to Service Contract Act (SCA) or Construction Wage Determinations. For example, SCA covers Environmental Technicians, Drafter/CAD Operators, Administrative Support/Clerical Occupations, and Technical Writers, which could be considered equivalent to the categories listed in Attachments L-9a and 9 for Technicians, Drafter (CADD/GIS Operator), Administrative

Assistant and Word Processor, and Technical Writer/Editor, respectively. Since SCA rates can vary drastically depending on location, we request that the government consider noting the Firm Fixed Price Labor rates do not apply to labor categories covered by Service Contract Labor Standards or Construction Wage Rate Requirements as determined by specific task orders.

Based on the overall amount of projected labor hours and overseas requirements, the preponderance of the work will be performed by non-SCA labor categories, therefore Fully

Burdened FFP labor rates are required for all labor categories in

Attachments L-9a and L-9.

31 ATCH L-11 Pages 6 and 7 of 9 Please confirm that per the PPI Tool Instructions, we are to leave the following fields blank: (1) Compliance with FAR 52.219-

8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and (2) Subcontracting Plan.

Yes, these are to be left blank; this acquisition is a small business set-aside and therefore do not apply.

32 ATCH L-11 Page 7 of 9 Per the PPI Tool Instructions, for POC & Key Individuals Tab, "...relevant contract efforts performed by from key personnel may be evaluated. If you wish to include the past performance of individual key personnel, select the 'New' button for each individual and fill out the necessary information." Please confirm that Key Individual information in this tab in the PPI Tool should be provided for key personnel for whom Attachment L-1s are provided, and not just if the relevant contract effort was performed by a key person instead of the Offeror or its team members.

Please submit the key personnel that worked on the projects you are submitting. The key personnel on the PPI do not have to be the same as the proposed key personnel in attachment L-

1.

33 ATCH L-10 14/4.4.2 [c] This paragraph requests we provide a map identifying Offer or Team Members location in the Asia-Pacific region and demonstrate a presence in all of the three major PACAF areas (Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Island, Japan/Korea). As a firm we have done extensive work in Japan/Korea, however we do not have an office in that region. We request that if a firm shows the ability to work in Japan/Korea, the RFP does not require (or even give additional points) to firm's with offices in Japan/Korea.

Correction: this is Section L, not Attachment L-10.

Please see response to Question #2.

Questions/Comment Matrix

34 I Page 12 of 34 Section 4.1, Post-Award Meeting/Teleconference. States contractor "… shall attend a post-award meeting/teleconference at the location specified by the CO." Recommend clarification of location as well as attendance in-person vice via teleconference as attendance in-person necessitates additional labor and travel costs.

Correction: this is Section J, Attachment #1 PWS, not Section

I.

The post-award meeting/teleconference will be conducted between AFCEC/AFICA offices in San Antonio, Joint Base

Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI and Joint Base Elmendorf-

Richardson, AK. The Contractor may attend via teleconference and/or in person at any or all of the AFCEC/AFICA locations.

35 ATCH J-2

Pers Quals

Pages 1 to 4 Several terms are used when describing the requisite personnel qualifications, i.e., "the Offeror shall …", "the Offeror will ..."

and the "contractor will …" The Offerror appears to be used for Primary Disciplines (except Contract manager); whereas the contractor appears to be used for professional labor disciplines (except Technical Labor). Recommend clarification if the intent is that Primary Disciplines are to originate from the prime contractor (i.e., the small business) and secondary disciplines are to originate from either the prime contractor or subcontractors.

Section J, Attachment #2 has been updated, the term contractor has been replaced with Team.

36 L Page 9 of 19 In Section L, 2.3.10.3 Electronic Copies (E-Copies) are required to have searchable and selectable text. Will Graphics have to be searchable and selectable text?

Yes.

37 L Page 10 of 19 In Section L, 3.0 Volume Organization list is missing “3.10. Financial Capability Risk Assessment (Attach L-10).” Please add

“3.10. Financial Capability Risk Assessment (Attach L-10)” to volume organization.

See response to question #18.

38 The draft RFP: “FA8903-16-R-0006_DRAFT_RFP” is secured. This limits the opportunity for the offeror to use Adobe features. For example, Section K (PAGE K – 1 thru K – 12) cannot be extracted. As a result offers will have to use scanned versions, lowering the legibility/quality of this section (and other similarly required RFP sections). Is it possible for AFICA to provide unprotected versions of PDF RFP documents?

See Section L, para 3.9.1, completed Representations and

Certifications from System for Award Management (SAM) may be submitted.

39 L Page 12 of 19 Section L, 3.9.2 Attachments to the Model Contract (d), list Attachment 3 as “FFP Fully Burdened Labor Rates.” Will AFICA correct RFP 3.9.2 and align with 6.2.1. instructions for offerors to complete and submit “ATTACHMENT_L-9A--

Burdened_Labor_Rates-15Jan15”?

Section L, para 3.9.2(a-d), this is a list of what the attchments to the contract will be and is provided as information to the contractors. All pricing information shall be submitted in

Volume IV-Factor 3: Price, as per instructions in paras 6.0-

6.2.5.

40 L Page 14 of 19 In Section L, under “4.1 Sub-factor 1.1 - Management Approach” (3), the RFP requires an Organization Chart. Please confirm that this is the Organization Chart in Table 2.2, 4.4.1(a)3 and that this has a one page limit separate from 10 page limit or 11 pages if added to “4.1 Sub-factor 1.1 - Management Approach.”

In Section L, the organization chart in Table 2.2 is the organization chart referenced in Section L.4.4.1(a)(3). The

Prime/Team Members' Management Approach (L.4.4.1(a)) has a ten page limit. The organization chart has its own separate one page limit. Thus between L.4.4.1(a) and L.4.4.1(a)(3), there are a total of 11 pages. Also, Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

41 L Page 14 of 19 In Section L, under “4.4.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources” (c), the RFP requires a map or graphic. Please confirm that this is the

“4.4.2(a)3, Prime/Team Members’ Corporate Resource Locations” in Table 2.2 and this has a one page limit separate from 10 page limit or 11 pages if added to “4.4.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources”

Section L Table 2.2, para 4.4.2(c) has been updated to read

"Prime/Team Members’ Corporate Resource Locations Map or

Graphic". The Prime/Team Members’ Resources (L.4.4.2(a)) has a ten page limit. The map or graphic from 4.4.2(c) has its own separate one page limit. Thus between L.4.4.2(a) and

L.4.4.2(c), there are a total of 11 pages. Also, Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

42 L Page 6 of 19 Please confirm that the 1 page resumes referred to in Table 2.2 as “4.4.2(a)1, Personnel Qualifications-Credential Synopsis for

Key Personnel (Attch L-1)” are NOT included in the 10 page limit of the “4.4.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources” section.

The "Personnel Qualifications-Credential Synopsis for Key

Personnel (Attch L-1)" has its own separate one page limit and is NOT included in the ten page limit of "Prime/Team

Members’ Resources". Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

Questions/Comment Matrix

43 L In an effort to limit the burden to our customers, would AFICA also accept CPARS or previously completed PPQ in lieu of the on-line PPQ tool?

No, use the attached PPQs (Section L, Attachment # L-5) and use the PPI tool (Section L, Attachment L-11) to submit PPIs as instructed.

44 L Page 6 of 19 In Section L, please edit Table 2.2, to align with RFP sequence: 6.2.2 Price Model (Attach L-9); 6.2.3 Other than Certified

Cost or Pricing Information; 6.2.4 Home and Field Rates; and 6.2.5 Exceptions/Assumptions and Rationale since the current

Table 2.2 is misaligned and shows “6.2.3 Exceptions/Assumptions and Rationale.”

Table 2.2 paragraph numbers have been revised to align with the section paragraph numbers.

45 L Page 5 of 19 In Section L, page 5, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, the page limit for the Personnel Qualifications-Credential Synopsis for

Key Personnel (Attach L-1) is given as 1. In the RFP in Attachment 2 (page 1 of 4), there is only one position defined as a

“Key Personnel” and that is the Program Manager. Does this mean that AFCEC expects offerors to provide only one

Attachment L-1, that it be for the Program Manager only, and that it be limited to one page?

Correct. The only key personnel is the Program Manager. The

Offeror shall provide only one Attachment L-1 and it is limited to one page.

46 L Page 5 of 19 In Section L, page 5, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, the page limit for the Personnel Qualifications-Credential Synopsis for

Key Personnel (Attach L-1) is given as 1. Is it correct to interpret this to mean that AFCEC expects only one resume for the

Proposal?

Correct. The only key personnel is the Program Manager. The

Offeror shall provide only one Attachment L-1 and it is limited to one page.

47 L Page 8 of 19 In Section L, Item 2.3.10.3(a)(4), the instructions specify that offerors provide, “Two (2) separate CD-ROM’s are required for both Volume 2 “Technical Factor” and Volume 3 “Price”. Please clarify, does this mean that we are to provide two CDs for each volume for a total of four CDs with respect to Volume 2 and Volume 3 requirements?

See also Table 2.2, Two (2) CDs shall be provided for the

Technical factor and Two (2) more CDs shall be submitted for the Price factor. Technical and Pricing information must be on separate CDs, it cannot be combined onto one CD.

48 L Page 9 of 19 In Section L, Item 2.3.11.1(e), with respect to font specifications, may we use fonts smaller than 10-point for tables, charts, diagrams, and schematics to allow for legible and clearer, concise layouts of graphical communications?

Fonts smaller than 10-point will not be allowed. See also

Section L, para 2.3.11.2 Foldouts. This allows for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics to be submitted on

11X17 inch paper.

49 L Page 9 of 19 In Section L, Item 2.3.11.1(e), with respect to font specifications, may we use fonts, including condensed fonts, other than

Arial and Times New Roman for tables, charts, diagrams, and schematics to allow for legible and clearer, concise layouts of graphical communications?

No. Also, see response to Question #48.

50 L Page 14 of 19 In Section L, Item 4.4.2(a), what qualifications, credential, and resume information does AFCEC expect to receive on the personnel defined as the “primary discipline personnel” which are listed as the Program Manager, QC Manager, Program

Health and Safety Manager, Program Chemist, and Contract Manager?

See Section J, Attachment #2 Personnel Qualifications, para

1.1.(a): Key personnel consists of the Program Manager only, therefore Attachment L-1 shall only address the Program

Manager. For Volume II proposal submission of primary discipline personnel (Program Manager, QC Manager, Program

Health and Safety Manager, Program Chemist and Contract

Manager) the Offeror shall only address how they provide the primary discipline personnel that meet the qualifications identified in Section J Attachment 2. See also Section M, para

B, 1.2(a) for evaluation criteria.

51 L In Section L, please clarify what AFCEC requires in terms of resumes for personnel—which specific personnel, how many resumes overall, resume format, length of individual resumes, and overall page limit for resume section?

See Section J, Attachment #2 Personnel Qualifications, para

1.1.(a): Key personnel consists of the Program Manager only, therefore Attachment L-1 shall only address the Program

Manager. Please follow the guidelines from Section L, para

2.3.11 Page Format Restrictions and Limitations for page

formating requirements. L-1 is limited to one page.

52 ATCH J-2

Pers Quals

Attachment 2, the contract PWS (PWS Item 6.25) includes UXO/munitions response. What are the qualification requirements for the various UXO personnel required for this type of work?

Per the PWS, please reference "DoD Explosives Safety Board

Guidance Technical Paper 18". This document can be found by on the internet.

Questions/Comment Matrix

53 ATCH J-2

Pers Quals

Attachment 2, this Environmental Services and Construction (ESC) contract PWS includes construction as a major component of the work scope. What are the construction personnel roles and qualifications requirements?

As described in the PWS, the Offerer shall perform incidental construction, repair, operations, and/or maintenance of real property, energy and fuel systems, and engineering requirements. The Offeror shall provide personnel that are qualified to complete these type of tasks.

54 L Page 14 of 19 In Section L, under 4.4.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources, (a), the RFP requires offerors to provide "primary discipline personnel

(Program Manager, QC Manager, Program Health and Safety Manager, Program Chemist and Contract Manager)" and

"credential synopsis for key personnel only in Attachment L-1." Please confirm that "primary discipline personnel" is synonymous with "key personnel."

No, they are not synonymous. The only key personnel is the

Program Manager. The Offeror shall provide only one

Attachment L-1 and it is limited to one page.

55 L 201 On page 201 of 203 of the Draft RFP, FAR5352.215.9000 - Facility Clearance is mentioned. The question is if the Offeror must have this facility clearance in order to be considered responsive to the proposal or can a member of the Team have this clearance?

Offeror and/or Team members must have the appropriate facility or other clearances before award of TOs requiring a DD

Form 254.