RFI_5_BECOS_Response_Matrix_Attch_1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services (BECOS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-20-R-0002
About this file
This document provides information on a forthcoming federal contract opportunity for BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services (BECOS). The Air Force Civil Engineer Center and 772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron are planning to award six single-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts to support environmental remediation activities at 40 BRAC installations over various regions. The contracts would have a 10-year period of performance from July 2020 through July 2030 and consolidate current task orders under multiple performance-based remediation contracts. Services sought include maintaining remedies, implementing optimization efforts, and advancing sites to completion. The notice encourages feedback on draft documents by November 4, 2019 and notifies of a forthcoming solicitation planned for release in November 2019 to procure these BECOS services.
RFI 5 Response Matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services (BECOS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
1. RFI Response Matrix
| RFI | Question | |
| No. | Hypothetical | Firm Response |
| Note to Responders: Please answer the full question as outlined in the RFI on TAB 1 to include providing rationale and indicating whether the consideration would impact your decision to bid, etc. |
Note: Any Additional Responder Comments and Questions should be communicated on TAB 2.
| RFI 5 | General | Provide Firm/Business Name, Address, POC, email, phone. |
| RFI 5 | General | Specify your business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a) certified small disadvantaged business, HUB Zone |
small business, woman- owned small business veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) based upon both NAICS code provided. Specify all that apply.
| RFI 5 | General | CAGE Code/DUNS | ||
| RFI 5 | Instructions | Please respond by filing out a check or "x" under Galena, AK region and typing in the name of any second region, if applicable. | ||
| GALENA, AK REGION, Indicate "intent to propose" by checking for each hypothetical. | Identify a second region, intent to bid for each hypothetical, if applicable. | |||
| RFI 5 | Hypothetical 1 | Based upon the information provided in RFI 5, and Hypothetical 1, Galena, AK region solicited as full and open, indicate whether your firm would "intend to propose". | ||
| GALENA, AK REGION, Indicate "intent to propose" by checking for each hypothetical. | Identify a second region, intent to bid for each hypothetical, if applicable. | |||
| RFI 5 | Hypothetical 2 | Based upon the information provided in RFI 5, and Hypothetical 2, Galena, AK region solicited as small business set aside, indicate whether your firm would "intend to propose". |
RFI 5
Response Matrix 04 November 2019
Page &P of &N
2. Addtl Comments|Questions
| No. | Comment/Question |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 |
AF Internal - Color Trend
| RFI | Question No. | Question | Firm 1 | Firm 2 | FirmX |
| RFI 1 | 1a | Length of Period of Performance: How long of a PoP does your company believe is necessary? | |||
| RFI 1 | 1b | Length of Period of Performance: Would the duration of PoP impact decision to submit a proposal? | |||
| RFI 1 | 1c | Length of Ramp-Up Time: Is a 4 month ramp-up time adequate? | |||
| RFI 1 | 1d | Post Field Work Reporting: Is 90-day reporting time period sufficient? | |||
| RFI 1 | 2a | Regionalization: Comment on the proposed regionalization. Is the proposed strategy reasonable for contracting the follow-on efforts? Provide recommendations and reasoning. | |||
| RFI 1 | 2b | Combined Regions: Would combining installations in multiple regulatory regions/states impact management of contracts? Would such issuance of such a contract impact your decision to bid? | |||
| RFI 1 | 2c | Regionalization: Would large regional groupings of installations create any issues with management of the task order(s) including subcontractor management? Would this impact your decision to bid? | |||
| RFI 1 | 2d | Regionalization: Would larger groupings of installations be feasible for a small business to perform? Explain reservations or concerns. As small or large business would this impact your decision to bid? | |||
| RFI 2 | 2e | OCONUS (Alaska): Is your company interested in performing at the Former Galena FOL, located in a remote area of Alaska? Why or why not, provide reasoning. | |||
| RFI 1 | 3a | Small Business Participation: Based on experience with other FFP remediation efforts, do you concur that small businesses can manage and perform efforts that combine construction and services type work? Provide rationale. | |||
| RFI 1 | 3b | Small Business Participation: Based on experience with other FFP remediation efforts, can a small business perform these efforts? Would you perform as a prime contractor, a subcontractor or as a teaming partner? | |||
| RFI 1 | 3c | NAICS: Do you agree with the alignment of NAICS 562910 to support the efforts described in the RFI, PWS, and site lists? Provide rationale and recommended NAICS for contemplated efforts. | |||
| RFI 1 | 3d | Contract Structure: The Government is considering a contract type that will allow for additional in-scope requirements to be identified after initial award. Please comment on any concerns you may have. | |||
| RFI 1 | 3e | Contract Type: The Government is considering the use of stand-alone “C” type contracts or single or multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) “D” type contracts for these efforts. What contract type does your company believe would be most advantageous for contract administration? Provide rationale or recommend alternative contract type. | |||
| RFI 1 | 3f | Proposal Preparation: Provide some perspective on the cost to prepare such proposals along with any recommendations for streamlining the process. As a small or large business, would the complexity associated with developing proposals for regionalized installations impact your decision to bid? | |||
| RFI 1 | 3g | Regionalization: Based on the diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements in the PWS, can your firm perform? If yes, can your firm perform in one or more regions? | |||
| RFI 1 | 3h | Regionalization: Based on the anticipated ID/IQ ceiling by region, can your firm perform? If yes, can your firm perform in one or more regions? | |||
| RFI 1 | 3i | Regionalization: Based on the geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites, can your firm perform? If yes, can your firm perform in one or more regions? | |||
| RFI 1 | 4a | Comment on whether the information contained in the RFI was sufficient for your company to respond to the questions in this RFI. | |||
| RFI 1 | 4b | Provide comments on what additional information your company would like to see included in order to prepare a subsequent proposal if and when a solicitation is released. | |||
| RFI 1 | 4c | Optimized Performance: Referring to the PWS, does the Air Force’s proposed optimization requirements present challenges, risks, or any other concerns? | |||
| RFI 1 | 4d | Optimization Performance: As described in the PWS, would the requirement to quantify optimization efforts in a proposal impact your decision to submit a proposal? | |||
| RFI 1 | 4e | Optimized Performance: Would the addition of interim payment milestones for achieving interim optimization goals be beneficial? | |||
| RFI 1 | 5a | Lessons Learned: Define and describe any risks or unanticipated site characteristics that interfered with progress toward achieving proposed objectives. | |||
| RFI 1 | 5b | Lessons Learned: How did stakeholders impact the implementation of the PBRs? What were the critical issues or key concerns communicated? Did stakeholder feedback, perception, or perspective, impact implementation of technical approaches or cause any unnecessary delays, and how? | |||
| RFI 1 | 5c | Lessons Learned: How did the regulator involvement impact the contract performance? Does this experience influence your company’s recommendation regarding contract POPs? | |||
| RFI 1 | 5d | Provide any other comments your company would like to share regarding PBR execution. | |||
| RFI 1 | 6a | Regionalized Pre-Proposal Conference: Would your company be interested in attending one conference for each proposed region (location not yet determined)? How many participants would you anticipate attending in person? Would virtual attendance be beneficial? What information is useful for discussion? | |||
| RFI 1 | 7 | Indicate, by region (including OCONUS non-regionalized AK), if your company intends to submit a proposal. Describe the factors that will influence your decision to bid. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .