FA890320R0014_BECOS NorCal RFP Questions and Answers Set 1 of 2_03102020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-20-R-0014
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services in the NorCal region. The solicitation seeks proposals for environmental remediation and construction services at former military bases closed under the Base Realignment and Closure process. Key details include that proposals are due by April 13, 2020; the work involves multiple sites and requires coordination with property owners, regulators and stakeholders; contractors must develop project management and communication plans; and pricing is required for task order 2 but not task order 1, which has a not-to-exceed value of $20,000. The Air Force will not facilitate site visits.
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Q # | Document Reference | RFP QUESTIONS | Document Reference | GOV'T RESPONSE | RESPONSE DATE | |
| 21 | Section L.2.2.9 Teaming/ | |||||
| Subcontracting Lists | "The Offeror’s proposal shall include a list of all teaming arrangements and subcontractors (if applicable) that will make up Labor Rates for IDIQ tables (see Price Volume); and/or partners and subcontractors proposed for task order 2." Please clarify if a list of all subcontractors to be used on task order 2 must be listed (e.g., laboratories, T&D, drillers, etc.) or if only teaming partners with signed teaming agreements or letters of commitment are required to be listed. If all subcontractors on TO2 must be listed, please confirm that letters of commitment are NOT required for competitively bid subcontractors that are not considered team partners/members. Also, if subs on TO2 must be listed, please move this requirement to Volume III since we will not know potential subs for TO2 until just before submittal of pricing. | Section L.2.2.9 Teaming/ | ||||
| Subcontracting Lists | Only (prime and teaming partners) are required, not all subcontractors. | 10-Mar-20 | ||||
| 22 | Section L.4.2 Contact Information | Please confirm that contact information is only required by the prime contractor and not team members as well. | Section L.4.2 Contact Information | Confirmed, only prime contact information is required. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 23 | Section L.4.7 Model Contract | Paragraph (b) states "The 'original' copy shall be clearly marked under separate cover." Please confirm that only an electronic copy is required and a separate, original, hard copy document does not need to be submitted. | Section L.4.7 Model Contract | Confirmed, only an electronic copy is required; requirements are provided for offerors that elect to send in hardcopy. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 44 | In an effort to reduce work load for government PMs/POCs associated with preparing multiple PPQs, would 772nd consider accepting recent PPQs in alternative formats? | Section L, 3.4 | Past Performance Questionnaires submission must be IAW Section L, 3.4. | 10-Mar-20 | ||
| 46 | Is volume I and Volume II required to be submitted by 13 March? Proposal indicates ”requested”. | Section L, 2.4 | Volume I and Volume II are requested by 13 March. All parts of the proposal are required by the deadline on 13 April. | 10-Mar-20 | ||
| 47 | Section l, 4.9.1, Estimating Methodology Utilized in Pricing Proposal | Accounting System - Subsection states “Indicate whether you have Government (DCMA) determination of adequacy of your accounting or cost estimating system and if so, provide evidence of such adequacy determination. Offerors that do not currently have an adequate accounting system shall complete a ‘Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy Checklist’ found in DFARS 252.215-7009 ‘Proposal Adequacy Checklist 2014-01’.” It is unclear if this is the DCAA Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy Checklist or another version. Can the Government please provide a copy of the Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy Checklist to be sure the accurate checklist is submitted? | Section l, 4.9.1, Estimating Methodology Utilized in Pricing Proposal | Requirement to be removed. Amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 48 | Section l, 4.9.1, Estimating Methodology Utilized in Pricing Proposal | Accounting System - subsection states that “both small and large business shall provide a summary of their accounting system.” Can the government please clarify whether or not this is a carryover from a different solicitation, or if large business teaming partners are supposed to provide information on their accounting system? | An adequate accounting system is required when cost type CLINs are contemplated or awarded. This requirement applies to prime contractors only, regardless of business size. FAR 16.301-3(a). Amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming. | 10-Mar-20 | ||
| 49 | Section L, 2.4 Electronic Copies | Proposal Submission Deadline - The last day for questions is March 5, 2020, which means questions will not be answered until after March 5 and close to the March 13, 2020 submittal date for Volumes I and II. Will the government consider releasing answers to questions relating to Volumes I and II as soon as possible, specifically the question related to the March 13 submittal due date, or please consider extending the due date for Volumes I and II a minimum of one week? Several answers to questions submitted will influence what is included in our submittal of the first two volumes. | Section L, 2.4 Electronic Copies | Volume I and Volume II are requested by 13 March. All parts of the proposal are required by the deadline on 13 April. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 62 | Can the Air Force facilitate site visits to allow bidders to see all operating systems on the bases? Without this site knowledge, it offers undo advantage to incumbents regarding overall systems condition, potential non-routine maintenance and component replacement over the life of the contract. | General | The AF will not be facilitating site visits. However, Contractors are welcome to visit these locations on their own where access is available. The majority of locations are available to the public with few that are locked, unmanned, and/or remote. Visually observing the sites will not typically assist in determining condition, non-routine maintenance, and the majority of requirements. The NorCal region is a consolidation of multiple existing contracts. | 10-Mar-20 | ||
| 63 | Section L, 2.4 | Proposal Submission Deadline: Please clarify if 3/13/2020 is a no later than due date for Volumes I and II. The first sentence says Volumes I and II are requested to be submitted by 3/13/2020, while the 2nd and 3rd sentences (Volume III and All Items clause, respectively) state the due dates are no later than 4/13/2020. | Section L, 2.4 | The "no later than" due date is 13 April for all proposal items. Volumes I and II are requested by 13 March. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 64 | Section L, 2.2.9 | Please clarify if the list of subcontractors requested are those we would consider using or whether a commitment to use specific subcontractors must be indicated. | Section L, 2.2.9 | List is intended for teaming or subcontractor arrangements that are FAR 9.6. It is not necessary to provide all potential or contemplated subcontractors. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 65 | Section L, 2.2.9 | Please clarify if the list of subcontractors should only contain major subcontractors with expected ongoing involvement on the contract as opposed to de minimis contractors for small infrequent activities. | Section L, 2.2.9 | List is intended for teaming or subcontractor arrangements that are IAW FAR 9.6. It is not necessary to provide all potential or contemplated subcontractors. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 66 | Section L | Section L, 3.3.1 states that our response is to include Past Performance Information for recent contracts/task orders. Section L, Table 2.2.2.1 states that Volume I is to include Present/Past Performance/Relevant Contract and/or Task Order Narrative Information and that the page limit for this requirement is 3 pages per contract/TO. Section L, 3.3.3 mentions specific information related to explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, resolving problems encountered, etc. Can the government please confirm that the 3-page Past Performance Information sheets (i.e., project descriptions) are to include information requested in Section 3.3.3 and that a separate narrative in response to Section 3.3.3 is not required. | Section L | Confirmed, all information required per Section L, 3.3.3 is to be included and is covered by the 3 page limit. A separate narrative is not required. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 69 | Section L.2.4 | 2.4 Electronic Copies has a reference to DoD SAFE link. Please confirm that proposals will only be accepted via email, and will not be accepted using SAFE. | Section L.2.4 | Proposals will be accepted by email. The DoD SAFE link is provided for offerors that elect to use DoD SAFE. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 70 | Section L.3.5 | Please confirm that if Past Performance is being submitted for a contract and there is no CPARS available for the contract but there are for task orders under the contract, that we should submit CPARS for relevant task orders under the contract. | Section L.3.5 | Confirmed, submit CPARS for relevant task orders. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 71 | Section L.4.3 | Please consider requiring the Master Table of Contents/Proposal Checklist in Volume III rather than Volume II. We are concerned that we may not know Volume III documents that our team partners intend on submitting directly to the Contracting Officer by the Volume II deadline. | Section L.4.3 | Volume II is requested by 13 March but an offeror can elect to provide Volumen II by the proposal deadline 13 April, if it will facilitate accuracy in their Master Table of Contents. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 73 | Section L.4.9.1 | Please confirm that the Estimating Methodology (Estimating System, Purchasing System, and Accounting System) information is only required from the prime contractor. There are references to large businesses in the accounting system section. | Section L.4.9.1 | Requirement to be removed. Amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 74 | Schedule B CLIN Structure | The pricing for CLIN 0006, which we assume is Task Order 1, is greyed out in the Schedule B CLIN Structure. In the response to questions on the draft RFP, the government stated that it would provide NTEs for TO1. Please confirm that we do not need to provide pricing for TO1 with our proposal. | Schedule B CLIN Structure | Confirmed, offerors do not need to include pricing for TO1. The not to exceed amount for TO1 NorCal is $20,000. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 76 | Section L 3.3 and 3.4 | If a contractor is bidding on multiple BECOS and uses the same Contract/Project as Past Performance Information in more than one region, will the government accept a PPQ submitted as part of another BECOS document? Can we alter the header in the PPQ to reference all contracts in which we are submitting the same information and ask our client to complete and submit only one? | Section L 3.3 and 3.4 | Coordinate with your POC that is submitting PPQs to request they change the region and submit. The same PPQ that is required IAW Section L can be submitted for different BECOS regions. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 77 | Relevancy Matrix | For item 2.D, please clarify what is meant by "Experience performing an effort that required work on multiple remediation disciplines…" Is "remediation disciplines" referring to services, technologies, labor categories, or something else? | Relevancy Matrix | The language is correct as is and complete in detail. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 78 | Can the Air Force facilitate site visits to allow bidders to see all operating systems on the bases? |
Without this site knowledge, it offers undo advantage to incumbents regarding overall systems condition, potential non-routine maintenance and component replacement over the life of the contract.
| RFP | The AF will not be facilitating site visits. However, Contractors are welcome to visit these locations on their own where access is available. The majority of locations are available to the public with few that are locked, unmanned, and/or remote. Visually observing the sites will not typically assist in determining condition, non-routine maintenance, and the majority of requirements. | 10-Mar-20 | |||
| AF Generated Questions | AF Qs & Answers | ||||
| 79 | AF Generated Question | Will there be additional requirements for future TO’s that are not currently included in the IDIQ PWS? | AF Answer | No, the IDIQ PWS includes all potential requirements that could be included in a subsequent TO. | 10-Mar-20 |
| 80 | How will the AF address items in the IDIQ PWS that may or may not be applicable to the requirement executed on TO’s? | RFP | To create a TO PWS the IDIQ PWS will be tailored to each specific TO identifying what is applicable/not applicable and providing additional information on the requirements. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 81 | Will BECOS TO 2 include requirements with uncertainties and unknowns? | RFP | No, requirements with uncertainties and unknowns that would be high risk to a Contractor successfully achieving objectives or completing the work in a cost effective manner have not been included in TO 2. These and other emerging requirements can be added as subsequent TOs. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 82 | Am I able to contact the regulators, current contractors, or AF personnel? | RFP | Please contact the CO and they will direct any questions to the program. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 83 | Where are base-specific documents provided? | PWS 1.3, 1.6, TO2 Attch 1 | The documents can be found in PWS Section 1.3 – Applicable Documents, 1.6 – Government Furnished Information, TO 2 Attachment 1, reference list on Google Drive site, documents on the AF AR and/or the Google Drive sites (links included in the PWS). The information provided in this PWS is not intended as a substitute for complete analysis of technical data available, nor is it intended to be a guide on how the Contractor should address achievement of the Performance Objectives. Review base-specific documents carefully. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 84 | Would it be beneficial for Contractors to review any documents not specifically identified by the AF in order to prepare their proposal? | General | Yes, it would be beneficial for contractors to review information in all relevant documents they have access to. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 85 | How is the transition of work going to work after award? | TO2 PWS 1.4, Attch 2 | Review TO 2 PWS Section 1.4 and Attachment 2 that will provide the expiration date for the current contract. It is important to keep this date in mind to ensure a seamless transition and obtain any required information. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 86 | Are all the five-year review dates correct? | TO2 Attch 2 | The Air Force recently reviewed the trigger dates for Five-Year Reviews and some may have been adjusted. The Air Force currently follows EPA’s streamlined guidance unless it is stated otherwise. Five-Year Reviews: Pay attention to next Five-Year Review dates identified in TO 2 PWS Attachment 2. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 87 | Does the AF own the property at the former bases? | PWS 2.6.5, 2.7 | The AF BRAC program has transferred nearly 98% of the property. Coordination with property owners is critical for ensuring successful execution of work. Consult the Air Force before conducting work at the installation to ensure all the proper notifications, permits, access agreements have been completed as discussed in PWS Sections 2.6.5 and 2.7. Each BRAC Environmental Coordinator will work with the Contractor on the coordination requirements for that particular installation. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 88 | What key information should contractors consider when reviewing requirements on sites that include Land Use Controls (LUCs)? | PWS 6.14 | Monitoring of LUCs, ensuring systems and wells are protected and not damaged, and review of maintenance, repairs, and redevelopment by others is an important part of working at BRAC installations as discussed in PWS Section 6.14. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 89 | When will the PMP and MPS be developed? | PWS 2.2 | Project Management Plan (PMP) and Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) will be developed after award of TO 2. There will be a regional PMP with annexes for each TO as described in PWS Section 2.2. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 90 | Will the AF set up a project website? | PWS 2.3 | It is the responsibility of the contractor to work with the BRAC Environmental Coordinator and Contract Officer Representative (COR) on development of the project website for each installation per PWS Section 2.3. There is not one uniform format. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 91 | Who is the lead for meetings with the regulators and stakeholders? | PWS 2.6 | The contractor must coordinate with the Air Force and obtain Air Force concurrence prior to discussion with regulators, stakeholders, and the public as discussed in PWS Section 2.6. The contractor is required to present and defend their technical work with regulators. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 92 | Is there an AF approved process for document QA/QC? | All documents submitted to the Air Force MUST BE adequately reviewed and peer reviewed by the Contractor to ensure that the documents are “…complete; substantively correct and consistent with applicable laws, regulations, DoD/AF policies; in proper format; and free of grammatical and typographical errors.” | 10-Mar-20 | ||
| 93 | Who is responsible for locating utilities? | TO2 PWS 2.6.5 | Contractors are responsible for subscribing to utility location services and responding on behalf of the AF as stated in TO 2 PWS Section 2.6.5. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 94 | Does the AF sign off on all hazardous waste and non-hazardous manifests? | TO2 PWS 5.6.1 | In general, Air Force signature is required on Hazardous Waste Manifests per TO 2 PWS Section 5.6.1; however, exceptions can be made where appropriate. Air Force signature is not required for non-hazardous waste disposal and may elect to delegate to contractor personnel for signature of non-hazardous waste disposal manifests. | 10-Mar-20 | |
| 95 | 20200122_NorCal FFP FBLR Tables v2 | The "Instructions" tab of the NoRCal TO2 Model indicate "Offerors shall provide separate completed Task Order (2) Price Model(s) for each proposed region in separate price volumes for up to two (2) price volumes." Is this a correct instruction? | No, Offeors shall sunmit (one (1) regional Task Order (TO2) Price Model) and (one (1) FFP FBLR Table) for the entire team in the prime contractor’s reginal price volume. | 10-Mar-20 |
FA8903-20-R-0014
NorCal Region Questions and Answers &P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .