23R0020 - Government Response to Questions - 12Oct2023.pdf

Qstn # RFP REFERENCE CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS ANSWERS BY GOV'T

1.4 - Applicable Documents

The UFP QAPP/Optimized UFP QAPP worksheets are listed as applicable to the SOW.

However, the McClellan Basewide QAPP is not in the UFP format and Section 3.3 indicates that the contractor shall prepare a project-specific addendum to the McClellan Basewide QAPP using the forms specified in the Basewide QAPP. Please confirm that the QAPP addendum consists of the applicability checklist, QAPP text and/or SOP or SOP revision or new SOP (as needed) in conjunction with a project planning document.

Yes, the QAPP addendum consists of the applicability checklist, QAPP text and/or SOP revision or new SOP (as needed) in conjunction with a project planning document.

2.8 - SOW Can a team subcontractor who meets all other requirements in this SOW be identified as a Key Personnel?

Yes, a team subcontractor who meets all other requirements in the SOW can be identified as a Key Personnel,

3.4 - SAP

The SOW requests several SAPs in accordance with the UFP-QAPP, McClellan AFB Basewide QAPP, and project specific QAPP Addendum. Section 3.4 specifically states, “The McClellan AFB Basewide QAPP worksheets shall be used.” Please confirm that the UFP QAPP worksheets are the McClellan AFB Basewide QAPP worksheets. If not, please provide example worksheets as there are no worksheets in the 2022 Basewide QAPP, Update #7.

AFCEC requires use of the Basewide QAPP at McClellan. That QAPP includes a QAPP Applicability checklist. The contractor will be required to fill out that checklist and provide it as a deliverable. If the contractor wants to take exception to part of the Basewide QAPP or add their own requirements on top of it, they can do that by preparing a QAPP addendum, following UFP guidelines. The minimum deliverable is the QAPP applicability checklist. The more likely deliverable for most contractors is a QAPP Addendum prepared by the contractor accompanies by the QAPP applicability checklist.

Section L -D. Volume III, Past Performance;

Section 2. Specific Content

Becuase the work involves structural assessment of buildings combined with radiological remediation, please clarify that AFCEC will consider team subcontractors relevant past performance as part of this submittal. Can offerors submit 5 active or completed contracts including specialty team partners highlighting their expertise in performing similar structural assessments and building protection work?

Offers are to submit a maximum of 5 PPQs/CPARS, using their teaming partners and or subcontractors. However, 2 must be from the prime contractor.

Section L -D. Volume III, Past Performance;

Section 2. Specific Content

Please clarify if AFCEC accepts the offerors past performance to include the prime contractor and specialty team subcontractors past performance since the work involved is varied and involves multiple specialties and trades.

Yes, the Government will accept specialty team subcontractors past performance. However, of the five (5) required past performance submissions two (2) must be from the prime.

Section L- Subfactor 1- Milestone Payment Schedule

Please clarify that the MPS can be provided in a tabular format and a project schedule is not required to be submitted. Yes, MPS can be provided in a tabular format and a project schedule is not required.

Section L -D. Volume III, Past Performance;

Section 6. Past Performance Questionnaire

Please confirm that recent CPARs ratings are acceptable in lieu of past performance questionnaires. Due to the bid due date of Sep 28 there is inadequate time to obtain detailed PPQs from customers.

Yes, CPAR rating may be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires.

Section L -E- Volume IV- Cost/Price Proposal

Please confirm that Schedule B (provided in pdf format) needs to be used for pricing line items. Item 2 indicates that a detailed price model is required in Excel. Please confirm if the detailed excel file needs to match each line item on Schedule B

Schedule B is to be used to price the total sum of line items. The Excel need to be a detailed breackdown of each CLIN.

Section L -E- Volume IV- Cost/Price Proposal

Is there a specific excel format required for the detailed price model referred to in subsection 2?

There is not a specific format required. However, best practice has shown a role -up summary tab with tabs for each CLIN priced separately to be highly effective.

Solicitation

FA890323R0020

The due date of Sep 28, 2023 provides limited time to submit the required detail in Secitons L i.e Technical, Past Performance and Cost Proposal. Would AFCEC consider an extension of 1 week to October 5, 2023 to allow adequate time to develop compliant responses and a competitive proposal.

The Government does not believe an extension is required at this time.

Attachment 3- Key Personnel

Attachment 3 identifies a Program QA/QC with a focus on construction of large commercial buildings, warehouse or aircraft hangars along with experience in radiological and soil cleanups. Since the types of work defined are not typically combined (i.e construction of buildings with environmental remediation) can we request that AFCEC allow two Program QA/QC roles- one for construction and a second for environmental remediation.

It is the contractors responsibility to ensure the proper personnel are on staff to complete this project. Attachment 3 identifies the minimum expectation for personnel required by the Government.

Is tunneling and/or horizontal boring the only option for the removal action to be considered and proposed? Can other methods be proposed and if so, will it disqualify the bidder?

No, tunneling and/or horizontal boring are not the only options to be considered and proposed. The Government is looking for industry to provide the best approach.

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Additional Information/Notes Page 5; CLIN 6-10.

Excavation prices.

The SOW clearly calls for an engineering study to be performed to determine how to excavate beneath Bldg. 690. The Solicitation has no designated line item for this study unless it is considered to be included under Line Item 0001. Line Item 0006 of the Solicitation is the pricing to do the excavation under Bldg. 690, which can’t be provided until the engineering study called for in the SOW is completed. How do we price the excavation if the study has not been completed? Would the completion of the study be considered confirmatory of the basis of estimate for Line Item 6, and any differences would be submitted as a contract change?

The offerors will need to propose a general strategy for excavating beneath Building 690.

The Air Force realizes that the engineering study is not available but believes sufficient information has been provided for each offeror to decide on their general approach and use that approach as the basis for their pricing. Yes, the completion of the study be considered confirmatory of the basis of estimate for Line Item 6, and any differences would be submitted as a contract change.

Para 2.5, page 10 of 36, UXO potential

Is there any information available that would indicate if UXO has ever been identified in the old creek bed? Any past history of discovery? This potential could impact the approach to excavation.

There have been no discoveries of UXO in the creek channel. The contractor's only responsibility with respect to UXO is , in the event an unanticipated munition or apparent munition is encountered. The contractor's responsibility is to stop work, retreat to a safe distance and notify the proper Air Force representatives.

Para 3.12 page 17 of 36, reasonable effort

Can AFCEC provide a definition of reasonable effort, for the purposes of estimating the workscope?

"Reasonable effort" is the same in principle as the concept of ALARA. The State of California is prohibited by court order from agreeing to any radiation cleanup level other than background. Therefore, in addition to the meeting the ROD DCGL of 2.0 pCi/g inclusive of background, the contractor must show they removed as much of the contamination as is reasonably achievable. This determination will be based on professional judgement. The contractor will show all the efforts they made to remove the contamination and make an argument as to why those efforts were as much as reasonably achievable.

Para 4.2, page 20 of 36, DOD ELAP. Para 5.2, page 29 0f 36

Does AFCEC have an Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) which they use, and would AFCEC provide that information as part of the RFP, to assist contractor in obtaining capabilities and costs.

No, AFCEC does not have an Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program.

FA8903-23-R-0020

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

FA8903-23-R-0020

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

Para 4.3, page 20 of 36, Engineering Study for B690

The RFP is requesting firm fixed pricing for planning and for execution of Bldg. 690 remediation.

The proposals will present an approach to the work, which may differ from what the study has indicated. Are there previous studies that are available of evaluating approaches for removal of the contaminated material?

The Government does not have previous studies available for evaluating approaches for the removal of the contaminated material.

Para 3.16, page 19 of 36, Construction Drawings and Specifications

Paragraph indicates 60% design prior to Construction. Will the 60% design be required to be completed prior to the start of the execution of the removal of the contaminated material?

No, the 60% design pertains specifically to construction of infrastructure damaged or removed during remediation. It will be at the contractor's discretion whether they provide the 60% design before or after the start of excavation as long as the design is submitted and approved by the Air Force and regulatory agencies before the start of restoration of the damaged or removed infrastructure.

Para 4.4, Page 21, Demolition

Paragraph indicates it is the Air Force's strong preference that B690 not be fully or partially demolished or damaged during the remediation of the OMCC. Does the Air Force consider making penetrations inthe concrete flooring for the purposes of the remediation as damage?

Will the bldg be evaluated of the current tenant's material during the excavation? Paragraph 4.3 references open excavation which would "damage" the existing floor as a potential approach for remediation.

Floor penetrations for the purpose of sampling and/or excavation would not be considered damage. Tenant material will be removed from the building prior to the start of the contractor's work.

Para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

Para indicates contaminated soil may be left in place under the support columns….(2) every reasonable effort. Please profide definition of reasonable as accepted by the State of California, which has defined the removal as a requirement.

"Reasonable effort" is the same in principle as the concept of ALARA. The State of California is prohibited by court order from agreeing to any radiation cleanup level other than background. Therefore, in addition to the meeting the ROD DCGL of 2.0 pCi/g inclusive of background, the contractor must show they removed as much of the contamination as is reasonably achievable. This determination will be based on professional judgement. The contractor will show all the efforts they made to remove the contamination and make an argument as to why those efforts were as much as reasonably achievable.

para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

CU hrs are identified as 7-11:30 AM, and Noon to 3PM, during the dry period defined as mid April to end of October, for a period of 80 days. Would it be possible to support extended shift work, such as a second shift for specific work area remediations? Would the Air Force allow contained storage of material excavated during extended hours in the event the CU was not available?

The offeror should assume deliveries must be made to the CU during the hours specified in the SOW. The Government will allow contained storage of excavated material if the contained material is secured, access to the area is controlled to prevent exposure to the public, the area where the containers are held is subject to radiation scans prior to and after use of the area to demonstrate the area was not contaminated by project activities, and any post-use decontamination is performed.

para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

Would the Air Force consider performing specific work area remediations during the period of November to Mid April, if appropriate containment methods could be applied to address control of contamination, and identify offsite license disposal location and option? This would support completion of the project earlier, vs demolization and remobilization for the "rainy season."

Yes, the Government will allow remediations during the period of November to Mid April, if appropriate containment methods will be applied to address control of contamination, and identify offsite license disposal location and option.

para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

Para indicates AFCEC contracts for 80 days of operation of the CU. That would appear to be 16 weeks; however there are 26 weeks of available work time in the period between Mid April to end of October. Please clarify if we can plan work for the entire 26 weeks of dry season.

AFCEC has the ability to contract for additional 20-day increments of CU operation. It is in the Air Force's interest to complete all excavation at the OMCC in a single field season.

Therefore, the offerors can assume they can make deliveries on up to 120 days. (26 weeks is 130 days. Four of those days are federal holidays, leaving 126 days. Air Force authorizes CU operations in 20-day increments. The closest increment to 126 is 120.)

Attachment 2, page 35 - Key positions and Qualifications

The 5 positions identified in this Attachment 2 are different than the 6 positions in Attachment 3, separate document to SOW. Please resolve conflict and provide complete list of Key personnel and qualification

Attachment 2 to the SOW has been deleted, Please reference Attachment 3 of the RFP. - Pg 13 of SOW para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

Are the roads of the transportation route for contaminated soil from the work unit to the consolidated Cell public roads, subject to DOT regulations?

A portion of the haul route between OMCC and the CU is on public roads, which are subject to DOT regulations.

Section B, page 3 of 58, Item 3

Is the pricing arrangement for this line item Cost Plus Fixed Fee, or is this an error, and should be Firm Fixed Price, like other items 1,2,4,5 & 6. If it is correct, is there a reason this particular Item is CPFF?

The pricing arrangement is Firm-Fixed-Price. Correction has been made to the SF1442.

Para 1.0, page 4 of 35, Introduction

Second Paragraph under 1.0 identified Contractor furnished facilities. Does this include both work space ( trailers), and sanitary facilities? Has there been an area identified for the location of these temporary facilities? Will there be available utilities at this location ( electricity/water)?

The contractor will be expected to provide their own work space and sanitary facilities. They can do this by bringing in their own trailers or by leasing existing facilities from McClellan Park. The Air Force has identified the parking lot immediately east of Building 690 as the area to be used for the contractor's field facilities (see attached figure). Electricity, water, and sewer are available in this area. These utilities do not belong to the Air Force, so the contractor will need to make arrangements with the utilities providers for connections to and use of those utilities.

The SOW is silent on the issue of where offices/trailers will be set up. Please let us know where we will locate our onsite offices. Can trailers be left on site during demobilization periods?

Contractor's may set up their field offices/trailers in the parking lot immediately east of Building 690 (see attached figure).

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Additional Information/Notes CLIN 0003, pp. 4-5 of 58

Is CLIN #3 meant to be Cost Plus Fixed Fee? CLIN #0003 is a Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN. The SF 1442 has been corrected

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Additional Information/Notes CLIN 0012, pp. 7 of 58

CLIN 12 is asking for unit pricing for demobilization, remobilization, and bonds. The SOW indicates there will be several mob/demob required due to the rainy season. Should we be providing a unit price for each demob/remob, and separate out bonds?

How to price mobilization and demobilization is a matter for the offeror to decide. The Government has assumed it will probably take two field seasons to complete this work but is not mandating that the work be done across multiple field seasons. If the offeror believes they can finish the work in a single season then multiple mobilization/demobilization events would not be required. If the offeror believes they will experience costs for multiple mobilizations/demobilizations then they should price it that way.

Bonding for this requirement is to be provide within 10 days of award.

para 3.8 - Other Plans Are there any Radiation Protection procedures/policies that were being used in early remediation projects that we can review and benchmark?

Radiation Protection procedures/policies will be in accordance with the requirements of the Air Force radioactive materials permit (i.e., 10 CFR 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, and 70 and AFMAN 40-

201. The Air Force expects that the contractor will be familiar with these requirements and have experience developing and implementing procedures to comply with them.

para 3.8 - Other Plans Any there any onsite Air sampling results availabe for review from past remediation efforts, to assist in understanding of what air sampling plans have been acceptable for open air excavation.

The Air Force expects the contractor to determine whether air sampling is appropriate and to design an air sampling program that will meet the radiation protection standards cited in the Air Force radioactive materials permit: 10 CFR 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, and 70 and AFMAN 40-201.

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs Additional Information/Notes CLINs 0001-0012, pp. 4-7

Has the sequence of work tasks been determined? Does the work need to be executed sequentially from Work unit 1 thru Work unit 6; or can the work be scheduled and optimized in a different order?

The work can be scheduled in any order the offeror believes will be most practical and efficient.

para 4.5, page 22 of 36, Excavation and Disposal

We understand that excavation cannot occur during the rainy season. Is access to the work areas for other work allowed during the rainy season, or will the work areas be unavailable for access for work? We understand that non excavation work can be performed on site, such as planning, reports, preparations, etc in support of Work Unit completion and Work unit preparation.

The contractor will have access to the site year round.

Section F, Page 11 of 192.

Deliveries or performance

There is a difference between the period performance of sept 2023-2ept 2027, which is 4 years, in the individual line items, and the 1095 Calendar days, which is 3 years. Please provide the correct period of performance. Note this inconsistency is also in other areas of the solicitation document.

The Period of Performance has been corrected.

3.6, Construction Quality Plan, page 73 of 192 final 60% design. What is the definition and expectation of a 60% design? See question #18

3.16 Construction Drawings

and specifications, page 77 of 192

Please identify what the "liner of Magpie Creek" is. Is the creek bed lined with concrete?

The OMCC is a buried creek channel that is unlined. However, there is a chance that at the far western end of the site the OMCC excavation might intersect with the current, active Magpie Creek, which has a metal and concrete liner. If the OMCC excavation damages the liner of the current Magpie Creek, the contractor will be expected to restore the form and function of the liner.

E. Volume IV - Cost/Price Proposal, page 114 of 192

Please provide Schedule B of the solitation and detailed pricing model (EXCEL).

Schedule B is within the SF1442 and is required to be completed by offerors. The detailed pricing model is to be provided by the offeror. The Government does not require a specific format.

Given that award of this contract is not planned by Fiscal-Year 2023 End, would the Govt please consider a minimum of a 30-day extension for proposal submission with a new due date of October 30?

Request to extend proposal due date denied.

For all the excavation tasks identified in Section B, Items 6 -10, would the Govt consider Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) instead of the FFP?

The Government has chosen a Firm-Fixed-Price contract for this requirement.

Is this contract considered a construction contract with the Contractor performing at least 35% of the total work?

This requirement is considered a construction requirement. The percentage of total work performed by the Prime has been updated to reflect 15%.

The start date for the period of performance is stated as September 22, 2023, which is prior to the proposal submission date of September 28, 2023. Can you please provide an updated start date for the POP?

The start date is depended on the award date. The contractor will be expected to begin work within 10 working days of award.

there a predetermined area that can be utilized as a temporary soil stockpile area for clean and/or contaminated soil?

The Air Force has not predetermined an area to be used for stockpiling soil. At a minimum, the area immediately adjacent to the OMCC to the north will be available. If SunGro is no longer operating in the area when excavation begins then other areas of the lot might also be available. Depending on where the contractors place their field trailers and how much space they take up, all or part of the parking lot immediately east of Building 690 might also be used.

Is the contractor responsible for interim costs to relocate tenant operations within MBP to another location while remedial efforts are underway and prior to restoration

No, the contractor is not responsible to relocate tenant operations within MBP. However, the contractor is required to work with MBP tenants to minimize disruptions to their operations.

In Section M Part C, the first bullet under (a) states- ”Key personnel shall include Program Manager, Program Chemist, Program QA/QC, Program Health and Safety Manager, Superintendent of Construction.” However, Attachment #3 identifies Key Personnel as- Project Manager Health Physicist, Program Health and Safety Manger, Superintendent of Construction, Chemist, and Program QA/QC. Can you please confirm the required Key Personnel and associated qualifications for this solicitation?

See previous question #24

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

The Government requests offerors to submit Volume III 10 calendar days prior to the due date. Will Offerors who submit Vol III 10 days before the due date be looked upon more favorably than those who do not?

No, offerors who submit Vol III 10 days prior to proposal due date will not be looked upon more favorably.

Section L states offerors should provide projects that are active or completed within the last year, but Section M defines a project as completed within the last five (5) years from the date of release from the solici10. In the first paragraph, the RFP states “The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any join venture member, as well as each proposed subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the Past Performance Questionnaire.....” Does the Government intend for Past Performance Questionnaires to be submitted for each subcontractor?tation. Please confirm the correct number of years in which the projects are considered relevant.

Section L has been updated to match sectyion M. Projects must have been completed withinthe last five (5) years of the release of this solicitation. The Government will only accept a total of 5 PPQs/CPARS, 2 of which must be from the Prime.

The RFP states “Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate Past Performance Questionnaire for five (5) active or completed contract....If the total number of such contracts exceeds five (5), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its five (5) most recent and relevant contracts.”

The Government will only review a total of 5 PPQ/CPARS from an offeror and its teaming partners. Two (2) PPQs/CPARS must be from the prime.

Section M, D. Vol III, Past Performance Factor 2, 1. General states “Each Offeror is requested to submit a maximum of five (5) recent (within the last 5 years) stand-alone C-type contracts or IDIQ task orders. Of these five contracts/task orders, a minimum of two

(2) must have been performed by the Prime Offeror. Joint Venture Partners constitute Prime Offerors for purposes of this section.”

No clear question is being asked.

Please confirm that the offeror should submit 5 no more than 5 past performance examples (C-contract or IDIQ task orders) in total regardless if they are in a Joint Venture.

The Government will only review a total of 5 PPQ/CPARS from an offeror and its teaming partners. Two (2) PPQs/CPARS must be from the prime.

The table in Section L, III. Volume Organization presents a 15-page limit for Volume III, Past Performance (Factor 2). However, the instructions indicate that more than 15 pages will be needed to meet the requirements of this Factor. Will the Government remove the page limits or provide more clarity around the limits set for this factor.

The Page Limitation is on Offeror section A of the past performance questionnaire only - Section B "Reference" does not have a page limitation.

Does RFP Attachment 2 (Past Performance Questionnaires) completed in their entirety count towards the 15-page limit?

See answer to question 51

RFP Attachment 2 has “To be Completed by 29 July 2022” on the top of the page. Can this be removed and updated to August 18th?

Attachment 2 has been updated.

RFP Attachment 2 submitted to POCs for completion should only be submitted directly to the Government POCs as indicated on the bottom of the questionnaire or can the Offeror submit completed questionnaires in their proposal?

Offer may submit complete questionnairs by the due date of the questionnair. Failure to submit PPQs by the due date may result in the offeror being considered non-responsive and eliminated from the compotetion.

Should copies for all submitted RFP Attachment 2 (RFP Attachment 2 submitted to POC for completion and return to the Government) be included in Vol III and will these pages count towards the 15-page limit? Should the Offeror submit the first page of RFP Attachment 2 only if POC returns RFP Attachment 2 directly to the Government?

Only the offerors section of the PPQ will count towards the page limitation. Yes, Offeror should submit the offeror section of PPQs in Vol III.

In Section L, D. Past Performance, 6. Past Performance Questionnaire states “The Past Performance responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The answering space on the Past Performance Questionnaire for the offeror may be expanded so that the filled-in for each relevant contract covers no more than three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages.” RFP Attachment 2 is three (3) pages without the completed information. Does the Government mean the offeror can expand Question K only to three (3) pages?

The page limitation is 15 pages, offerors can choose how to use those 15 pages.

If an offeror submits a FACTS Sheet, will this sheet count against Vol III page limits? Do FACTS Sheets count towards RFP Attachment 2-page limits?

FACT sheets are not required. Solicitation has been updated to remove the FACT sheet requirment.

Do Client Authorization Letters and Subcontractor Teaming Member Consent Forms count towards the Vol III page limits?

No, Client Authorization Letters and Subcontractor Teaming Member Consent Forms do not count towards the Vol III page limits

Should Schedule B be included in the overall proposal volume as a PDF and a separate Excel file?

Schedule B is to be completed and included with the completed SF 1442.

In Section M, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, subfactor one: technical approach, paragraph (b) states ”The Offeror’s proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS (without price information), that demonstrates correlation with the IMS and Technical Approach….”. An IMS is not requested to be provided by the Offeror in the proposal, but rather as part of the PMP if awarded the contract. Does the Government require an IMS to be provided with proposal and is the IMS excluded from the page count?

No, the Government does not require an IMS to be provided with the proposal.

In Section L, D. Volume III, Past Performance, 4. Key Personnel states “Offerors, joint venture members, or subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting Past Performance Questionnaire for five (5) of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.” Can the Government please confirm it is their intent to accept key personnel performance in place of corporate past performance? And if so, will corporate past performance be weighted more favorably than that of the key personnel past performance submitted via RFP Attachment 2?

It is preferred to receive corporate past performance for the past performance evaluation. If the offeror chooses to submit key personnel past performance in lieu of corporate past performance then that information has to be able to demonstrate how it is recent and relevant past performance experience for the offeror. It has to provide corporate rationale for the confidence assessment how this performance can demonstrate the offerors future performance. An key personnel's past performance on the submitted project has to be able to be verified by the past performance team to be able to be rated. This includes supporting documentation as to how their role played into the past performance and how that information is relevant for this requirement.

1460042980C Highlight

1460042980C Highlight

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

Please confirm a base case analysis is confirmed as per Section M, Section C. Volume II Technical Approach, 1. General, bullet 9.

The Technical response shall include a detailed technical approach to meet all of the performance objectives as outlined in Section M, Section C, Volume II, General, bullet 9.

Page 1 of the RFP states that a Bid Guarantee is required. Please provide clarification on where in the proposal the government would like to see the guarantee and please provide the requirements of the guarantee.

Bid Guarantee should be included as a separate file or the first page of Volume I.

Section F of the solicitation says the period of performance is 1095 calendar days (3 years) but the delivery schedules table below that for all of the line items shows a period of 4 years (9/29/23 to 9/28/2027). Which is the correct period of performance?

The Period of Performance has been corrected within the solicitation.

In attachment 2, what is the significance of the date listed under Attachment A? It currently says: TO BE COMPLETED BY 29 JULY 2022. Attachment 2 has been updated.

Attachment 2 says it must be completed and submitted by 18 August 2023. Given that that date has already passed before the final solicitation was issued, what is the correct data that should be used?

Attachment 2 due date has been updated

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs, Item 0003 indicates that the Pricing Arrangement is Cost Plus Fixed Fee. This is the only CLIN that is not Firm Fixed Price.

Please confirm that this was a typographical error and this should be Firm Fixed Price like the other Items.

CLIN #0003 is a Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN. The SF 1442 has been corrected

Are the four volumes to be submitted as one PDF with appropriate tabs? Or should they be submitted as four separate files? Offers should submit volumes as four separate files.

Should Volume IV: Price only be supplied as an Excel file? Or is it appropriate to include a full PDF and the Excel file? The price breakdown should be submitted as an Excel file. A PDF is not required.

Please confirm that the proposal is only to be submitted via PIEE and that the government does not want a hard copy?

Proposals shall be submitted through PIEE. The Government does not require a hard copy.

All offers will be reviewed electronically.

Volume III: Past Performance indicates that it should be submitted 10 days prior to the deadline. Please confirm this is just the present/past performance questionnaires.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) must be submitted 10-days prior to proposal due date. At this time, 29 September 2023 is when PPQs shall be submitted.

Section L Instructions: Page 3 states: “The page limitations include any cover page, charts…”. Please clarify if a cover and title page constitute a “cover page.” Cover and title pages are not included in page limitation.

Does the government wish to see resumes in Volume III: Past Performance?

The Government does not want to review resumes. A brief description of qualifications should suffice, e.g., list education, list licenses or other credentials, list relevant project experience. Should be about two sentences per person.

If the government does wish to include resumes in Volume III, will the government please omit resumes from the page limit or expand the page limit for this section to allow 2 pages per key personnel?

The Government will not review resumes.

Will USAF consider allowing existing PPQs to be submitted in the proposal in lieu of asking the project clients to fill out a new PPQ form again? Most offerors are using the same projects for more than one proposal and already have existing questionnaires on file for the projects. In order to not have to ask their clients to fill out the same questionnaires over and over, it would be helpful and appreciated by the offerors and their clients, if the offerors could use existing PPQs for submittal in this proposal. Also, the Navy and USACE developed NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0, PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE, to prevent the requirement of preparing individual PPQs for different proposal submittals. May a NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0 completed for a previous solicitation be provided in lieu of the Attachment 2 form?

Offerors may submit existing PPQ. However, the PPQ must have relevant information Is included.

76 Additionally, will USAF consider allowing CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQs? CPARS will be allowed in lieu of PPQs.

Please clarify if the government wishes to see five PPQs from each team member and/or JV member and NOT five total.

The Government will only review a total of 5 PPQ/CPARS from an offeror and its teaming partners. Two (2) PPQs/CPARS must be from the prime.

Section L, page 2, item 3, Teaming, All Team Members shall have a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI). Is an LOI required if a signed TA is provided? Please confirm that signed TAs and LOIs should be provided in both Volume I, Contract Documentation, and Volume II, Technical. Also please confirm that Joint Venture documentation also should be provided in both Volumes I and II.

All Team Members shall have a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI).

TAs or LOIs only need to be provided in Volume I. Section L has been updated.

Section L, page 3, A. General, item 6, Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic email is acceptable. Please clarify. Is the “initial proposal package” considered to be Volume III, Past Performance Information, which has been requested for receipt 10 calendar days prior to the required due date?

Submission of proposal packages shall be through PIEE. Submission of PPQ/CPAR information due on 29 September 2023 may be submitted via email.

SOW Section 2.8, page 13, and Section L, page 5, Subfactor 2 – Management Approach.

Should key personnel resumes be provided in Subfactor 2 to demonstrate the minimum qualifications and credentials identified in Attachment 2 to the SOW (Attachment 1) and RFP Attachment 3? If resumes should be provided, will the government please omit the resumes from the page limit or expand the page limit for this section to allow 2 pages per key personnel?

The technical team does not want to review resumes. A brief description of qualifications should suffice, e.g., list education, list licenses or other credentials, list relevant project experience. Should be about two sentences per person. If the CO decides resumes are necessary, then they should be excluded from the page count.

Additionally, the key positions and qualifications in SOW Attachment 2 (Key Positions and Qualifications) differ from those included in the separate file labeled as Attachment 3 (Key Personnel and Qualifications) and outline in Section M. Which set of key personnel and qualifications are correct?

SOW attachment 2 has been deleted. Please reference RFP attachment #3 for Key Personnel.

Section L, Volume III, Past Performance. Are project descriptions required in addition to completed PPQs? If project descriptions are required in addition to completed PPQs, will the government please omit the PPQs from the page limit or expand the page limit to allow 2 pages for each project description.

The PPQs paragraph K requires a project description. If a completed PPQ does not include a project description, a separate project description sheet will need to be completed and submitted with the completed PPQ. Only the project description portion is subject to the page limit.

RFP FA8903-23-R-0020 QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Remediation and Release (Old Magpie Creek Channel - McClellan AFB dated 25 September 2023

Section L, Volume III, Past Performance. The currently identified page limit is 15.

However, Section D, page 5, indicates that the PPQ may be expanded to no more than three (3) pages per PPQ. If five (5) PPQs are submitted and count against the page limit, would the government consider omitting the PPQs from the page limit or expanding the page limit to account for other required information, including the summary page, organizational structure change history, key personnel (if resumes are required), subcontractor/teaming member consent form, and client authorization letters?

The page limit for Volume III is limited to 15 pages for Section A of the PPQ. Section A of the PPQ form needs to include a project description. Other documents requested for Volume III are not limited by a page count

Section L, Volume III, Past Performance. Are subcontractor/teaming consent forms and client authorization letters excluded from the page limit for Volume III (i.e., 15) identified in the table in Section L on page 2?

Yes, subcontractor/teaming consent forms and client authorization letters are excluded from page limit in Volume III.

Section M, Volume III, please clarify if the government would like project descriptions included in this section to demonstrate a record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule on five projects completed within the past 5 years. If project descriptions are required in Volume III, will the government please omit the PPQs from the page limit or expand the page limit to allow 2 pages for each project description.

Project description is required in paragraph K in offeror section of PPQ. Page limitation increase denied.

Section M, Volume I, Subfactor Two: Management Approach, page 4. Please clarify if the government would like resumes to demonstrate key personnel qualifications. If resumes are required, will the government please omit the resumes from the page limit or expand the page limit for this subfactor to allow 2 pages per key personnel?

The Government does not want resumes and will not review resumes if submitted.

Section M, Volume I, Subfactor Two: Management Approach, page 5. The key personnel positions listed89:91 in Section M are not the same as those identified in Attachment 2 of the SOW (RFP Attachment 1). Please clarify which set of key personnel and qualifications are correct and which qualifications should be met (i.e., those in RFP Sections L and M, as well as RFP Attachment 3 or those identified in Attachment 2 of the SOW)?

Attachment 2 to the SOW has been deleted, Please reference Attachment 3 of the RFP. - Pg 13 of SOW

The Government will allow eval+C90uation of offeror's predecessor companies. Section M has been updated.89:90

Not a clear question.

Section M, Volume III, Past Performance, page 6, states that the evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. However, Section L, page 5, item 3, indicates that the evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance may include present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other division or corporate management and further indicates that offeror’s shall include detailed information describing all such changes in the organization of the offeror’s company. Please clarify whether such information will or will not be evaluated.

The Government will allow evaluation of offeror's predecessor companies. Section M has been updated.

SOW Is this a Radium 226 only remedial action?

As stated in the ROD, radium-226 is the only remedial action requiring excavation and disposal. There are non-radioactive contaminants present at the site, but the remedy for them is ICs.

If the Air Force or Regulators determine that other Contaminants of Concern must also be removed in order to achieve Unconditional Release of the property from the CDPH, or acceptance of a Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR), or other remedial action closure documents, by the other regulatory agencies, or any organizational unit of the Air Force, will the contractor be liable for the cost and performance of those non-radiological removals?

As stated in the ROD, radium-226 is the only remedial action requiring excavation and disposal. There are non-radioactive contaminants present at the site, but the remedy for them is ICs. CDPH/EMB has no authority over non-radioactive contamination. The release they will grant is "unrestricted radiological release."

SOW pg. 5: All soil contaminated with Ra-226 greater than 2.0 picoCuries per gram (PCi/g) to be excavated and disposed in an approved facility Question: Is the contractor required to remove any RA-226 contamination less than 2.0 picoCuries per gram, if any stakeholder (EPA, CDPH, AF RIC, DTSC, Air Force, et al.) requires such removal to approve the required closure documents?

No, the contractor is not required to remove any RA-226 contamination less than 2.0 picoCuries per gram, if any stakeholder (EPA, CDPH, AF RIC, DTSC, Air Force, et al.) requires such removal to approve the required closure documents

Is the contractor responsible for disposing of Combined or Mixed Waste?

Yes, the site has chemical as well as radium contamination. The ROD specifies the remedy for the chemical contamination is ICs. However, the soil excavated to address radium is likely to contain chemical contamination too. The contractor needs to demonstrate the soil being taken to the CU meets the CU acceptance criteria. Any soil taken off-site for disposal will need to meet the accepting facility's criteria for both radium and chemicals.

The solicitation specifies “Excavate parts of Work Unit X to a depth greater than 18 feet below ground surface.” Question: Is there a maximum excavation depth for excavation of the Work Units?

There is not a maximum excavation depth. For preparation of proposals assume excavation to 18 feet below ground surface. Any depth greater than 18 feet required will be handled via change order.

Sheet1