QandAs.doc

Questions received 01-21-09 from Edward Taney, Taney Corporation, Las Vegas, NV, e-mail EdT@taneycorp.com:

I am an owner of a small civil / survey firm in Las Vegas that is loaded with talent. I was looking through the Yucca Mountain Project (Nuclear Waste Depository site here in Nevada) and eventually end up on a web site showing the above government contract (IBM09R0002).

I know that we can do a good job at all aspects listed. Do smaller firms stand a chance at contracts such as this? We are currently licensed only in Arizona and New Mexico in regard to the three border states, will we need registration in California by a certain date in order to qualify?

In a nutshell, I am hoping you could let me know if it is worthwhile filling out the application. I am hopeful. We currently have 3 licensed engineers, 1 licensed surveyor and have an overall staff of 16. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Answer: As stated in the call for qualifications statements, the acquisition is fully unrestricted. There is no small business set-aside. However, a small business subcontracting plan is required from large A-E firms responding.

Small businesses have the same chance to respond and have their qualifications statements evaluated against the published requirements/criteria. Capacity for a prime A-E consultant (whether large or small) is a concern. However, registering on the interested vendor list at FedBizOps makes prospective respondent’s aware of your interest for teaming opportunities.

By the time your statement of qualifications is due, it needs to reflect all requested licenses in all states listed, or include a subconsultant that has the requisite license(s).

A small business A-E firm would stand an excellent chance as a subconsultant in a teaming arrangement with another A-E firm (large or small), as long as the requirements/experience/criteria are met.

Large A-E firms can also locate small business A-E firms, in addition to the interested vendor list, at SBA’s website: http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/ContractingOpportunities/governmentcontractingofficials/resources/GC_CONTRACT_DB_LINKS.html .

Questions received 01-22-09 from Bill Egges, Project Manager Construction Engineering, the CK Group, Inc., 16448 N 40th Street, Suite A, Phoenix, Z 85032 Tel: 602-482-5884 Fax: 602-582-2885 e-mail BEggers@theckgroup.com. Thank you for returning my phone call. Per your direction, I respectfully submit the following questions:

1) Has a portion of this IDIQ been considered as a Set-Aside for 8(a) Small Businesses that are qualified to provide the requested services?

Answer: See the answers to the previous set of questions.

2) Will an association with an Engineer from Mexico who has been/currently is on the International Border Team be a conflict of interest for the submittal?

Answer: Not unless it is a conflict of interest under the professional engineering standards of conduct, corporate ethics standards, or conflict with federal ethics standards at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 3.10 at website http://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%203_10.html#wp1079445. The fact that a firm has another contract with another international entity does not, in itself, comprise a conflict of interest.

The CK Group, Inc. is an 8(a)/SDB Small Business located in Phoenix, Arizona. We are an Engineering Firm that provides full service Civil Engineering Services as well as Survey & Material Testing. We have, on staff, Engineers with Registry in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, & California. Additionally, we have, on staff, two Professional Engineers from Mexico (Registry in Mexico).

CK will submit per the Qualification Request as an interested qualified firm.

Questions received 01-22-09 from Randy Rhoads, Account Manager, Optimal Geomatics, 2227 Drake Ave SW Building 14, Huntsville, AL 35805 Tel: 256-882-7788 Fax: 703-738-7372 e-mail: randy.rhoads@optimalgeo.com:

I hope that all is well with you today. I am with a small firm out of Huntsville, AL that does aerial photogrammetry, GIS and LIDAR. We were approached and plan on approaching a couple of large A&E firms to compete for your solicitation.

I was wondering who has won this contract in the past, assuming that is has been previously awarded?

Answer: The incumbent contractor is S&B Infrastructure, Ltd, 3535 Sage Road, Houston, TX 77056.

Is there any past history that we should be aware of?

Answer: This is the third IDIW with a base year and four option years. It is the first multiple award. The prior incumbent to the current S&B Infrastructure, Ltd, was MWH Americas’, Inc., 5100 Westheimer, Suite 580, Houston, TX 77056.

Thank you so much.

Questions received 01-22-09 from Rene Steinpress, Federal Product Manager, Brown and Caldwell, Tel: 925-210-2306.

Question 1. Our understanding of the structure of the response to Merit Factor 1 is that the response is limited to 32 pages as follows:

1. Studies, Analysis and Design of hydraulic structures—6 pages (one page each items a through f)

2. Analysis of Hydraulic and Hydrologic Systems—5 pages (one page each items a through e)

3 through 9—one page per each lettered item for a total of 21 additional pages

Do we correctly understand your instructions?

Answer: Yes Question 2. The solicitation requests AE firms submit Standard Form 330. Section H of the SF 330 is where “additional information requested by the agency” is presented. Is this where the IBWC expects AE firms to respond to Merit Factors 1 through 5?

Answer: Yes, the prime contractor shall answer the complete SF 330 Form (Part I and Part II). Each sub-contractor shall answer Part II only. The additional information in Part I Section H of form SF 330 will be the EVALUATION FACTORS. The Prime Contactor shall respond to the factors for his/her team, including subcontractors, as required under III EVAUATION FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS of the pre-solicitation.

Question 3. Merit Factor 2 requires a list of projects and a 10 line description for a total of 33 projects. Does the IBWC ALSO want the 10 one page example projects that constitute a standard response to Section F of the SF330? Or is the listing of 33 projects in lieu of Section F of the SF 330?

Answer: Yes, the prime shall answer SF 330 Section F for a maximum of ten (10) projects and respond to Merit Factor as required under III EVALUATION FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS of the pre-solicitation.

Question 4. Section E of the SF 330 requires resumes of key personnel proposed for the contract. Is there a limit to the number of resumes that can be submitted? Is there a limit to the length of the resumes that can be submitted?

Answer: Provide a maximum of 20 resumes with a length of one page per resume as shown in Section E.

Question 5. The solicitation states that “SF 330’s must also be submitted for all proposed subcontractors.” We interpret that the IBWC requirement for subcontractors refers to submittal of an SF 330 Part II for each branch office or subconsultant firm that will have a key role on the team. Is this correct? Office of Management and Budget guidance as published in the Federal Register regarding team firms is as follows:

2. Prepare a separate Part II for each firm that will be part of the team proposed for a specific contract and submitted with Part I. If a firm has branch offices, submit a separate Part II for each branch office that has a key role on the team.

If a full SF 330 is required of each subcontractor, the overall length of the submittal for a team that includes 5 to 8 subcontractors could be several hundred pages and contain substantial duplication of information.

Answer: Refer to response in question 2. Sub-Contractors and each branch shall submit an SF 330 Part II, in concurrence with the guidance from OMB at item 2 above.

Question 6. Does the IBWC intend for the Mexican AE firms on the team to perform services in Mexico only? We would like to confirm whether this is the case to avoid questions regarding licensure to practice engineering in multiple jurisdictions.

Answer: The professional shall be licensed in the State where the work is being performed.

Questions received 01-23-09 from Gordon Walhood, Jr., PE, Bohannan Huston, Inc., Courtyard 1, 7500 Jefferson St NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 Tel: 505-823-1000 Fax: 505-798-7988. Following are two questions that may interest all responders:

1. What types of projects are anticipated / funded in the near future?

Answer: Refer to the Solicitation under Section I at A through K. No forecast of specific projects is available.

2. Do you have current IDIQ contracts in place , and can you disclose the names of holders of those contracts?

Answer: See the answers to questions received from Randy Rhoads above.

Thank you for your consideration in responding to these questions Questions received 01-26-09 from Robert Blasberg, Project Manager Federal Services, PSOMAS

28480 Avenue Stanford, Second Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Office: 661-219-6000 Direct: 661-706-4428, e-mail: rblasberg@psomas.com:

Regarding the subject IDIQ solicitation, can you please advise is this a new requirement or a re-compete of an existing contract. If this is a re-compete can you please advise as to the name(s) of the incumbent(s).

Answer: See the answers to questions received from Randy Rhoads above.

Questions received 01-27-09 from Ellen Coppins, Market Intelligence Analyst, Fed Sources, Inc. 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, Phone: 703-610-8770 Fax: 703-883-0362 e-mail: coppinse@fedsources.com:

I hope this email finds you well. Per our conversation just a moment ago, I am requesting incumbent info for the ARCHITECT ENGINEER (A-E) IDIQ under Solicitation Number IBM09R0002. I am seeking the:

Contractor: S&B Infrastructure, Ltd Contract #: IBM05D0001 Award date: January 20, 20005 Award amount: $13,808,041 as of January 20, 2009 Any information you can provide would be most helpful. Thank you in advance for your help, I greatly appreciate it!

Questions received 01-27-09 from John K. Ruhl, e-mail: RuhlJK@bv.com:

Black & Veatch is considering responding to your solicitation. I have the following questions:

1. Are there small business subcontracting requirements?

Answer: See section VI second and third paragraphs of the call for qualifications as synopsized in FedBizOps and modified on January 21, 2009.

2. Does the statement regarding teaming with Mexican firms (page 1 of 10), mean a specific subcontract requirement or simply a willingness to coordinate with Mexican firms.

Answer: Yes, it means a specific subcontract requirement.

3. Page 6 of 10, III.2 - Are the one page responses by category for Merit Factor 1 intended to be lists of similar projects?

Answer: Not, necessarily- need to demonstrate experience and technical competence which may include more information than just a list.

4. Page 9 of 10, VI - Please make available the full text of the contract clauses.

Answer: See the last sentence in the second paragraph under VI. The website address for the text of the referenced clauses is provided. It is the same website provided under VII in the last sentence of the second paragraph for the text of the referenced provisions.

5. Page 6 of 10, III.5 - Please clarify the relationship between the submittal format specified to respond to the Evaluation Factors in a 3-ring binder and the requirements for an SF 330 (Page 9 of 10, VI). Is the former, the format for the SF 330, Section H?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

Thank you, Questions received 01-27-09 from Helen Cooley, Marketing Manager, Damon S. Williams Associates, LLC, 2355 East CamelbackRoad, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016, Phone: 602-217-1040 Fax: 602-265-5632 e-mail: hdaniels@dswa.net:

Could you please provide clarification to the following questions in regard to the above referenced solicitation:

1. To clarify, is the 3 ring binder with the Evaluation Merit Factors 1- 5 to be included as an extension of the SF330 form under Part I, Section H – Additional Information, or do you prefer a completely separate document from the SF 330 outlining the responses to the Merit Factors?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

2. The Solicitation states in Section VI, subparagraph 3 that “SF 330s must also be submitted for all proposed subcontractors.” Could you please confirm if this means that we must submit an entire SF 330, Parts I and II for each subcontractor on our team - or is it sufficient to have subcontractors called out in Part I, Section C -? Proposed Team with resumes and project experience incorporated into the team’s SF 330 where appropriate?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

3. The synopsis states in paragraph 2 that selected firms “must be able to team with firm(s) in Mexico to assist in the projects.”? Does the IBWC wish to see Mexican firms listed as part of submitting teams in this response, or is a statement of commitment and ability to team with Mexican firms sufficient at this point in the selection process?

Answer: Yes, Mexican firms shall be part of the submitted team.

4. The synopsis states in paragraph 3 that the “A-E contractor must possess sufficient qualifications and experience to provide the full range of A-E services necessary for the projects under the subject contract, as determined necessary by the USIBWC.”? Could you please clarify if this means that the prime submitting firm must be able to provide all services or may we team with subcontractors to provide some of the services outlined if our firm does not provide them?

Answer: Yes, the Prime Contractor may team with Sub-Contractors.

Thank you for your time.

Questions received 01-28-09 from Marcel Dulay,PE, Parsons, Tel: 512-415-314:

1. What has been the total contract amount executed for the existing A-E IDIQ contractor?

Answer: See the answer to Ellen Coppins above.

2. Is there an estimate of contract amounts executed for consultants who have provided services directly to IBWC outside the A-E IDIQ or indirectly related to other partner federal agencies, in particular firms who have worked on levees and dams?

Answer: IBWC primarily relies upon the IDIQ for A-E Services. However, IBWC is not bound to do so, especially if other mechanisms exist with other federal agencies. For instance, the US Department of Homeland Security contracted for a portion of the Hidalgo Levee Rehabilitation, Phase I. However, IBWC is unaware of the design costs incurred by other agencies. Other examples would be hydraulic flow studies on the Colorado River with the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, the design/reconstruct Nogales Wash with the US Army Corps of Engineers, or the Safety of Dams study at Amistad with both the US Interior/Bureau of Reclamation and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Ultimately, it is the Government’s decision on how to proceed with a needed acquisition. An IDIQ is not a ‘requirements’ contract.

3. Is the $15 million to for each contractor or to be divided among all three?

Answer: The $15 million is a maximum estimated amount. The only guarantee is the $1,000 to each of the successful contractors for the base year only. See the answer to your question 4, for how each task order will be awarded.

4. Once awarded, will the three contractors have to compete for each task order in a similar way as the existing environmental IDIQ contract has been operating?

Answer: Only the highest ranked firms, based upon qualifications statements and subsequent interviews will be asked to respond to a solicitation that will contain all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) applicable provisions and clauses for the Request For Proposal (RFP). A minimum of three awards will be made. Follow-on RFPs for task orders will be competed among all awarded IDIQ A-E Service contractors. The evaluation criteria, best value, lowest price technically acceptable or other basis for award of the competitive task orders will be provided within each RFP.

5. There are some inconsistency with the submittal cut-off time, would you please clarify.

Answer: Section VII of the FedBizOps synopsis is hereby corrected to read: ‘The SF 330 must be received in this office not later than 3:00 p.m. MST on February 20, 2009.

Questions received 01-28-09 from Krystal Bell, Marketing Coordinator, URS Corporation, P.O. Box 201088, Austin, TX 78720-1088, 9400 Amberglen Boulevard Austin, TX 78729 T: 512-419-5671 F: 512-419-5215 e-mail: krystal_bell@urscorp.com.

I have reviewed the request for qualifications and would like clarification on a few items that seem to be different from other SF 330s that I have prepared for government agencies.

1. Are you wanting Part I and Part II of the SF 330 for each firm that will make up our team? Based on SF 330s that I have prepared for other government agencies, Part I has only been needed from the Prime firm (and within the form we provide information on the other firms in the appropriate places on the form [i.e., Section C, D, E, F, G, and H], and Part II is provided for all firms. Would you please clarify.

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

2. Is the information requested under Merit Factor 1 to be provided in the SF 330 in Section H (Other Information)?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

3. Is the information requested under Merit Factor 2 to be provided in the SF 330 in Section F (Projects)?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 3 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell.

4. Is the information requested under Merit Factor 3 to be provided in the SF 330 in Section E (Resumes)?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 4 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell. The offer must respond to Section E of SF 330 and Merit Factor 3.

5. Is the information requested under Merit Factor 4 to be provided in the SF 330 in Section H (Other Information)?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell. All evaluation factors shall be responded to as part of Section H.

6. Is the information requested under Merit Factor 5 to be provided in the SF 330 in Section H (Other Information)?

Answer: Please refer to response to question 2 from Rene Steinpress with Brown and Caldwell. All evaluation factors shall be responded to as part of Section H.

Questions received 01-29-09 from Sam Darghous, P.E., Program Manager, Michael Baker Jr. Inc., Direct (602)798-7557:

Good morning Colleen, I am trying to get our professional liability insurance and Office of Council to approval us proposing on subject solicitation. Do you have a list of the FAR clause numbers that will be eventually be included in the successful bidders contract? After the online tutorial you gave me I now know how to find the text to pass it on. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Answer: Unfortunately the FAR provisions and clauses will only be provided in the solicitation to the top ranked firms based upon qualifications and subsequent interviews. See the answer provided for Marcel Dulay, above.

Questions received 01-30-09 from Angela Vega, Marketing Coordinator, Michael Baker Jr., Inc, Tel: 602-294-2248 e-mail: avega@mbakercorp.com:

There are 2 different spots within the RFP for Solicitation No. IBM09R0002 that give 2 different response dates/deadlines. One states 3PM MST and another at 4PM. Please advise.

Answer: See the answer to question 5 from Marcel Dulay above.

Thank you, Questions received 01-30-09 from Deborah L. Hathaway, Principal, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Tel: 303-939-8880 e-mail: dhathaway@sspa.com:

I have reviewed the above-referenced solicitation and have two questions:

1. We are a specialized firm providing groundwater and surface water studies and groundwater modeling, with groundwater modeling experience and expertise in the US/MX border region in and around both New Mexico and California. We have qualifications in reading and preparing technical documents in both English and Spanish as related to hydrology. Our qualifications are limited to this field, and as such, we do not offer services except in one area of service item I.H. My reading of the solicitation suggests that a specialized firm such as ours, despite very high qualifications in one area, would score poorly in your evaluation due to the specialized nature of our expertise (unless we are a sub-contractor on a larger team, perhaps). However, before I settle on that conclusion and decide not to submit our qualifications, I wanted to confirm that understanding with you. On the other hand, if there is opportunity to be evaluated favorably and possibly awarded a contract for a narrow area of expertise, then I would be interested in responding, as we are most interested in conducting work related to hydrology in the border region, including regions of Mexico.

Answer: See the answers to the questions from Edward Taney. You are correct that your firm would need to be part of a team, as each contractor/team awarded a contract must meet the entire criteria/expertise requirements.

2. Has a pre-proposal meeting been scheduled, and/or do you have a list of potential respondents that is public?

Answer: No pre-proposal meeting will be scheduled. The interested vendor list is posted on FedBizOps with the Presolicitation request for qualifications statements. No other list of potential respondents will be made public.

Thank you for any useful information that you able to provide.