QandAs2.doc

IBM09R0002 Request for Qualification Statements & Subcontracting Plans

Presolicitation Notice

Amendment 6

Questions received from Tracey Lee, Manager, Proposal Center, AMEC, Tel 615-333-0630 e-mailtracey.lee@amec.com:

AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. is evaluating the above-referenced RFP. We respectfully submit the following administrative and procedural questions regarding the RFP:

1) What is the deadline date for submittal of questions, and what is the last date for publishing of answers to questions?

Answer: The deadline for receipt of questions was 8:00 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2009, as set by Amendment 4 to the Presolicitation notice on 02-26-09. This is the last set of published answers to questions. This is the last response to questions received prior to the deadline.

2) Are formal teaming agreements required at this stage with Mexican subcontractors and are the teaming agreements to be submitted as well?

Answer: See the answer to questions received from Black & Veatch in Amendment 2 to the Presolicitation notice and posted under response to questions in the Qand A.doc on 02-03-09.

3) If the work requires access to properties outside of the Untied States, will the USIBWC provide access to those properties or will it be responsibility of the contractor to obtain access?

Answer: The responsibility to gain access to properties will be addressed in each task order scope of work (SOW) that is issued. If the USIBWC has a project in Mexico, then the SOW will indicate the level international agreement already reached and identify all further coordination needs, if any.

4) Will environmental assessment work related to the A-E services requested under this contract be completed by others outside of the scope of the proposed A-E contract or must the A-E also be prepared to provide environmental assessment services?

Answer: Very limited, as environmental services are under a separate contract. However, restoration design would be handled by the A-E(s) under this contemplated contract. If an environmental restoration design requires the stamp of an A-E, it will be performed under a task order under this contract.

5) Will the USIBWC arrange for the necessary technical and regulatory reviews by agencies outside of the United States or will that be the sole responsibility of the contractor?

Answer: This would be project specific and outlined in each task order SOW that is issued. The offeror shall assume that, in some instances, technical and regulatory reviews may be included.

6) Will the USIBWC consider extending the submission deadline for this RFP?

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Questions received from Linda Boesch, Marketing Department, Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc., 10710 S Sam Houston Parkway W, Suite 350, Houston, TX 77031, Tel 713-772-7065 Fadx 713 777-0341 e-mail LBoesch@tweinc.com. Alternate point of contact is Bill Tobin, Senior Vice President, at 888-887-9932.

We came across solicitation number: IBM09R0002 and we were wondering if there are certain contractors that you use that we could contact in regards to sub-contracting some of the work.

Answer: The team composition is left to the contractors submitting qualification statements. There is no preference. The team must meet the requirements/evaluation criteria.

Questions received from Mark E. Steiner, PE, Senior Policy Director, American Council of Engineering Companies, 1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Tel 202= 347-7474, e-mail msteiner@acec.org.

The subject solicitation for A/E services is rightly using the Brooks Act to select firms. It has been brought to my attention by a number of ACEC member firms that the International Boundary and Water Commission intends to compete task orders in a manner that is not FAR Subpart 36.6 compliant. Here's the extract from the Q&A notes:

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.

Competing task orders is not an issue, but using “best value” or “lowest price technically acceptable” for such competitions may be. On a quick search, I found that section 843 of NDAA 2008 addresses task order competitions and:

Sets a $100 million ceiling on task or delivery order contracts being awarded to a single source, unless the agency head determines certain criteria are met (including public interest).

Requires competition by all contractors (multiple award contract holders) for task or delivery orders over $5 million and sets some criteria for doing so.

Restricts protests, except under certain conditions.

These requirements are applied to both Defense and Civilian Agency contracts.

In looking into how DOD is implementing the law, I found the attached “interim rule.” The interim rule is pretty much along the lines of the law and makes changes to appropriate FAR Subpart 16.5 sections. FAR Subpart 16.5 is clear on competition.

FAR Subpart 16.500 (b) specifically does not limit competitive procedures authorized by FAR Part 6. In FAR Part 6, Subpart 6.102(d) (1) includes 40 U.S.C. 1102 and FAR Subpart 36.6 (Brooks Act and QBS) as competitive procedures (under full and open competition). Further, FAR Subpart 16.500 Scope of subpart includes a section (d) that states:

“(d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in Subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with Subpart 36.6.”

It is clear that the intent of the law is interpreted by the FAR “Councils” as focusing on non-A/E services work. Even applying it to A/E work does not include cost competition. Going further, it could be considered consistent with QBS to select a firm holding a multiple award IDIQ contract for a new task based on being the most qualified, after review of original submission documents and/or considering supplement information or current staff availability.

With this in mind, I do not see a requirement to compete task orders, but if a decision to compete A/E services between IDIQ contract holders (selected via the Brooks Act) the task order competitions need to comply with the Brooks Act. In addition, it appears this can be effectively done by selecting the most qualified firm from existing information already provided or asking for supplemental task order oriented information and then initiating negotiations with the most qualified firm. This honors the intent and purpose of the Brooks Act, by not allowing cost to influence the qualifications decision and then arriving at a fair and reasonable cost with the most qualified firm.

If you see the issue differently, after reviewing the attached, please let me know. I am looking for a reasonable explanation of the validity of your task order competition process (with regard to the Brooks Act) to pass on to the concerned ACEC member firms.

Thank you, Mark

Answer: As previously indicated, RFPs will be issued to contractors selected under the A-E (Brooks Act) process by the USIBWC.

The RFPs will require a proposal with assumptions stated on how the scope of work (SOW) will be met, as well as a work plan. The resultant proposals will also be accompanied by a detailed and comprehensive cost proposal (commensurate with the magnitude of the project). This process is also in accordance with the Brooks Act, as technical approach remains the first consideration.

A lead technical advisor (within USIBWC) will evaluate the proposals and award may be made without further discussion. However, if clarifications or discussions are necessary, they will be conducted. A final determination by the USIBWC will be made as to the A-E firm under the IDIQ that will be awarded the task order. Upon award all firms will be notified of the successful offer.

The RFP, as stated previously, will provide the evaluation criteria for the responding proposals. FAR part 36.6 does not preclude evaluation of price and other factors, as long as qualifications are the over-riding concern. Only the most qualified firms will be awarded the initial IDIQ contracts. Only the best proposal, price and other factors considered will be awarded individual task orders.

USIBWC is not GSA and this is not a Federal Supply Schedule contract. As a civilian agency, USIBWC is not governed by the US Department of Defense.

Questions received from Christina Wooldridge, Senior Marketing Communications Specialist, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., 10950 Grandview St., Building 34

Overland Park, KS 66210, Tel 913-458-6628, e-mail WooldridgeC@bv.com.

Under Merit Factor 2, are the projects per category listed (category 1-5, max 5) and (category 6-9, max 2) including criteria a-f to be a total of 10-lines or is criteria f (description of project) alone to be 10-lines, excluding criteria a-e?

Answer: Criteria f alone (brief description of project) shall not exceed ten (10) lines, excluding Criteria a-e.

Are projects in Section F required and limited to one-page only?

Answer: One Section F shall be completed for each project, and shall be limited to one page per project for a maximum of ten (10) projects.

We are interested in this solicitation and are inquiring about the second set of Question and Answers to be posted on the FBO website. Do you plan to post these later this week or before the deadline on Monday, March 9th, 2009?

Answer: This QandA.doc is the last such document. There will be no further extensions to the deadline for receipt of qualification statements and subcontracting plans (from large prime consultants).

Will there possibly be another extension due to the late posting of Q&As?

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Would you please advise as to when you expect to post Q&A on FedBizOps? We are concerned that we may not have time to respond before our cutoff time to ship any modifications to you for Monday delivery.

Answer: See the answer to your previous question.

Will you except electronic modifications?

Answer: No electronic modifications will be accepted; the qualifications package shall be complete.

Questions received from Krystal Bell, Marketing Coordinator, URS Corporation, PO Box 201088, Austin, TX 78720-1088, Tel 512-19-5671, e-mail krystal_bell@urscorp.com:

Regarding Solicitation IBM09R0002, would you please confirm:

Subcontracting plans will be required from a large business only if the large business is selected for the contract.

Answer: Yes, subcontracting plans are required from a large business with the qualifications statements. The subcontracting plan can also be met in the team that the prime contractor assembles.

Per the RFQ, it is required that the firm be able to team with Mexican firms. We are assuming that if we have an office in Mexico that we will be meeting this requirement. Would you please confirm.

Answer: Yes.

Question received from Erin McAnear, Marketing Coordinator, Tetra Tech Engineering & Architect Services, 119 N Robinson Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Tel 405-606-8600, e-mail: Erin.McAnear@tetratech.com:

While filling out the SF330 forms we noticed that the margins on the standard form are no the same as the margins outlined in the RFQ. My question is should we change the margins on all the forms and adjust the size of the form contents to fit the outlined margins?

Answer: The format for SF330 must remain the same; however the responses for Section H shall be on separate pages following the format described for the Evaluation Factors. The prime offeror shall sign the Section H form at the bottom confirming the facts in the Evaluation Factors.

Question received from Elizabeth Cabral, Vice President, Marketing & Corporate Development, Hal Hays construction, Inc., 1835 Chicago Ave, Suite C, Rierside,CA 92507, Tel (951) 788-0703 ext. 104, e-mail www.halhays.com:

I saw your notice for the A/E IDIQ Services. Will you also be issuing a Construction Services IDIQ to execute the construction/design build projects? We are a self performing design build firm with extensive federal and military construction experience in IBWC-relevant facilities and infrastructure.

Answer: Any construction assistance services are covered by the posted Presolicitation notice call for qualifications SOW (see I, I.I through I.K). However no design/build construction services will be awarded through this mechanism, only SOWs for design/build specifications that would be separately competed.

Questions received from Sam Irrinki, PE, Vice President, El Paso Area Manager, CH2M Hill, 445 Executive Center Blvd, Suite 110, El Paso, TX 79902-1003, Tel 915-543-9089 ext 38014, e-mail Sam.Irrinki@CH2M.com:

Thanks for clarifications provided by USIBWC on Feb 3, we have following additional questions:

If we have an office in Mexico, we are licensed to do work in the areas listed in RFP, is it still required to have a Mexican firm on the team?

Answer: No. However, the office must have the capability to perform the work in Mexico if required in the task order SOW.

Since it is a multiple award, what is the basis of selection of individual Task Order among the three selected A-E firms? will it be best value? If it is price based selection some states allow only qualifications based selection.

Answer: A minimum of three multiple awards are contemplated, but only the most qualified prime/subconsultant teams will be selected based upon qualifications. The subsequent requests for proposal (RFP) for task order scopes of work will be based upon the evaluation of the best approach to meet the SOW, price and other factors considered. Each RFP will provide the basis for the evaluation award for each subsequent task order. This process remains a qualifications based selection.

When does the current A-E IDIQ contract expire?

Answer: The current A-E IDIQ contract expires on September 30, 2009. However, a clause was incorporated in full text of the contract that permits a one time extension of six months solely at the Government’s discretion.

Since some of the firms are competing for both Environmental Services and A-E IDIQ contracts, there is a slight overlap on engineering staff for both contracts, it will be easier for our business/staff planning, if USIBWC can extend the A-E proposal due date until the selection is made on ES IDIQ contract (anticipated first week of March 09).

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Considering clarifications were given only on Feb 3, is it possible to get an extension on the due date if it does not have any major impacts on USIBWC implementation of projects.

Answer: The deadline for receipt of questions was 8:00 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2009, as set by Amendment 4 to the Presolicitation notice on 02-26-09. The deadline for receipt of qualifications statements/subcontracting plans was extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Can you please provide latest draft contract terms and conditions for our review especially if it is different from the ES IDIQ Contract.

Answer: The solicitation with all terms and conditions will only be provided to the selected firms from the qualifications submittal evaluation.

The proposal due date time is shown 3:00 pm on some places and 4: 00 pm at others. Please clarify the time once the due date is extended.

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Questions received from Jezabel Valenciana, Marketing Director, Frank X. Spenser & Associates,Inc., 1130 Montana Ave, El Paso, TX 79902, tel 915-533-4600, e-mail javalenciana@fxsa.com:

Does the 12 point, Times New Roman font, left 1 inch, right ..75 inch, top .4 inch, and bottom .5 inch requirement applies to the Merit Factor 1-5 responses which will be included on Section H of the SF330?

Answer: Yes, the format refers to the Merit Factors 1-5. The Contractor shall provide these responses in the format specified in lieu of the format on Section H. The responses to the Merit Factors are the Additional Information requested under Section H. Therefore, the Contractor must still sign the Section H form.

Or does it apply to all the sections of the SF330 (Sections A-H) to include the template of the form itself?

Answer: The responses to SF330 Sections A – G shall be provided in the format of the form itself.

Questions received from Cheryl Cretin, Federal Contract Manager, Zia Engineering& Environmental Consultants, Tel 575-532-1526 x723, e-mail ccretin@ziaeec.com:

Your section on what is to be submitted is very confusing. Initially you do not request SF330s and you give a specific format 12 font, margins, etc. In the second amendment you add the requirement for SF 330s but you do not eliminate the format requirements which do not lend themselves to the format of the SF 330s.

Answer: The SF 330s were always a requirement, see section VII of the original Presolicitation notice. The format requirements, also part of the original Presolicitation notice, apparently conflict to some extent with the use of the SF 330.

The current version, as amended of the Presolicitation notice appears first when you open the posting at FedBizOps. Select the most recent ‘Changed’ date on the left side of the FedBizOps screen for IBM09R0002. On the far left of the ‘Notice Details’ tab line, select the ‘Print’ button. The printed version you will obtain contains all previous changes and is the edition in effect as of the ‘Changed’ date selected. You may drill back down to prior versions and view changes to see the evolution of the notice. Only the current or latest version is the official Presolicitation notice, as amended.

What exactly to you want submitted?

Answer: See prior responses to questions from Jezabel Valenciana of Frank X. Spenser & Associates, Inc., and Erin McAnear of Tetra Tech Engineering & Architect Services.

Request date for proposals be extended to accommodate the response to this question.

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

Questions received from Miguel Orozco, PE, Senior Project Engineer, Tetra Tech, Infrastructure Central region, 700N Saint Mary’s St,Suite 300, San Antonio, TX 78205, Tel 21—226-2922 e-mail Miguel.orozco@tetratech.com:

It seems that IBWC Qualifications Requested for A-E IDIQ Base + 4 Option Years Multiple Award (IBM09R0002) had some ambiguous language with regards to the formatting of the SF 330. Has anyone else brought up this subject, and is there a foreseeable extension on the Response Date? Please advise.

Answer: See prior responses to questions from Jezabel Valenciana of Frank X. Spenser & Associates, Inc., and Erin McAnear of Tetra Tech Engineering & Architect Services.

Answer: The deadline is extended to March 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. MDT by Amendment 6 to the Presolicitation notice/call for qualification statements on 03-11-09.

With regards to the language specifying the SF 330 font size, do you envision any changes to the current solicitation indicating a different font size? Please advise.

Answer: The specific format listed is only for SF 330 Section H. The Additional Information requested under this Section is the Evaluation Factors (Merit Factors 1-5).

Questions received from Alissa Holloway, Marketing Coordinator, Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc., 4222 85th Street, Lubbock, TX 79423, Tel 806-473-2200 e-mail: AHolloway@team-psc.com:

We are working on our response to the referenced solicitation. Can you tell me if the 10 projects in Section F are limited to one page each?

Answer: Yes, limit your response to one page per project for a maximum of 10 projects.

Questions received from Robert E. Osborne, President, CANI Industrial Design & Engineering, Inc., Tel 760-540-2249, e-mail rosborne@caniusa.net:

We are an A & E firm (CANIUSA) in El Centro CA with a large branch (CANIMEX), in Mexicali, BC. Our "Interested Vendors" business type column nor our NAICS column reflected any of this information. How do we get this entered to provide possible sub-contracting opportunities?

Answer: By asking the question and obtaining this answer in the Response to Questions section of the Presolicitation notice at FedBizOps.

Questions received from Mary Jane Hair, Sales Representative, Tel 915-204-7600, e-mail: MHair@Knoll.com:

I saw this solicitation on FedBiz.opps. However, the way I received this notice would not allow me to open the link. Does it included any office furniture? If so, we'd like the opportunity to bid this.

Answer: No furniture is included in this Presolicitation notice call for qualification statements from Architect-Engineer (A-E) firms for an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contract for professional services.

- 7 -