Inquiries and CDLE Answers-06-10-16.doc

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Request for Proposal KATA-2016000249-P Petroleum Storage Tank Assessment, Remediation, and Emergency Response Bidder Inquiries and CDLE Responses

Prospective Offerors’ inquiries are listed numerically below with a “Q” in front of the number exactly as submitted. CDLE responses are listed directly after the question in red font with an “A” in front of the corresponding number. In order to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of this solicitation any prospective Offeror names listed in submitted questions have been removed and replaced with (Offeror).

Q1. The last page is labeled 23 of 27. Are pages missing from the proposal?

A1. The correct number of pages for the solicitation is 23. The solicitation has been modified to reflect this.

Q2. Under section I. Proposal Submission, an electronic copy of the Proposal and Cost Proposal or requested. Should these be combined into one document or two separate documents on one flash drive?

A2. Proposal and Cost Proposal should be two (2) separate documents on one (1) flash drive, cd, or other electronic format? SOUNDS GOOD Q3. In two locations on page 21 of the RFP (under Tab E. and Tab G.), there is a statement that, "Event IDs cannot be associated with any OPS Master Agreement(s)/RFP(s)".

Two questions:

1) Does this mean what it implies? That a responder cannot use an OPS site they have had success with as an example if it associated with an OPS Master Agreement?

2) What does a responder do for examples if they only have an OPS contract, and no other sites to draw examples from?

A3. Yes the offeror must provide Event IDs not associated with the OPS Master Agreement. If an offeror cannot provide an Event ID they do not meet the specifications for this Request for Proposal. Utilizing an Event ID not associated with an OPS Master Agreement allows OPS to conduct an evaluation based on performance outside of the Master Contract.

Q4. If Pages 2 and 19 in the RFP contain conflicting requirements for the number of copies requested to be submitted (4 copies or 5 copies).

A4. The total number of proposals is six (6) one (1) original and five (5) copies Q5. Section VII.C, Tab D: Please clarify whether the three EIDs provided may include State Lead or LUST project sites.

A5. No, the three EIDs cannot include State Lead or LUST projects. See Answer A3.

Q6. Section VII.C, Tab D: Please clarify whether the three EIDs provided may be associated with release dates that are more than 5 years old. Our understanding is that the EID simply has to have been active, or closed, at any time within the last 5 years.

A6. Correct. The EIDs to be submitted are to have been worked on or closed within the last 5 years.

Q7. Section VII.C, Tab D: What are the criteria by which the three EIDs will be evaluated? In other words, how much of the lifecycle of a project is required for the EID to be evaluated?

A7. It is not a criteria based evaluation for the three EID submittal, but rather part of the general SOQs which is for demonstration of general knowledge with the OPS program.

Q8. Section VII.C, Tab F: Is the response provided in Tab F intended to be an original narrative written for this RFP response, or an excerpt from an existing report? May the response provided in Tab F include figures? May the response summarize work performed at a project site outside the jurisdiction of the OPS?

A8. The response can be either original or an excerpt from an existing report. The response may include figures. The response may summarize work performed at a project site outside the jurisdiction of OPS.

Q9. Section VII.C, Tab E through G: Must the EIDs associated with the CSM (Tab E), Characterization (Tab F), and CAP narrative (Tab G) be selected from the three EIDs provided in Tab D?

A9. No.

Q10. The due date and time on the Proposal Signature page is June 30, 2016 at 11AM, which is different than the proposal document (RFP). What is the due date for the proposal? If the signature page is incorrect, should it be corrected, as it is an editable document?

A10. The correct submission date for this Request for Proposal is June 28, 2016 at 11:00 am MT. A new Proposal Signature Page has been uploaded to reflect the correct date.

Q11. Section O states “New to this solicitation is the requirement for selected Offeror(s) to obtain Commercial Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance as stated below:” This does not appear to be a new requirement as it was also required in the 2011 RFP. Can you please clarify if there is indeed something new for this requirement or if this is the same as the previous requirement.

A11. This is not a new requirement. Insurance is the same from the previous solicitation completed in 2011.

Q12. The final page of this RFP states “Page 23 of 27”. Are there pages missing from the RFP?

The correct number of pages for the solicitation is 23. The solicitation has been modified to reflect this.