Amendment 0001_Encl 1_Notice No. 2_12SEP2025.pdf

N40192-25-R-5001 Notice No. 2

12 September 2025

NOTICE NO. 2

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION N40192-25-R-5001

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

SERVICES AT JOINT REGION MARIANAS (JRM), GUAM

QUESTION (Q) 1: L.4.1 states "Proposals shall be submitted in two volumes: Volume I: PRICE

PROPOSAL Volume II: NON-PRICE PROPOSAL (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4)", however L.4.2 states specific format and number of copies for the Cover Letter, RFP Documents, and Pre-Award Survey.

Should these items be provided in a volume seperate from Volume I and Volume II?

Answer (A) 1: Yes. Refer to RFP Section L.4.2.

Q2: Please confirm that Offeror's are allowed to provide previously completed PPQs from other solicitations in Factor 4.

A2: RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(4) states "Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation" and "OFFERORS

MUST SUBMIT ONLY ONE CPARS OR PPQ PER PROJECT."

Q3: RFP Documents: Should the Offeror place this item within a Header/Footer, or should these be a complete resubmittal of the entire RFP file?

A3: Refer to RFP Section L.4.2. Submit entire RFP documents (including complete responses to Section

K).

Q4: What other RFP documents should the Offeror provide in this section aside from a completed

Section K?

A4: Refer to RFP Section L.4.2.

Exhibits and attachments listed in RFP Section J required to complete the Offeror's proposal shall be submitted in the Offeror's price or non-price proposal, where applicable.

Q5: Section M, M.2,3.,(b), (1), (i), (A): Requesting clarification in regards to “DO NOT submit an IDIQ contract as a project; for work performed under an IDIQ contract, submit only the individual task orders that best demonstrate experience as indicated above”. Based on these instructions, may the offeror reference an IDIQ that summarizes ALL of the 100% completed Task Orders under that IDIQ that are relevant to the PWS as “one project”? Same question, posed another way...may a "project" consist of multiple Task Orders that were awarded under the same IDIQ?

A5: RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1) states "Projects are defined as either stand-alone contracts, or individual task orders under an indefinite-delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract."

As such, a "project" consisting of multiple task orders that were awarded under the same IDIQ will NOT be considered. Additionally, per RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1), "[...] submit only the individual task orders that best demonstrate experience as indicated above.”

Q6: Section M, M.2, 3., (b), (1), (i), (B): Requesting clarification on the definition of a “project” in relation to it being 100% complete. For IDIQ’s of similar Base and Option CLIN structure (for regular reoccurring work) to this RFP, may an offeror submit a Base CLIN or exercised Option CLIN (or a combination thereof) from an IDIQ that are 100% complete as a “project”?

A6: Refer to Government response to Q5.

Q7: If a CPARS was provided for an overall IDIQ contract (by contract year) and not at the specific Task

Order level, can a CPARS for a completed task order under the IDIQ within the reviewed performance period be submitted in Factor 4 for a Factor 1 Task Order project?

A7: Yes.

Q8: Could the Government please confirm that the cover page, cover letters, tabs, flysheets, table of contents, and list of acronyms will not count toward any page counts for the electronic copies?

A8: Per RFP Section L.4.1, "For both electronic proposals and hard copy proposals, page limits, where stipulated, shall be adhered to."

Refer to each non-price factor for page limitations and numbering instructions.

Q9: How would the Government like for Offerors to prove we are up to date with our VETS-4212

Report?

A9: Refer to RFP Section L.4.2 and L.9.

Q10: May Offerors submit previously-completed PPQs in their entirety?

A10: Refer to Government response to Q2.

Q11: Would the Government please consider allowing Offerors to only submit the electronic versions of our proposal, in order to reduce the environmental footprint of a submission?

A11: No. Refer to RFP Section L.5.

Q12: Are Offerors allowed to reduce the margin size to 0.5" all the way around the form in order to match the rest of the proposal submission requirements?

A12: No. RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1) states "The Offeror shall not deviate from the basic format of the form, although blocks may be expanded to allow for additional space, but shall not exceed the page limit per Project Data Sheet. PROJECTS NOT SUBMITTED ON THE APPROPRATE FORM WILL NOT

BE EVALUATED."

Q13: Would the Government consider projects to be provided for which the base years are 100% complete, but optional tasks remain open? All tasks described in the project would refer exclusively to the completed tasks.

A13: No. Refer to RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1).

Q14: Would the Government consider projects that are substantially complete to be included in the definition of a project?

A14: No. Refer to RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1).

Q15: We respectfully request the Government to reconsider the solicitation’s requirement that all submitted project experience must be 100% complete. We propose that projects which are at least 80% complete be considered substantially complete and eligible for submission, based on the following rationale:

1. Majority of Scope Executed

At 80% completion, the core components of a project—such as planning, design, mobilization, and execution of primary tasks—are typically finished. This reflects the contractor’s ability to manage and perform the essential elements of the work. The remaining portion often consists of wrap-up activities that do not materially affect the demonstration of technical capability.

2. Demonstrated Capability

Projects at this stage have already required full engagement of technical staff, quality control systems, safety protocols, and project management processes. These are the same competencies that would be applied to the solicited work, and their successful implementation is evident in the completed portion of the project.

3. Remaining Work Often Minor

The final 20% of a project frequently includes administrative closeout, punch list items, or other non-critical tasks. These do not significantly impact the contractor’s ability to demonstrate relevant experience or past performance.

4. Task Order Structure Consideration

In many federal contracts, especially those structured with a Base Year and multiple Option Years, a project may be considered only 80% complete if the final Option Year has not yet been exercised. For example, our firm is currently performing under a Task Order where the Base Year and two of three

Option Years have been successfully executed. The remaining Option Year is pending government action and does not reflect any deficiency in our performance. This scenario illustrates how a project can be technically incomplete while still being substantially complete in terms of scope and relevance.

5. Timeliness and Relevance

In fast-moving sectors, requiring 100% completion may exclude recent, highly relevant experience.

Allowing 80% complete projects ensures that offerors can present the most current and applicable work, which may better reflect their present capabilities.

6. Industry Practice

Many federal agencies recognize substantial completion as a valid milestone for evaluating experience, especially when the completed portion reflects the majority of the technical scope. This approach promotes fairness and acknowledges the realities of long-term contract structures and phased performance.

We respectfully ask whether the government would consider revising or clarifying the requirement to allow submission of projects that are substantially complete (e.g., 80%), especially when the remaining portion is tied to unexercised Option Years rather than incomplete technical work.

A15: No. Refer to RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1).

Q16: Please provide the project-specific scope-defining documents referenced in the PWS/Spec. and

Section J, Exhibits A through F, but not included with the solicitation documents. For example, ELIN

A021 (in Section J, Exhibits A through F ) indicates that the scope is to perform work per Specification

3.1.4.1 and “Provide weekly sampling and analysis for Enterococci, Total Chlorine Residual (TRC) and

Temperature as listed in Table 1 of the latest AHWWTP NPDES Permit.” (ref. ELIN A021 Description in

Section J, Exhibits A through F.) However, Table 1 of the latest AHWWTP NPDES Permit is not included with the solicitation documents. Referenced documents appear to define contract scope, and review of referenced documents appears to be necessary to determine scope for estimating. Please provide such referenced scope documents, including, but limited to, the example discussed here.

A16: U.S. Naval Base Guam latest NPDES permit (GU0110019: Apra Harbor Wastewater Treatment

Plant and Collection System) can be found online: https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/guam-npdes-permits