JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.04292022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6247322R3432
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation N6247322R3432, which is seeking proposals for range sustainment and environmental remediation services at Department of Defense and other governmental agency installations. The solicitation will result in multiple-award Environmental Multiple Award Contracts for services such as clearance of unexploded ordnance from military ranges, processing and disposal of materials potentially presenting explosive hazards, and other range sustainment projects. The contracts will have a two-year base period and two three-year options, and will be awarded on a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity basis. Questions covered in the document relate to clarifying the proposal submission process, acceptable past project experience, pricing models, and other solicitation requirements. Amendments to the solicitation are indicated as necessary to incorporate answers to questions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Updated_DoD_Safe_Instructions.pdf | ||
| JL.2_Price_ModelwithAmend01_13MAY22.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6247322R3432_Amendment01.pdf | ||
| JL1_Fully-burdened_Labor_Rate_Ceiling_withAmend01_13MAY22.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.04252022.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL1_Fully-burdened_Labor_Rate_Ceiling_Amend01.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL.2_Price_Model_Amend01.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.04222022.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Copy of JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.04182022.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.040822.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL3_RFI_ANSWERS.040622.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL2_Price_Model.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit_C_Project.docx | DOCX document | |
| JL1_Fully-burdened_Labor_Rate_Ceiling.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| JL3_RFI_FORM.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit_B_Financial.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_A_PPQ.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6247322R3432_Solicitation.pdf |
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFI (pre-award) Form_For KTR
SOLICITATION: N62473-22-R-3432
ENVIRONMENTAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACT (EMAC) RANGE SUSTAINMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SERVICES
DOCUMENT DATE:
| TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR | TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T | |||||||||||
| RFI # | RFP Section | Reference | Sub-Reference | CLARIFICATION REQUEST | RFI reason from KTR's Perspective | Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)] | RFI Topic most closely relevant to: | Government Response | DATE RECEIVED | DATE TO KTR | Amendment Number | |
| 1 | Section L | 3 | L3 | Solicitation N6247322R3432 Range Sustainment and Remediation Environmental Services at Department of Defense and other Governmental Agencies was issued this morning through Sam.gov. The SF33 does not include the proposal due date, number of required copies for the submittal , or the deadline for the submittal of RFIs. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | The proposal due date is included as part of the SAM.Gov notification. It is 05 May 2022 by 1300 Pacific Daylight Savings Time. The Government is accepting only copies of proposals via the Solicitation Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). If your company/organization does not have access to this system, access will need to be organized prior to the solicitation deadline. Because the Government will only accept electronic proposals uploaded to PIEE (not emailed copies), no hard copies are required and therefore only one copy is required for the submittal. Deadline for submittal of RFIs is: 20 APRIL 2022. Section L of the solicitation will be updated via Amendment to reflect the above. Thank you for clarifying. | 4/5/22 | 4/6/22 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Section L | Exhibit C | Is the Contractor allowed to make minor adjustments to the formatting of Exhibit C to allow for space (assuming that the content and sequence of required information remains intact)? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Formatting | Yes, the Contractor may make minor adjusttments to the formatting of Exhibit C to allow for space (as long as the content and sequence of required information remains intact). | 4/6/22 | 4/8/22 | N/A | |||
| 3 | Section L | Exhibit C | In Exhibit C, may we delete the description of work performed to allow space for relevant content? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Formatting | Yes, the description may be deleted but the Contractor will still be held accountable to following the instructions within the description. | 4/6/22 | 4/8/22 | N/A | |||
| 4 | Section L | Exhibit B has a requirement to return the Finanical Questionnaire in a sealed envelope to the offerer to turn in. Since we are submitting electronically, how should we handle the form? | Intent needs clarification | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | Thank you for the question. Please submit electronically. If the contractor is concerned about the security of the electronic transmission, please indicate that on the proposal and mail the sealed envelope to the attention of: Courtney Severino, 750 Pacific Highway, 11th Floor, San Diego, California 92132 | 4/8/22 | 4/8/22 | N/A | ||||
| 5 | Can we Bid on only California or is those for all locations listed? | The RFP does not provide for geographic limitation, but rather states as follows “The work to be ordered under this contract will be performed at various locations within Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest (NAVFAC SW) footprint, as well as in certain additional states. Work may be located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Although these are the principal geographical areas of performance, the contractor may be required to perform work at other Naval and Marine Corps or other DoD activities within the NAVFAC area of responsibility, both CONUS and OCONUS. The specific location of work under this contract will be designated in each individual task order.” | 4/7/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||||||
| 6 | Section L | Attachment JL.1 | N/A | Several of the labor rates (e.g. UXO Tach 1, 2 and 3, as well as Equipment Operator) are positions covered by the Service Contract Act. As such, the base labor rate can vary depending on the geographical area where the work is being performed. Will the Government provide an appropriate Wage Determination for the prospective bidders to use in developing the fully burdened labor rates? This ensure that each contractor is bidding the same SCA rate and prevents an offeror from using the lowest SCA rate on the price model while others are using higher rates. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | The JL.2 Price Model spreadsheet addresses this concern, and the JL.1 Labor Rates will be updated with the same instruction for clarity. | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | ||
| 7 | Section C | 5.8 | 5.8.1 | In section 5.8.1 under the heading "Contractor Daily Production Report" the ninth bullet mentions “independent 3rd party UXO QA”. Please clarify if the solicitation requires an independent 3rd party UXO QA in support of this opportunity? | The requirement of an Independent 3rd Party UXO QA will be contract task order (CTO) specific. | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||||
| 8 | Section L | Tab A | Per Section L of the RFP, under Factor 1, Tab A, the Offeror shall submit a minimum of eight projects with 100% fieldwork complete. If the project’s fieldwork is 100% complete with the exception of minor punchlist items that cannot be addressed until access to the range is available, is it acceptable to submit this project under Factor 1? This example of the Offeror’s project work represents our most recent, relevant experience, which could be beneficial for the Navy’s evaluation. | Intent Needs Clarification | Past Performance | Fieldwork is not considered to be 100% complete if there are minor punchlist items to be resolved. There has been some confusion throughout some of the RFIs about whether the five-year requirement is measured by date of solicitation submittal or proposal submittal. The solicitation will be amended for clarity and to allow for 100% fieldwork complete by date of proposal submittal. | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | TBD | |||
| 9 | Section L | Factor 4 | Tab A | “Will the Government accept previously completed PPQs provided that they follow the format of the Past Performance Questionnaire included in Exhibit A. This reduces the burden on our clients to complete multiple PPQs for the same project.” | Intent Needs Clarification | Past Performance | Yes, provided the PPQs are for relevant projects and the full PPQs are included with the proposal (not incorporated by reference to another RFP). | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||
| 10 | Section L | RFP Exhibit C | The COVID 19 pandemic significantly impacted SB workloads from 2020-2022, including RSR services. As an example, the SBA is currently extending the 8(a) program for 2 years due to the work impacts caused by the pandemic. Will NAVFAC consider a similar approach and allow projects (fieldwork) to be completed within the last 8-10 years from RFP issuance? | Other; Please specify in the next column | To allow greater SB participation in this solicitation | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | |||
| 11 | Section C | Section 1.3 Scope of Work | Aircraft Mishaps is one of the three specific tasks that are listed in Section 1.3 that the Contractor should be familiar with, understand, and have experience in performing. We request that the Navy consider allowing one or more of the 8 projects required in Section L to focus on the Aircraft Mishaps and HTRW experience | Other; Please specify in the next column | Allow Contractors to show experience for all specific tasks included in this solicitation | Factor 1 - Recent, Relevent Experience will remain unchanged | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||
| 12 | Section L | 4 | FI | Will the government allow offers to include up to 2 projects from key teaming partner where the team member served as the prime contractor? | The Government is not accepting Teaming Partner arrangements for the purpose of this solicitation. If a Teaming Partner has served as the prime contractor on projects in the past and wishes to bid as a prime contractor, the Teaming Partner may do so. | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||||
| 13 | Section L | 5 | Volume 2/Tab A | Tab B Key Personnel requests resumes for a total of 8 key personnel with a 2 page limit for each resume. This Tab is allotted a total of 18 pages. Please confirm if the 18 pages is correct or if this Tab is limited to 16 pages. | 18 pages is acceptable, if the contractor needs to use two (2) more pages for a coversheet or general summary/explanation. Each resume shall not exceed two pages. | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||||
| 14 | Section L | 5 | Factor 1 | Within the last five years, there have been limited Range Sustainment & Remediation (RSR) projects within the NAVFAC SW AOR, particularly for Small Business firms. As such, will NAVFAC please consider allowing projects with 100% fieldwork to be completed within the past 10 years from date of RFP issuance? | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | ||||
| 15 | 6 | Factor 1 | On active range RSR projects, we have found that the work almost always includes an HTRW component as well as MMRP. As such, would you consider allowing 1-2 projects that have an HTRW aspect as well as MMRP? Currently, there is no consideration for HTRW. | Factor 1 - Recent, Relevent Experience will remain unchanged | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||||
| 16 | 6 | L3 | Please consider a 2-week extension to the proposal due date after the RFI responses have been completed so that offerors have time to react and adequately address key changes to the solicitation. | The Government will not extend the proposal due date at this time. | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||||
| 17 | Section L | 3 | FACTOR 1, TAB A | Tab A project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C states: “The Offeror shall submit a minimum of eight (8) Projects”. | ||||||||
| Please confirm that the Offeror consists of the Prime contractor and its major Team Subcontractors. | As defined in Section L of the RFP, an Offeror consists of a prime contractor who self-performed relevant projects and “self-perform” is defined as a contractor who managed its own employees in performance of relevant projects. A Prime Contractor plus Major Team Subcontractor is not considered an Offeror for the purposes of this solicitation. | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||||||||
| 18 | Section L | 2 | FI | The Navy’s five-year requirement for projects is restrictive for Small Businesses and results in prohibiting Small Business firms from participating in this contract, which we feel is not in the best interest of the Government. As such, would the Government consider revising Factor 1,TAB A – Project Data up to 100% completed fieldwork within ten (10) years of the solicitation due date? This change would result in a higher quality submittal and increased competition, which is always in the best interest of the Government. | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | ||||
| 19 | Section L | Section L, Factor 4, Tab A, CPARS + PPQs | Please confirm that CPARS and PPQs are not page counted. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | Confirmed. CPARS and PPQs are not page counted. | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||
| 20 | Section L | Section L, Factor 4, Tab A, CPARS + PPQs | If a previously prepared PPQ for a completed project is current (within 5 years), is it acceptable to include into the proposal, rather than ask the same Govt PM to prepare a new PPQ? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | Yes, provided the PPQs are for relevant projects and the full PPQs are included with the proposal (not incorporated by reference to another RFP). | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||
| 21 | Section L. Volume 1: Price Proposal - (1) Proposal Submission Requirements page 82 of 101 Re: JL.1 | RFP states: The solicitation package will include spreadsheets pre-populated with labor hours (see JL.2) and contractors will be asked to complete the equations by entering their proposed maximum labor rates per profession, occupation, or role (see JL.1). These rates will be the ceiling for future task order awards. |
| Question: should the fully burdened labor rates be inclusive of Profit? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | Yes, the fully-burdened labor rates should be inclusive of profit. | 4/13/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A |
| 22 | Section L. Volume 1: Price Proposal - (1) Proposal Submission Requirements page 82 of 101 Re: JL.2 | RFP States: Subcontractor costs and travel will be pre-populated with fixed amounts and Offerors will be required to propose combined General & Administrative (G&A) and Profit rates. These rates will be the ceiling for future task order awards. |
Question: Should the contractor propose the Other Direct Costs with a combined G&A and Profit rate?
| Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | Yes, the contractor shall propose the ODCs with a combined G&A and profit rate. | 4/13/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||||
| 23 | Section L | Volume 1 | RFP page 82 of 101. The RFP refers to Volume I, Price Proposal and shows a single tab, Tab A, to be included in it. Can we assume that Factors 1-4 described on pages 83 – 93 of 101 should be included in a Volume 2? If so, what should Volume 2 be titled? | Formatting | Yes, Factors 1-4 should be included in Volume II. Title: VOLUME II: (NON-COST) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. It is also listed on Page 82 of 101. | 4/13/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | ||
| 24 | Section L | Factor 1 | RFP page 83 of 102. The RFP states “Projects submitted by the Offeror shall be at least 100% physically complete with fieldwork (not counting final report deliverables) within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.” Would the Government please consider increasing the 100% physical completion date to 6 years so that experience gained under the current EMAC contract may be used as a PD, rather than the current 5 year completion requirement? | Potential change to criteria | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). | 4/13/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | ||
| 25 | Volume 2 - Factor 2/Tab A | Section 1.3.3-Aircraft Mishaps-is one of the 3 scope elements including 1. Range Sustainment 2. MMRP & Other Environmental Programs. Will the Navy consider allowing one or more of the 8 projects to focus on HTRW and Aircraft Mishaps experience. | Request to add element to scope | Factor 1 - Recent, Relevent Experience will remain unchanged | 4/12/22 | 4/18/22 | N/A | |||
| 26 | Section L | Factor 1 | RFP page 84 of 102. The RFP states “Projects submitted by the Offeror shall be at least 100% physically complete with fieldwork (not counting final report deliverables) within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.” Active Range Operational Range Clearance projects often have a long-term Stand-By or On-Call UXO Construction Support component following the Range Clearance. While the Range Clearance might only last for 3mo to 6mo, UXO Construction Support can last for 12mo to 36mo after completion of the Range Clearance. Would the Government please consider making the requirement “100% physically complete with Range Clearance fieldwork”? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Potential change to criteria | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). This change should also help address the issue raised in this question. | 4/15/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | |
| 27 | Section L | 2 | FI | The Navy’s five-year requirement for projects is restrictive for Small Businesses and results in prohibiting Small Business firms from participating in this contract, which we feel is not in the best interest of the Government. As such, would the Government consider revising Factor 1,TAB A – Project Data up to 100% completed fieldwork within ten (10) years of the solicitation due date? This change would result in a higher quality submittal and increased competition, which is always in the best interest of the Government. | The Government will extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date. The solicitation will be amended to reflect the timeline change -- both in number of years (10 vice 5) and point of measurement (Proposal submittal date vice RFP issuance). | 4/11/22 | 4/18/22 | 1 | ||
| 28 | Section L, Factor 3, Tab A, a) Organization | RFP requires: Organizational Chart, as part of Tab A which is a maximum of 5 pages. |
Question 1: Would the gov't consider excluding the organizational chart from the 5 page limit for Tab A?
Question 2: If the Org Chart remains page counted, is an 11”x17” page considered 2 pages?
| Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | The Organizational Chart may be excluded from the 5-page limit for Tab A. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||
| 29 | Section L, Page 81 under L3 | Section L, Page 81, under L3 stated "…Do not submit Attachments JL.1 and JL.2 in a PDF format; they must be submitted as Excel Spreadsheets". However, JL.2 Note #5 states, "… The contractor need only submit electronic Excel version and Adobe PDF of the JL1 and JL2." Should PDF versions, in addition to Excel versions, of JL.1 and JL.2 be submittted? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity Needed | The Contractor does not need to submit PDFs of JL1 and JL2. That language will be updated via Amendment to the solicitation | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | |
| 30 | JL.2 Price Model | There are formulas in Cells G12, G13, G14 but they do not contain all of the rows 4 thru 11. Can the formulas be removed or do they need to be amended? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity Needed | If the Contractor is referring to the Summary Tab on the JL.2, those formulas have been removed. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | |
| 31 | Section L. Volume 1: Price Proposal - (1) Proposal Submission Requirements page 82 of 101 Re: JL.1 | Please specify which Equipment Operator Labor category is to be used, as there are multiple options to be selected in the SCA/DBA Wage Determinations. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | For SCA use Heavy Equipment ($44.34) and for DBA use Group 3 ($50.91). The SCA and DBA rates have been updated as of March 2022, so the JL.2 has been updated accordingly (and this instruction has been added to the JL.1). | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | |
| 32 | Section L, Volume 1, General, (1) Proposal Submission Requirements, pg 82, Cover Letter | RFP requires: "A statement specifying that the contractor can comply with the appropriate bonding capabilities and specific requirements for projects that have construction elements. Any construction-specific requirements will be addressed at the task order level." |
Question: Bonding is not addressed in any other section of the RFP. What are the 'appropriate bonding capabilities' expected with which the Contractor will need to comply?
Other; Please specify in the next column Clarity needed Offerors shall submit bonding capabilities in the form of a certification from the surety company that the offeror has financial capability to bond up to $5,000,000.00 (per task order). The solicitation will be updated to reflect this requirement.
| 4/13/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 33 | Section L | 2 | L2 | Please confirm the email address for Courtney Severino. GovWin shows an email address, courtney.severino@navy.mil, and RFP page 81 of 101 shows an email address of Courtney.w.severino.civ@us.navy.mil. | Conflicting Information | courtney.w.severino.civ@us.navy.mil | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||
| 34 | Section L | 3 | Section L, para. L3(b.)(1) | RFP instructions state, ““A cover letter shall accompany the proposal as required by FAR 52.215-01(c)(2), Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition. The first page shall include:…”. Will the Government allow offerors to include a distinct Cover page, and subsequently provide in the Cover letter with the information required by FAR 52.215-01(c)(2) and per RFP requirements? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | Yes. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 35 | Section L | 3 | Section L, para. L3(b.)(1), General | If the Government allows offerors to provide a separate cover page, would the Government please confirm this cover page is excluded from the page limitations? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | The cover page shall be limited to one page and is excluded from the page limitations. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 36 | Section K | Section K | The RFP contains a Section K with additional clauses and provisions. Please clarify if offerors are to complete Section K in its’ entirety or provide a PDF of our online SAM FARS/DFARS representations and certifications. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | Section K of the solicitation is for notice only. The Contract Specialist will pull the SAM representations and certifications for each offeror. These do not need to be included in the proposals. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||
| 37 | Section K | Section K | If the Government required a completed Section K, please clarify which proposal volume and section offerors should include their completed section K. | Section K of the solicitation is for notice only. The Contract Specialist will pull the SAM representations and certifications for each offeror. These do not need to be included in the proposals. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||||
| 38 | Section K | Section K | If offerors are to submit completed Section K, please confirm it is excluded from the overall page count. | Section K of the solicitation is for notice only. The Contract Specialist will pull the SAM representations and certifications for each offeror. These do not need to be included in the proposals. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||||
| 39 | Section M | 2 | Section M, para. M2(11) | Please confirm font for tables and graphics may be smaller than 10-12pt as long as the material is legible. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | Yes, font for tables and graphics only may be smaller than 10-12pt as long as the material is legible. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 40 | Section L | Section L, para. L3(b.)(1) | Please confirm a Table of Contents (TOC) is not page counted. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | Table of Contents is not page counted. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||
| 41 | Section L | Section L, para. TAB C | Please confirm that TAB C under Volume II: Non-Cost Technical Proposal is not page counted. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clairty needed | Tab C under Factor 2 is page counted. Tab C (JV Agreements) under Factor 3 (Management Approach) is not page counted. Essentially, the copy of the JV Agreement (if applicable) will not be counted towards the overall total. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||
| 42 | Section L | Recent Experience Tab A - RFP page 84 of 102 and page 85 item v. The RFP states “Projects submitted by the Offeror shall be at least 100% physically complete with fieldwork (not counting final report deliverables)…” | ||||||||||
| Would the Government please consider making the requirement “100% physically complete with Range Clearance fieldwork”? | No; Experience requirements remain unchanged. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||||||
| 43 | Section L | Tab B Key Personnel - Does the Navy consider more value for UXO Personnel who have worked on contracts with the proposed team or their past experience in operational range clearance projects? | The Government will evaluate the key personnel in accordance with Tab B of the solicitation. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||||
| 44 | Section M | Factor 3 Management Approach - Can the Navy confirm certifications, qualifications and experience in range sustaingment are the key evaluation criteria used to evaluate key UXO-qualified (SUXOS, UXOQC and UXOSO)? | The Government will evaluate the key personnel in accordance with Section M of the solicitation, which describes a holistic approach and indicates that minimum qualifications are stated in Section C, paragraph 1.6.2. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||||
| 45 | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | Would the Navy allow a two week extension to allow for the proper time to receive PPQs as project requirements (10 yrs vs 5 yrs) have changed based on Navy Clarifications? | The Government will grant a two-week extension. The new proposal deadline is: 19 MAY 2022 | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | ||||||
| 46 | Section L | Factor 3 | Tab B | Per Factor 3 – Volume 2, Management Approach, Tab B, Key Personnel, the Offeror must provide qualifications and certifications of their proposed key personnel that meet the minimum qualifications specified in Section C, paragraph 1.6.2. Minimum qualifications for the key personnel require 5 years of experience for operational range clearance projects contemplated under this solicitation; however, Section C, paragraph 1.3.2 includes Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) and other environmental program support as an essential part of the scope of work. As part of the key personnel 5 years of experience, is it acceptable to also include experience for the MMRP element of the scope work (and not relegated only to operational range clearance and sustainment), including Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup operations for munitions? | Intent Needs Clarification | Management Approach | The Government will evaluate the key personnel in accordance with Section M of the solicitation, which describes a holistic approach and indicates that minimum qualifications are stated in Section C, paragraph 1.6.2. The contractor may include qualifications that are not stated in paragraph 1.6.2, but the contractor still must meet the minimum qualifications outlined in 1.6.2. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 47 | Section L | Factor 3 | Tab B | Will the Navy accept using the additional two pages allotted under Tab B Key Personnel resumes (Volume 2, Factor 3) as an introduction to Volume 2? By doing so, we can facilitate the Navy’s review by providing an overview of the team capabilities that are presented in Volume 2. | Other | Management Approach | Yes | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 48 | Section L, Factor 4, Past Perf, Tab B, a) commendations | RFP states: "Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three years..." |
Question: Would the gov't consider allowing recognition documents from the past 10 years to coincide with the recently allowed "extend consideration to projects that have been completed within the last 10 years from the proposal submittal date"?
| Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity needed | Yes, the Government will allow performance recognition documents from the past ten years as long as they align with the projects that are submitted. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | |||||||
| 49 | Section L | 6 | Please consider a 2-week extension to the proposal due date after all RFI responses have been completed so that offerors have time to address key changes to the solicitation. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Extension to due date | The Government will grant a two-week extension. The new proposal deadline is: 19 MAY 2022 | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | |||
| 50 | Section L | Factor 1 | The management and closure of small arms ranges and approximately 20% of the task orders under the 2016 Range Sustainment MATOC have consisted of small arms ranges. Can the Navy revise the requirements for Factor 1 to allow one of the 6 projects involving active ranges to include sustainment activities on active small arms ranges? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Small arms ranges are a relevant scope item on this contract and should be an evaluation criteria. | Evaluation Factors | No; Factor 1 remains unchanged. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 51 | Section B | Factor 4 | Attachment JL.1 requires Fully-Burdened Direct Labor Rates for UXO Technicians and Equipment Operator but does not include a DBA or SCA Wage Determination. Should the DBA and SCA Wage Determinations identified rom Attachment JL.2 be used on JL.1? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Yes, the DBA and SCA Wage Determinations used shall be consistent across the JL.1 and JL.2. Both spreadsheets have been updated to clarify. Additionally, the spreadsheets have been updated to reflect the wage determination rates updated in March 2022. Please see revised JL.1 and JL.2. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | 1 | ||
| 52 | Section B | Factor 4 | Should the Fully-Burdened Direct Labor Rates in Attachment JL.1 include fee? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarify required on Pricing | Price Model | Yes, the fully-burdened labor rates should be inclusive of fee. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 53 | Section B | Factor 4 | How will the Navy adjust the Fully-Burdened Labor Rates in Attachment JL.1 over the course of the 8 years based on increases to SCA and DBA wage rates? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Offerors shall use the DBA and/or SCAs flagged in the JL.1 and JL.2 for the current year and apply their projected G&A and profit/fee for subsequent years. Individual task orders will be awarded based on separate, competitive bids giving fair opportunity to all multiple award contract holders. The ceiling rates will apply only in one offer scenarios. Additionally, please refer to clauses FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) and 52.222-30 Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (None or Separately Specified Method). | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 54 | Section B | Factor 4 | Should the Maximum Burden for both ODC and Subcontractors in Attachment JL.2 include fee? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Yes | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 55 | Section B | Factor 4 | Is profit allowed on travel costs under this contract based on only allowing general & administrative in Attachment JL.2? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Profit is not allowed on travel costs under this contract. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||
| 56 | Section L | Recent Experience Tab A - RFP page 83 Item (3) states “CERCLA MMRP clearance of UXO and/or MPPEH from active or inactive military ranges" | ||||||||||
| Would the Government consider a FUDS MMRP project an inactive military range? Similarly would a BRAC MMRP project be considered an inactive military range? | No; Experience requirements remain unchanged. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||||||
| 57 | Section L | Tab A. The 3rd component of the specialized experience limits the type of project to CERCLA MMRP clearance of UXO and/or MPPEH from active or inactive military ranges. We request that you expand the definition to allow for RCRA MMRP Clearance. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Expanded definition of the regulatory program that defines a project as relevant. | The definition will not be expanded. | 4/20/22 | 4/22/22 | N/A | ||||
| 58 | Section C | 2 | 2.1.4, and Section G3 | Can the Government clarify that issuance of task orders for Emergency Response will be in accordance with the instructions described in Section G3, or will it be case by case? | Intent needs clarification | Emergency Response will be on a case by case basis. | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | |||
| 59 | Section C | 3.4.2 | Will the Government inform the Contractor of potential for live stream crossings in the CTO RFP, in particular when a site visit is not scheduled or planned? | Intent needs clarification | Yes | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | ||||
| 60 | Section C | 3.7.9 | "Individual projects may require that an independent third party, contractor-employed UXO Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS) verify and countersign the form as well as the chain-of-custody." The JL2_Price Model and JL1 Fully burdened Labor Rate Ceiling documents do not contain a line item for a third party UXOQCS. Will the Government add this line item? | Intent needs clarification | Hours were set for price comparison purposes only. An Independent 3rd party UXOQCS will be Task Order specific. | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | ||||
| 61 | Section H | H10(a) | "The contractor shall not make public release of any information relating to all or any part of…" Can the Government please complete and clarify this sentence? | Intent needs clarification | "this contract without prior approval of either the Procurement Contracting Officer or the Administrative Contracting Officer, as applicable." Will be updated in upcoming Amendment. | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | 1 | ||||
| 62 | Section L | L3.1 and JL2 Price Model #5 | Can the Government clarify whether or not submission of Excel files via PDF format is required? | Intent needs clarification | Submission of Excel Files via PDF is not required. | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | 1 | ||||
| 63 | Section L | L3, Attachment JL_2_Price_Model.xlsx Tab JL2_Option 1-Year 1 Cell F48 | Can the Government confirm that there should be a formula vice a hard coded number in that cell? | Intent needs clarification | It should be a formula. JL.2_Price_Model will be revised in upcoming amendment. | 4/19/22 | 4/25/22 | TBD | ||||
| 64 | Section L | JL.1 Burdened Labor Rates Spreadsheet and JL.2 Price Model | The Navy's response to RFI #31 states "For SCA use Heavy Equipment ($44.34) and for DBA use Group 3 ($50.91)." However, Attachments JL.1 and JL.2 only contain one labor category for Equipment Operator. Please clarify if the SCA rate or the DBA rate should be used for Equiment Operator on Attachments JL.1 and JL.2. | Intent needs clarification | Although the actual use of an Equipment Operator (SCA vice DBA rate) will vary by task order, this pricing exercise is for comparison purposes only. For comparison purposes only, please use DBA Group 3 rate ($50.91). While this exercise will establish a ceiling rate for DBA Group 3 in case there is only one offeror for a particular task order, there will be instances where some task orders will require the usage of SCA Equipment Operators and contractors will be required to bid accordingly. Most task orders will be competitively-awarded based on Price Only. | 4/25/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | ||||
| 65 | Section B | Factor 4 | The level of effort for labor categories on Attachment JL.2 do not match the type of range clearance project, given a higher rating in Section M, including clearance of over 250 acres with 200 tons of debris. The number of hours for UXO technicians and equipment operators would be significantly higher for a large range clearance project. Please consider adjusting the number of hours for these positions in the cost model to provide a more realistic price comparison. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Hours were set for price comparison purposes only. Most task orders under the awarded basic contracts will be competitively bid as "Price Only" and based on specific projects. At that time, the contractor may apply its best judgment about labor mix or number of hours required for completion. | 4/20/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | ||
| 66 | Section B | Factor 4 | The level of effort for labor categories on Attachment JL.2 indicate the UXO Program Director and Program Quality Control (QC) Manager would essentially be full time positions. Does the Navy intend for these two programmatic positions to be full time? If not, please consider adjusting the number of hours for these positions in the cost model to provide a more realistic price comparison. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Clarity required on Pricing | Price Model | Hours were set for price comparison purposes only. Most task orders under the awarded basic contracts will be competitively bid as "Price Only" and based on specific projects. At that time, the contractor may apply its best judgment about labor mix or number of hours required for completion. | 4/20/22 | 4/25/22 | N/A | ||
| 67 | Section L | Factor 1 | Response to Question #56 needs clarification. The question covered ability to use inactive range clearance project under CERLCA at FUDS properties as well as BRAC installations. The response was a singular "No; Experience requirements remain unchanged." FUDS properties are not controlled by the Government and have unique requirements compared to inactive ranges on DoD installations. However, BRAC installations are still under Government control and are very relevant to this solicitation. The Navy has numerous BRAC installations under control of other Government agencies where this contract could be used for CERCLA response. Please confirm that CERCLA projects on FUDS properties CAN NOT be used as projects while CERCLA projects on BRAC Installations CAN be used. | Intent needs clarification | The Navy will accept CERCLA MMRP projects at BRAC Installations and/or FUD Sites for Factor 1 Component 3. Factor 1, Component 3 has been revised to “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) clearance of UXO, Discarded Military Munitions (DMM) and/or MPPEH from active or other than operational ranges. “ | 4/26/22 | 4/29/22 | 1 | ||||
| 68 | JL.3 RFI ANSWERS 4222022 | JL.3 RFI 4/22/2022 "Offers shall submit bonding capabilities in the form of a certification from the surety company that the offeror has financial capability to bond up to $5M (per task order)." |
As this solicitation is issued under the NAICS code 562910, environmental remediation, most activities of this solicitation are not construction related. Requiring such a large bonding capability statement with the initial proposal could negatively impact a small business's ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation only due to bonding.
Question: Would the government consider eliminating or reducing the amount of bonding capabilities needed as a requirement of this overall solicitation and, instead, including the requirement on a task order basis for construction task orders?
| The bonding capabilities requested remain unchanged. | 4/26/22 | 4/29/22 | 1 | |||||
| 69 | JL.3 RFI ANSWERS 4222022 | Will the amendment include a due date for Questions? | The deadline for RFIs has passed. Per the answer to RFI #1, the deadline was 20 April 2022. That has not changed. An Amendment will be submitted to reflect that. Currently technical difficulties are preventing submittal of that amendment, so please incorporate the changes as reflected by the answers to RFIs. | 4/26/22 | 4/29/22 | N/A | ||
| 70 | ||||||||
| 71 | ||||||||
| 72 | ||||||||
| 73 | ||||||||
| 74 | ||||||||
| 75 | ||||||||
| 76 | ||||||||
| 77 | ||||||||
| 78 | ||||||||
| 79 | ||||||||
| 80 | ||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||
| 82 | ||||||||
| 83 | ||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||
| 86 | ||||||||
| 87 | ||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||
| 91 | ||||||||
| 92 | ||||||||
| 93 | ||||||||
| 94 | ||||||||
| 95 | ||||||||
| 96 | ||||||||
| 97 | ||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||
| 99 | ||||||||
| 100 |
Drop Down List - EREST
| RFI Topic Relevant to: | RFP Section | Reference | RFI Reason (for QA) - from KTR perspecrive |
| Architectural-related | Section A | 1 | Outdated Reference |
| Civil Engineering | Section B | 2 | Conflicting Information |
| Contracting | Section C | 3 | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided |
| Electrical Engineering | Section D | 4 | Intent needs clarification |
| Environmental | Section E | 5 | Typo |
| Fire Protection | Section F | 6 | Other; Please specify in the next column |
| Geotechnical Engineering | Section G | 7 | |
| Equipment | Section H | 8 | |
| Landscape | Section I | 9 | |
| Mechanical Engineering | Section J | ||
| Structural Engineering | Section K | ||
| Construction | Section L | ||
| Evaluation Factors | Section M | ||
| Price Model | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | ||
| Safety | |||
| Management Approach | |||
| Past Performance | |||
| Technical Approach | |||
| Joint Venture |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .