RFI Log_20231114.pdf

RFI # Date Received Solicitation Section Solicitation Sub-Section Request for Information Government Response Date to KTR Amendment #

10/13/2023 SF33 Block 9, Page 1 Please provide the proposal due date and time. Block 9 has been revised. Original Proposals shall be submitted electronically to

PIEE Solicitation Module as outlined in the solicitation no later than the stated proposal due date.

10/26/2023 1

2 10/13/2023 SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB A, Pages 96-97 The RFP states “The attached Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information.” Please provide Exhibit C.

The Government will provide Exhibit C, the Project Data Sheet. 10/26/2023 1

3 10/13/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements, Page 106

The minimum small business participation requirement has been increased from 20% in the draft Section L/M to 42.44%, which appears to be based on the sum of the participation amounts for the listed individual socio-economic categories (i.e., SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZONE). We note on past NAVFAC Southwest solicitations 20% has been the percentage of the total contract to be subcontracted to all small business categories and the percentages for SDB and other SB categories are the percentage goals of the 20% of the total contract amount. Please confirm the total small business participation goal is 20% of the total contract amount and the other small business category goals are to be applied to the 20% of the total contract amount figure.

Small Business Utilization percentage is revised to 20%.

11/2/2023 2

4 10/13/2023

JL1_Fully_burdened_L abor_Rate_Ceiling.xlsx JL2_Price_Model_V1.

xlsx

Column A, Solicitation Labor Category, Page 95

The solicitation 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 professional occupation, or role (see JL.1).” Please provide the labor categories for JL1 and JL2 and labor hours for JL.2.

5 10/13/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

Page 94-108 The RFP indicates the following volumes – is this correct?

Volume 1, Price Proposal, shall be tabbed as follows: (p. 94) Volume II: (Non-Cost) Technical (p.95) Volume 2: Recent, Relevant Experience of the firm shall be tabbed as follows (p. 96) Volume 3: Safety shall be tabbed as follows: (p. 99) Volume 4 - Management Approach shall be tabbed as follows: (p101) Volume 6 - Past Performance shall be tabbed as follows: (p. 108)

Proposal Volumes have been renamed as follows:

Volume 1, Price Proposal Volume 2, Non-Cost Technical Section 1 - Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm Section 2 - Safety Section 3 - Management Approach Section 4 - SB Utilization & Participation Section 5 - Past Performance

11/2/2023 2

6 10/16/2023

Section L, Volume II:

(Non-Cost) Technical, Factor 1, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience of the Firm

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, 96 of 109

The RFP states that the Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C is mandatory; however, the RFP files issued on PIEE do not include the Exhibit C template. This prevents the offeror from developing the Factor 1 in accordance with the RFP requirements. Will the Government please provide the Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C?

See response to RFI #2.

10/26/2023 1

7 10/16/2023

Section M, EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD, Volume 1, Price Proposal

TAB A, 95 of 109 The RFP indicates that TAB A shall include the completed Standard Form (SF) 33. But then in the same paragraph, the RFP lists other items (see below) that do not relate to the SF33. Please clarify how the Volume 1, Price Proposal shall be organized.

1. Shall the JL.1 and JL.2 rate sheets be placed in a separate tab, TAB B?

2. Shall the Financial Questionnaire – RFP Exhibit B be placed in a separate tab, TAB C?

Offerors shall include Standard Form (SF) 33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award), page 1 with blocks 12-18 completed and Section B of the RFP, Supplies or Services and Prices under Tab A. In addition, offerors shall complete the following attachments and submit them within Tab A:

JL.2 Price Model Financial Questionnaire – RFP Exhibit *JL.1 Burdened Labor Rates Spreadsheet is no longer required*

11/2/2023 2

8 10/16/2023

Section M, EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD, Volume 1, Price Proposal

JL.1 and JL.2 Excel Spreadsheets, 95 of 109

Bullet 2 on page 95 of 109 says: 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 professional occupation, or role (see JL.1).

1. JL.1 Burdened Labor Rates excel spreadsheet – The Column A Solicitation Labor Category column has no labor categories defined. Will the Government issue a revised JL.1 spreadsheet that contains pre-populated labor categories for this contract?

2. JL.2 Price Model excel spreadsheet – Column B is not pre-populated with the number of hours for the base year tab or the four option year tabs, typically the same number of hours each year. Will the Government issue a revised JL.2 that contains this information to allow the offeror to complete the JL.2 form?

3. In the JL2 Price Model excel spreadsheet – The Column C yellow highlighted cells C38 to C44 are not pre-populated with the applicable “Other Direct Costs”, “Subcontractor Costs” and “Travel Costs” for the base year tab or the four option year tabs. Will the Navy issue a revised JL.2 that contains this information to allow the offeror to complete the JL.2 form?

9 10/16/2023

Section M, EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD, Volume 1, (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal

Factor 3 – Management Approach 1, Tab A.

Contract Management, 101 and 102 of 109

1. Tab A. Contract Management –To clearly present all the information required in the items a., b., and c., please confirm that the Organization Chart is not counted within the 5-page limitation of Factor 3.

2. Tab A Contract Management – Please confirm that the Organization Chart may be presented on an 11x17 tabloid size paper to clearly demonstrate the requirements defined in the RFP.

3. JV Agreements – Shall the offeror present the JV Agreements in a separate Tab B?

4. Radiological Licenses – Shall the offeror present the Radiological Licenses in a separate Tab C?

1. The Organizational chart is not counted within the 5-page limitation of Factor 3.

2. The Organization chart may be presented on 11x17 tabloid size paper.

3. JV Agreements shall be presented as Tab C.

4. The Radiological license shall be presented as a separate Tab D.

11/2/2023 2

10 10/17/2023

Section M Volume 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm shall be tabbed as follows: TAB A Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C; paragraph on project definition, P96

A project is defined as a project self-performed under a single task order or single contract…..Additionally, for purposes of this evaluation, a project is defined as: (i) Work performed for a federal agency …..There are significant non-federal radiological remediation projects that have been performed successfully under federal regulations and oversight, in California, and in other locations in the U.S., that would demonstrate relevant experience and performance meeting the past performance criteria established in the RFP. Will NAVFAC accept radiological remediation work performed for commercial clients?

Revised Section M as follows:

(i) Work Performed for a federal/state agency or commercial entity, consistent with the work described in Section C, the PWS, and meeting at least one (1) of the three (3) requirements in the paragraphs below:

(ii) Work performed pursuant to one (1) specific task order of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) type contract at one (1) site or multiple sites at a single installation or facility; or

(iii) Work performed pursuant to a site specific contract (i.e. a non-ID/IQ contract) for one (1) site or multiple sites within a single installation or facility; or

(iv) Work performed pursuant to a single contract that is not an ID/IQ contract or pursuant to one (1) specific task order of an ID/IQ type contract at multiple installations or facilities.

11/2/2023 2

11 10/17/2023

Section M Volume 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm shall be tabbed as follows: TAB A Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C; paragraph on project data sheet requirements, P97

There are several paragraphs which qualify exactly what the offeror can take credit for in this section of the RFP.

Of note, if the offeror is submitting project experience where the Offeror was the subcontractor, the proposal shall clearly identify the work that the offeror self-performed on the project. If the offeror is submitting project experience where the offeror subcontracted portions of the project to other firms, the offeror shall clearly identify what work was subcontracted and what work was self-performed. However, there is no consideration for a named subcontractor under the Offeror to have past performance considered. With the narrow field of federal projects in California performed by a single prime, there have been key subcontractors who performed relevant scope of work on these type projects, but may not be able to submit their own response to the RFP. Will NAVFAC allow past performance of key, named subcontractors, who are part of the Offeror’s overall proposal, to be considered as past performance for evaluation?

SOLICITATION NO: N62473-24-R-0004

RADMAC III

14 NOV 2023

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

12 10/17/2023

Section M Volume 2 – Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm shall be tabbed as follows: TAB A Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C; paragraph on project definition, P96

A project is defined as a project self-performed under a single task order or single contract…..Additionally, for purposes of this evaluation, a project is defined as: (i) Work performed for a federal agency …..

1. If a project met all the requirements of the RFP, and had a publicly available federal agency observation and evaluation of the performance, but the project was not performed for a federal agency, would NAVFAC accept a project that met the established past performance technical criteria for the RFP?

2. Would NAVFAC accept this federal agency observation and evaluation of the performance as an alternate to CPAR and consider an alternate PPQ feedback?

3. Would NAVFAC accept a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) comprehensive inspection report in place of a PPQ?

1. See response to RFI #10. Work Performed for a federal/state agency or commercial entity, consistent with the work described in Section C, the PWS is acceptable.

2. IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Baylee Ketring, via email at baylee.e.ketring.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. 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.

3. No. The report can only be used to supplement the existing information.

11/14/2023 3

13 10/17/2023

Section M M1 General Information, paragraph 1., P92

The reference paragraph #1 indicates intent to award no more than 6 IDIQ contracts resulting from this solicitation. It also states this acquisition will be solicited on an unrestricted basis with 3 awards reserved for small business concerns.

1.Does this mean there will be two separate evaluations for award, one evaluating small business concerns and the other for large business concerns?

2.If a small business concern that submits a proposal does not get selected for one of the two awards reserved for small business concerns, would the same small business concern still be evaluated for the remaining 4 awards in the unrestricted basis category?

14 10/18/2023

Section M Project Data Sheet, Volume 2, Factor 1, Tab A, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience, P96

Exhibit C, Project Data Sheet, is mandatory but was not provided…can you please provide it? Also, can the form be modified to provide a more user-friendly format as long as all data required on the exhibit is presented in the same order and manner required?

See response to RFI #2.

Additionally, the form can be modified to a more user-friendly format as long as all the data required on the exhibit is present in the same order and manner. 10/26/2023 1

15 10/18/2023

Section M Project Data Sheet, Volume 2, Factor 1, Tab A, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience, P96

In Volume 2—Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm, Tab A, Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, one of the higher-rated criteria indicates that “Proposals that are clearly written and make effective use of figures and tables to describe projects.” However, if Exhibit C cannot be modified it will be difficult to incorporate effective use of figures and tables into that format. Please clarify.

The Project Data Sheet can be provided in a word document.

10/26/2023 1

16 10/18/2023

Section M Project Data Sheet, Volume 2, Factor 1, Tab A, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience, P96

Do all projects need to be performed for a Federal agency or will projects be viewed as relevant if they are scope and geographically relevant but completed for a state/municipal agency or commercial client?

See response to RFI #10. A project may be for other entities than Federal Agencies if the work performed is consistent with the PWS.

11/2/2023 2

17 10/18/2023

Section M Project Data Sheet, Volume 2, Factor 1, Tab A, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience, P96

Factor 1, Tab A, Relevant Corporate Experience, indicates that proposals demonstrating experience with a dollar value similar to the upper end of the task order range (i.e., $30,000,000) may be rated higher. Please consider lowering this dollar range to better reflect the average task order size that has been awarded by NAVFAC under similar radiological contracts.

The task order magnitude has been lowered to $10,000,000 - $30,000,000.

11/2/2023 2

18 10/18/2023

Section M.1, General Information

Definitions, Pg 93 Can a smaller font be used for graphics and tables (e.g., 9 point Arial)? The Government will allow a smaller font for graphics and table on the electronic submittal to be no less than 9 point. 10/26/2023 1

19 10/18/2023 Section M.1, General Information

Definitions, Pg 93 We could not find the proposal due date in the RFP. Please provide the proposal due date in the RFP. See response to RFI #1.

10/26/2023 1

20 10/18/2023 Section M.1, General Information

Definitions, Pg 93 We request a 2-week time extension for proposal submittal after all the responses to the RFIs are received. The Government will extend the proposal submittal date by three (3) weeks from 10 November 2023 to 01 December 2023 11/2/2023 2

21 10/18/2023

Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 3, Tab A, Contract Management, Pg 102

Factor 3, Management Approach, requires responses to four subsections that include 16 distinct requirements to be addressed within a 5-page limit. Please consider modifying this limit to 10 pages.

See responses to RFI #9 and #18.

11/2/2023 2

22 10/18/2023 Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 3, Tab

A, Contract Management, Pg 102

Please consider excluding the organization chart from the 5-page limit for the management approach and/or allowing the chart to be presented as an 11x17.

See response to RFI #9.

11/2/2023 2

23 10/18/2023 Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 3, Tab

A, Contract Management, Pg 102

Are teaming agreements or Letters of Commitment required for key subcontractors?

24 10/18/2023 Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 3, Tab

A, Contract Management, Pg 102

Under Tab C, RFP Page 105, please confirm that the Radiological License is excluded from the Factor 3, Management Approach, page limitation.

Yes. See response to RFI #9. The Radiological license shall be presented as a separate Tab D and will not count against the page count. 11/14/2023 3

25 10/18/2023

Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 4, Small Business Utilization, Pg 102

For Factor 4, SB Utilization and Participation, the participation requirements include both 8(a) and SDB…the government does not require tracking/reporting for 8(a) firms and 8(a) firms are SDB firms…please confirm this is the correct participation requirements. Also, the 8(a) category is missing from both Exhibits D and E.

The Government is not tracking 8(a) awards under the contract as a category.

11/14/2023 3

26 10/18/2023 Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 4, Small Business Utilization, Pg 102

For Factor 4, SB Utilization and Participation, the participation requirement for the SDB participation requirements is unusually high…is that correct?

Amendment 002 revised SB Participation to 20%.

11/14/2023 3

27 10/18/2023

Section M.1 Volume 2, Factor 5, Past Performance, Pg 108

If PPQs are required, can recently completed PPQs be used to avoid taxing government agencies? Per the Past Performance Evaluation Factors in Section M:

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Baylee Ketring, via email at baylee.e.ketring.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. 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.

10/26/2023 1

28 10/18/2023

Section M.1 Volume 1, Price Proposal, Tab A, Pg 95

Please confirm that the Financial Questionnaire—RFP Exhibit B—is not required for subcontractors. This is required.

11/14/2023 3

29 10/18/2023 Section M.1 Volume 1, Price

Proposal, Tab A, Pg 95 Will NAVFAC provide a list of labor categories, number of hours, subcontractor and travel costs, etc. for use in completing Attachments JL.1 Burdened Labor Rates Spreadsheet and JL.2 Price Model?

30 10/18/2023 The Offeror Due date on sam.gov is November 10. Would the Navy consider extending this due date to November 20 to allow contractors to review and respond to the changes in the RFP as a result of RFIs and question in the Pre-proposal conference on October 18, 2023?

See response to RFI #20.

11/2/2023 2

31 10/18/2023 Volume 2 – Tab A – Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, Pg 96

Please propose a lower dollar value than $30M for entities proposing under the small business category. Since Task Orders under $3M will be set-aside for small businesses, please consider changing the project dollar value to $2-5M.

32 10/18/2023

Volume 2 – Tab A – Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, Pg 96

Will the Navy considering allowing at least 1 project submitted as Tab A for a teaming partner? Per the Recent, Revelatant Corporate Experience Evaluation Factors in Section M:

A project is defined as a project self-performed under a single task order or single contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work self-performed under a task order as a project.

Offeror refers to the Contractor submitting the proposal as offeror, including Joint Ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form (SF) 33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award).

10/26/2023 1

33 10/18/2023 Volume 2 – Tab A – Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, Pg 96

Please include RFP Exhibit C in the solicitation. Attachment C is the PPQ form. See response to RFI #2.

10/26/2023 1

34 10/18/2023

Factor 5, Past Performance, Pg 108

If a CPARS is not available, but we have an existing PPQ completed by the Client for that project, can we submit an existing PPQ? The reason for this request is that there has been a big turnover in Navy Points of Contact (POCs) in recent years and the original POC may not be available or has retired

See response to RFI #27.

10/26/2023 1

35 10/18/2023

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Tab C, Factor 4, Small Business Utilization and Participation, P106

If a large business joint venture includes small business JV members, can the proposed small business JV member participation be used to satisfy the contract small business goals?

Yes

11/14/2023 3

36 10/20/2023

Section L L.2, Inquiries or Questions, page 86

Please clarify if the government would like only one question included in the Attachment JL_3, Request for Information Form, or can offerors include multiple questions in the same Word file using Attachment JL_3 if the sections “Question is Regarding” and “Question” are duplicated?

Shall use one RFI Sheet per question.

10/26/2023 1

37 10/20/2023

General Information Sam.Gov indicated offer due date of 11/10/23, 2PM PST. Please provide a two week extension to this date, to allow formal response to questions discussed during the 10/18/23 Virtual RADMAC III Pre-Proposal Meeting.

Given the new information from meeting, please provide a two week extension, to allow for formal response and evaluation in the anticipated amendment to the RFP

See RFI #20.

11/2/2023 2

38 10/20/2023

Section M, Volume IV, Tab A

b) Quality Control System, Pg 102

The offeror shall include the proposed contract quality control system in support of the resulting contract. Can the offeror provide a named key subcontractor’s approved NAVFAC quality control program to meet this requirement?

39 10/20/2023

Section M, Volume IV, Tab C

Radiological License, Pg

The Offeror is a wholly owned federal business subsidiary of a large business entity which has a NRC Broad Scope License, under a different name than the Offeror. Can this be submitted to comply with the NRC license requirement, and would the Offeror need to submit the Licensee Consent Letter?

The prime contractor cannot utilize a radioactive material license that is not issued directly to the entity being contracted directly with the Navy. If another entity under the corporate umbrella holds the licenses, the entity directly contracting with the navy must have a Licensee Consent Letter signed by the named RSO on the licenses.

The Navy can only take into account licenses approved at the time of proposal and can't take into account future licenses that haven't been issued.

11/14/2023 3

40 10/20/2023

Section M, Volume IV, Tab C

Radiological License, Pg

On the 10/18/23 conference call, it was discussed that it was acceptable for the Offeror to provide the CA RML from a key named subcontractor. Would it also be acceptable for the Offeror to provide the NRC Broad Scope License, and if so, would the Offeror have to submit the Licensee Consent letter as identified in the RFP.

Reference: “The Offeror shall provide copies of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Broad Scope License, and California Agreement State License Broad Scope Radioactive Material License.” “Licensee(s) Consent Letter: If an offer is submitted by a Joint Venture (JV) or an LLC, and not all JV Members/LLC members possess the required NRC Service Provider License and equivalent California Agreement State RML, the offeror must include a letter with its proposal signed by each licensed JV member/LLC member, that provides consent by the licensee(s) for the use of its (their) license(s) by the other, non-licensed JV member(s)/LLC member(s). The letter must also include a statement that if the non-licensed member(s) is/are performing work requiring the license, the respective licensee(s) will be accountable for and will provide oversight of the work. “

41 10/20/2023

Factor 1, Tab A, Project Data Sheet, RFP exhibit C

Bullet (iv), pg. 97 Bullet (iv), description of work performed: contains item “(d) interaction with range management section/range scheduling.” It is not applicable to this RADMAC III RFP. As such, will the Government strike out item (d)?

42 10/20/2023

_ Factor 1, Tab A, Project Data Sheet, Exhibit C

Pg 97 RFP states “The attached Project Data Sheet, RFP Exhibit C, is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information.” However, Exhibit C was not issued with the RFP files on 11 October 2023. Without the template, contractors cannot make progress in developing a compliant proposal by the RFP due date. Will the Government please issue the Exhibit C Project Data Sheet?

See response to RFI #2.

10/26/2023 1

43 10/20/2023 Section M, Volume I Price Proposal

TAB A, JL.1 and JL.2 Spreadsheets, Pg 95

What is the approximated award date for the ID/IQ, which will be the start date for Base Year 1 of the Contract? Currently, it is anticipated to be awarded September 2024. This is subject to change depending on proposal reviews.

10/26/2023 1

44 10/20/2023 Section M, Volume I Price Proposal

TAB A, JL.1 and JL.2 Spreadsheets, Pg 95

Please confirm the proposed maximum labor ceiling rates will include profit/fee.

45 10/20/2023

Section I Contract Clauses

Clauses incorporated by reference, PG 50 & 88

Does the FAR Clause still apply even though the Seed project was removed from the IDIQ RFP? 2.Please confirm that a Bid Guarantee is not required to be provided with the proposal.

46 10/23/2023 Section M Tab B, Joint Venture

Agreements, Pg 105 Are Teaming Agreements required to be included in the proposal for non-JV team members?

47 10/23/2023

Factor 5, Past Performance

Pg 108 For Factor 6, Past Performance, if a CPARS is not available, maybe we submit an existing PPQ completed within the last year in lieu of asking our clients to fill out a new PPQ? Many offerors are using the same projects on multiple proposals, and already have existing PPQs on file. In order to not have to keep asking our clients to complete PPQs, it would be appreciated by offerors and clients if existing PPQs can be used

See response to RFI #27.

10/26/2023 1

48 10/23/2023

Section M Factor 1, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience of the Firm, Pg 96

Factor 1, Tab A states that proposals may be rated higher if they “present projects with a dollar value similar to the upper end of the task order range, i.e. $30,000,000.” Based on historical use of the RADMAC II contract, few awarded task orders are more than $15M; most task orders are between $5M and $15M. To allow small businesses the opportunity to gain a higher rating, would the government consider revising the RFP requirements to allow offerors to submit 1 project that is greater than $15M, 2 projects that are $5M or less, and 5 projects that range between $5M and $15M? This would better allow small businesses to be able to meet the requirement of providing recent experience where 100% of fieldwork is complete as well as within the past 10 years.

49 10/23/2023

Sections C and M PWS 1.3.2; M1, Definitions #8, Pg 7 &

PWS Section 1.3.2 states that “key personnel shall be employees of the prime contractor.” In addition, Section M, Definitions #8, provides the following: “ ‘offeror’ refers to the contractor submitting the proposal, whose name appears in Block 15A of the SF33, Solicitation, Offer and Award.” Is it acceptable for small businesses to provide key personnel from the offeror’s parent company or wholly owned subsidiary as long as these personnel are within the same legal ownership structure?

50 10/23/2023

Section M Factor 1, Recent, Relevant Corporate Experience of the Firm,

pg. 96-97

Exhibit C, Project Data Sheet, was not provided in the RFP package. Attachment C, which was provided, is the Past Performance Questionnaire form that offerors are to get completed for each project. Offerors that have CPARS available for all projects included in Factor 1 will not need to use Attachment C or send it to their clients for completion.

See response to RFI #2.

10/26/2023 1

51 10/23/2023

Section M Factor 4, Small Business Utilization and Participation, pg. 106-

Small businesses typically do not track utilization of other small businesses. Please clarify that small businesses are not required to submit a response to Factor 4 nor include Attachment D, Historical Small Business Utilization, and Attachment E, Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), in their proposals.

52 10/23/2023

Section M Factor 5, Past Performance, Pg 108-109

If offerors do not have a completed CPARS evaluation for the projects included in Factor 1, will the government consider allowing existing NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) forms from past proposals to be submitted in lieu of asking clients to fill out a new PPQ form? In some cases, government officials that have knowledge of the project have retired or have moved on to private industry. In addition, many offerors are using the same projects for more than one proposal and already have existing PPQs on file. In order to not burden their clients to fill out the same questionnaires over and over, it would be helpful and appreciated by the offerors and their clients if the offerors could use existing PPQs for submittal in this proposal.

See response to RFI #27.

10/26/2023 1

53 10/23/2023

Sections M Factor 3, Management Approach, Pg 105

In Factor 3, Management Approach, the words “Tab C” are at the end of the paragraph about resumes. Please clarify if this “Tab C” should be Joint Venture Agreements and the second Tab C, Radiological License, should be renamed Tab D.

54 10/23/2023

SF33 Block 9 We request that the due date for proposal submission be extended to 15 business days past the release of the final pricing files “JL1_Fully_burdened_Labor-Rate_Ceiling.xls” and “JL2_Price_Model_V1.xlsx” to enable offerors adequate time to prepare their pricing.

See response to RFI #20.

11/2/2023 2

55 10/23/2023

Section L L2, Inquiries or Questions, Pg 86

We request that the due date for solicitation inquiries/questions be extended to 5 business days past the release of the final pricing files “JL1_Fully_burdened_Labor-Rate_Ceiling.xls” and “JL2_Price_Model_V1.xlsx” to allow offers adequate time to review and ensure understanding of the files.

56 10/23/2023 Section M Evaluation Factors for

Award, Pg 94 Please clarify how much bonding capacity is required, and if bidders are required to submit proof of bonding capacity up to that amount in their proposal.

57 10/23/2023

Section M Tab A, Pg 95 Please clarify that the file called “RFP_Exhibit_B_Financial reference.pdf” is the correct attachment bidders are required to submit in Tab A of Volume I. Section M lists “Financial Questionnaire – RFP Exhibit B” to be completed within Volume I, Tab A, but RFP Exhibit B Financial Reference is not labeled “Financial Questionnaire.”

58 10/24/2023

Section 2.0 - PART 2.0

GENERAL

REQUIREMENTS

FOR CONTRACT

TASK ORDERS

2.2 License

Requirements, Pg 13

The requirement is for the “Prime Contractor” to have a NRC Service Provider License. Can our prime bidding entity rely on an affiliate and/or parent company which holds the NRC license if our proposed RSO is the authorized person on the license? Alternatively, can the prime company apply the use of a key subcontractor’s NRC License? Also, for the requirement to also hold a California Agreement State Radioactive Material License (RML); if the prime company is currently obtaining, but has not yet received this license, can the prime company apply the use of a key subcontractor’s California RML?

59 10/24/2023

STANDARD FORM

Block 9 At the pre-proposal call we were told that we should expect an amendment to solicitation N6247324R0004.

Since it appears there will major changes coming in the amendment, potentially including SB goals and thereby teaming, please extend the proposal due date to at least 3 weeks after the final responses to all questions and amendments addressing those responses have been issued to allow bidders time to adjust proposals in accordance with changes.

See response to RFI #20.

11/2/2023 2

60 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB C – Factor 4, Pg

Section M in the RFP states “To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e., work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 42.44%.” The draft RFP listed the percentage as 20%. The impacts of increasing the percentage from 20% in the draft RFP to 42.44% are:

1) It significantly reduces the Self Performance by and responsibilities of the Prime Contractor to execute this challenging radiological work from 80% of the total contract value (TCV) to 57.56% of the TCV, and

2) Limits the Prime Contractor to subcontract to the best-qualified subcontractor and thereby potentially quality of work. The Prime contractor will have to subcontract 42.44% of the TCV to small businesses, including 32.71% to SDB subcontractors alone. Further, this new high percentage of subcontracted work requirement – more than 40% of the work – appears to be in conflict with previous language in Section M that stated “Any projects submitted where the Offeror’s participation was limited to the overall management of subcontractors who perform the fieldwork will not be considered relevant experience.” One would assume that the Navy would want proven Prime radiological contractors to have the flexibility to approach this difficult and complex field work without additional limitations of what has to be subcontracted to small businesses; we note that the requirement for 42.44% of total contract value differs from the current RADMAC contract and the recent CLEAN solicitation (N62473-21-R-0029), which set the SB participation in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars. In the interest of the Navy to ensure contractor performance on this future contract, we request that the Navy either reinstate the requirement to the previous draft RFP amount of 20% of total contract value or change to participation based on total subcontracting dollars to reflect the execution requirements and complexity of this radiological work under this contract.

See RFI #3.

11/2/2023 2

61 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB C – Factor 4, Pg

In Section M of the RFP it states the following “The minimum required small business participation (i.e., work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 42.44%. Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation requirement of 42.44% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation requirement cannot be achieved.” The goals are: 8(a) = 3.90%, SDB = 32.71%, SDVOSB = 3.30%, WOSB = 1.73%, and HUBZone = 0.80%. The solicitation then states: “The total of these individual categories is 42.44%”. It appears that the 42.44% goal is based on adding the various subcontractor categories; this total does not take into account that subcontractors can have more than one subcontractor category. For example, a subcontractor can be a SDVOSB and a WOSB or a HUBZone and a SDB, etc. A summation of all the categories is not an accurate process to establish an overall amount which must be subcontracted as it does not actually represent or reflect total available small business concerns. We strongly recommend the Government reconsider the process for calculating SB goals for this contract.

See RFI #3.

11/2/2023 2

62 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB C – Factor 4, Pg

Please clarify why an 8(a) goal is being set and where the spend should be reported. The electronic subcontracting reporting system (www.esrs.gov) does not have the capability for prime contractors to report spend in the 8(a) category on their ISRs and SSRs.

The 8(a) goal has been removed.

11/2/2023 2

63 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB A – Project Date Sheet RFP Exhibit C, Pg

During the pre-proposal call, a discussion centered around Section M which states :

“Proposals that demonstrate any one or more of the following may be rated higher: Proposals that present projects with a dollar value similar to the upper end of the task order range, i.e. $30,000,000.“ We strongly concur with the Navy’s evaluation criterion with respect to the price preference threshold as the future task orders under this contract maybe in the prescribed range. Having contractors that can demonstrate past performance for successfully executing the projects of this magnitude is essential for this complex radiological work and will present a low-risk contractor pool for the Government.

See response to RFI #17.

11/2/2023 2

64 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

TAB C – Radiological License; Pg 105

At the pre-proposal call, the Government was asked to confirm if a subcontractor could hold the required radiological licenses for a Prime contractor, who did not have them (or potentially would elect to not invoke their own license). Historically, the Navy has required the prime contractor (offeror) to hold the radiological licenses for radiological work to meet the solicitation requirements for RADMAC contracts. We suggest this to be a prudent approach on behalf of the Government because if the license is held by a subcontractor, the Navy has no privity of contract with the subcontractor/license holder posing an operational oversight challenge and potential liability risk for the Government.

65 10/24/2023

SECTION M BASIS

OF EVALUATION

Factor 5, Past Performance;

Solicitation Submittal Requirements; TAB B;

Pg 108

The RFP states: “Include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years from the RFP issuance date such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. ” Can the applicable period for the performance recognition documents be extended to the last 10 years to match with the timeline of project performance and allow any awards or customer letters over the 10 years to be submitted giving the Navy more data on performance on those submitted projects? This would align with the RFP that states (p 96) “The offeror shall submit a minimum of eight (8) projects with 100% fieldwork complete (completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of the RFP issuance) that best demonstrate specialized experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work described in Section C of the Performance Work Statement ”.

66 10/24/2023

Section M Volume II, Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, Pg 96, 99, 101, 108, 109

Some volume numbers in Section M appear to be listed in error for individual Factors. Please confirm the proposal shall comprise of two volumes, ‘Cost Proposal’ and ‘(Non-Cost) Technical Proposal’.

See Response to RFI #5

11/14/2023 3

67 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, Factor 1, Tab A

8th para., Bullet (iii), Pg

Unnumbered paragraph 8, last sentence defines a project “for purposes of evaluation”. Please confirm that a single-award task order contract performed within a single installation or facility meets the RFP definition of a project under type (iii) “Work performed pursuant to a site specific contract (i.e. a non-ID/IQ contract) for one

(1) site or multiple sites within a single installation or facility; or”.

Yes, a single-award task order contract performed within a single installation or facility meets the RFP definition of a project under type.

11/14/2023 3

68 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, Factor 3, Tab A, Contract Management

8th para, pg. 101-102 The five (5) page limitation for Tab A is not adequate space to detail all the information required in “(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements” and evaluated per “(2) Basis of Evaluation’. To clearly present each of the elements to the level of detail required in Tab A, will the Government increase the page limitation for TAB A to ten (10) pages?

No. See response to comment #9.

11/14/2023 3

69 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, Factor 3, Tab C, Joint Venture Agreement and Tab C (duplicate Tab reference) Radiological License

1st and 2nd para, Pg 105 Will the Government please confirm the Radiological License is not within the page limitation of Factor 3? See response to RFI #24

11/14/2023 3

70 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, Factor 3, Tab C, Joint Venture Agreement and Tab C (duplicate Tab reference) Radiological License

1st and 2nd para, Pg 105 Shall the Radiological License be provided in its own tab, called Tab D? Radiological License shall be TAB D.

11/2/2023 2

71 10/24/2023

Section M. Volume II (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal, Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization and Participation a.2., 2nd Bullet, Pg 106 Because of the surge in workload in this geographic region, the pool of eligible small business subcontractors available to fulfill subcontract opportunities is far more limited than otherwise expected, and several SBs are unresponsive to our solicitation for proposals due to lack of availability. A 42.44% small business goal will likely far exceed the capacity of small businesses, posing a significant challenge to the offeror’s ability to meet this goal, along with our self-performance. Given the magnitude of this contract, we believe a target of 20% of total subcontracted dollars will provide significant opportunities for small business participation.

Will the Government please revise the minimum required small business participation in Factor 4, Attachment E, from “42.44% in terms of percentage of total contract value” to “20% in terms of percentage of subcontracted value”?

See RFI #3.

11/2/2023 2

72 10/24/2023

RFP Section M.

Volume II (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal, Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization and Participation a.2., 2nd Bullet, Pg 106 The small business utilization goal was defined as 20% in the Draft Section L&M (dated 05 September 2023) and was increased to 42.44% of total contract value in the Final RFP (dated 11 October 2023) with no explanation in the RFP.

1. Is the 42.44% for small business the only goal for this contract?

2.The 42.44% noted “(in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value)” is extremely high and ties the hands of the offeror with regard to its ability to deliver cost-effective, efficient services on future RADMAC III task orders. Did the Government intend to set the SB goal as the “percentage of subcontracted value”, not as “percentage of total contract value”?

3.The value for SDB seems excessive at 32.71%. Typically, the SDB requirement on government contracts is more in line with the goal shown for 8(a). What is the Government’s rationale for setting the SDB goal as 32.71%?

4.Please confirm there are no goals for other minority SB categories.

73 10/24/2023

RFP Section M.

Volume II (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal, Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization and Participation a.2., 2nd Bullet, Pg 106 Draft Section L&M (dated 05 September 2023) defined the small business utilization goal at 20%, which was increased significantly to 42.44% of total contract value in the Final RFP (dated 11 October 2023) with no explanation in the RFP. The 42.44% goal is the sum of the individual goals listed for SB categories (8a, SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZONE) in the RFP, stating, “The total is 42.44%”.It is noted that a small business concern frequently qualifies in multiple SB categories (for example, an 8a firm may also be a SDB, a WOSB, and a HUBZONE), contributing to the Government’s SB goal in multiple ways. Thus, the SB utilization goal is not determined as the sum of all the various SB categories; rather, a reasonable goal (such as 20% defined in the Draft Sections L&M) is set as a means to promote participation across all SB categories.

Will the Government please revise the minimum required small business participation from “42.44% in terms of percentage of total contract value” back to “20%” as defined in the Draft Section L&M, in terms of “percentage of total subcontracted value”, which is an ambitious goal given the significant volume of work anticipated under the contract?

See RFI #3.

11/2/2023 2

74 10/24/2023

Section M, Basis of Evaluation

M1, (item 1), pg 92 (Item 1) states in part “… contracts resulting from this solicitation [will be awarded] to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and their relative importance in the solicitation.” Then (item 5) refers to “performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating”. It is noted that while the RFP page 92/93 also provide the general definition of a strength, weakness, significant strength, or deficiency, and elsewhere in the RFP what is considered “unacceptable”, the RFP does not specifically define the rating system used to evaluate each individual factor, on which a decision for award is based, beyond their “relative importance.”

To ensure a fair and uniform evaluation of each proposal, and ultimately cost-effective services at best value to the Government, will the Government please clarify the rating system used for the evaluation of each technical Factor 1 through Factor 4 by adding to the solicitation a description of each rating category (e.g. Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Acceptable) for teach technical factor along with the definition of the qualities and characteristics of a proposal represented for each rating category?

75 10/24/2023

Section M, Basis of Evaluation

M1, (item 1), pg 92 (Item 1) states in part “… contracts resulting from this solicitation [will be awarded] to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and their relative importance in the solicitation.” Then (item 5) refers to “performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating”. It is noted that while the RFP page 92/93 also provide the general definition of a strength, weakness, significant strength, or deficiency, and elsewhere in the RFP what is considered “unacceptable”, the RFP does not specifically define the rating system used to evaluate each individual factor, on which a decision for award is based, beyond their “relative importance.”

To ensure a fair and uniform evaluation of each proposal, and ultimately cost-effective services at best value, will the Government please clarify the rating system used for the evaluation of Factor 5, Past Performance Confidence levels (e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, etc.) along with the definition of the qualities and characteristics of a proposal represented for each rating category?

76 10/24/2023

Attachment D Historical Small Business Utilization Form

Bottom of the Form At the bottom of the Form, there are six rows that are repeated, beginning with the row called “a. Total Project Dollar Value: $” and ending at the bottom of the form, row called “e) Large Business Concerns”. Please remove these duplicated rows and provide a revised Attachment D.

77 10/24/2023

RFP, Attachment E Small Business Participation Commitment Document

3. a; pg. 1 of 3 Shall the offeror enter $240 million in 3.a. “Total contract value (TCV)” or some other value since six awards are anticipated?

78 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal; Factor 1, Recent, Relevant Experience of the Firm, Tab A

8th para; pg. 96 Unnumbered paragraph 8 states “A project is defined as self-performed under a single TO or single contract”, and later notes “for purposes of this evaluation, a project is defined as:” [bullet] “(i) Work performed for a federal agency”. Also, unnumbered paragraph 6 notes “Any project submitted which is: (1) … or (4) does not meet the definition of a “project” will not be evaluated.” It is noted that the very limited definition of a project, “Work performed for a federal agency” excludes directly relevant projects performed for a state or local agency, or commercial entity that fall under the same Federal jurisdiction as federal projects (e.g., Nuclear Regulatory Commission), as well as the same regulatory laws and standards (e.g., MARSSIM, CERCLA, California Regulations). An example is a project performed at a contractor owned, contractor operated (CO-CO) facility owned and operated by a private contractor performing services under contract for the government.

1.With a limited pool of federal projects available in the marketplace, which reduces competition, what is the Navy’s rationale for restricting a relevant project solely as “performed for a federal agency”, excluding PWS Section C relevant work performed for a state or local governments, or commercial entity?

2.To ensure a fair and uniform evaluation of each offeror’s capabilities for the successful delivery of relevant RADMAC services, will the Government expand the definition of a “project” and “specialized experience” to match the definition contained in the predecessor RADMAC II RFP N62473-15-R-0811, as “…. Specialized Experience may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of state or local governments, and/or commercial customers, for the same or similar work covered under this solicitation”?

See response to RFI#10.

11/2/2023 2

79 10/24/2023

Section M, Volume II, (Non-Cost) Technical Proposal; Factor 1, Recent, Relevant…