SBRAC QA 1-39 AMD3.pdf

Q ue st io n

Reference/ Section

(Page #, etc.) Question Government Response

RFP Page 105 of 126, Para 2.

VOLUME I -

COST

PROPOSAL

a. Please verify that the Table of Contents and any List of Acronyms and Abbreviations are not page counted.

b. SECTION II – COST AND RELATED INFORMATION. Please confirm reference to Attachment L.6 should be Attachment J.6

c. Is the Year 1 (Base Year) to be used Year 2021 or 2022?

a. Refer to Section L1 which states "There is no page limitation for Volume I."

b. Solicitation was revised in Amendment 0001.

c. Per Amendment 0003, refer to revised Section F2 for Term of Contract.

RFP Page 105 of 126, Para 3.

VOLUME II -

NON-COST

PROPOSAL

(TECHNICAL

AND PAST

PERFORMAN

CE).

a.Please verify that the Table of Contents and any List of Acronyms and Abbreviations are not page counted.

b. For Subpara a. “graphic representation no more than 1 page in length identifying the firms/companies that are part of the Offeror’s team….”, please confirm that an 11”x17” size page may be used for this graphic representation in order for offerors to provide adequate detail to convey the required information to comply with the RFP instructions.

c. Para 3. instructs offers to use a font size of 11 point for the Volume II proposal; however, on the Attachments J.8 and J.9, a font size of 10 point is used in the tables with a note “…do not modify this form (i.e. horizontal cell width, font type and size, etc.).” To allow offerors adequate space to demonstrate the project scope, complexity, and relevancy to this solicitation and evaluation criteria, please verify that the font size of 10 point is to be used in all three Attachments J.8, J.9, and J.10, and modify Attachment J.10 accordingly.

a. Refer to Section M for Solicitation Submittal Requirements and page limitations.

b. Per Amendment 0003, Section L is revised to state "A graphic representation no more than 1 page in length, up to 11”x17” in size, identifying the firms/companies that are part of the Offeror’s team and the Offeror’s proposed key personnel, and clarifies which companies are the prime, joint venture partners, and subcontractors."

c. Refer to Section L, Volume II which states "The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11 point font."

File – “J.7 _7A 20-R- 1801_Cost_Mo del Attachments”.

Note 9 under each tab of Base Year to Option Year 4 mention DBA wage determination HI20210001 dated 02/19/2021 (J.13); however, the Attachment J.13 provided is DBA wage determination HI20210001 dated 05/07/2021.

Please confirm that offerors should use the 05/07/2021 update and that the Cost model Note 9 will be updated to reflect the 05/07/2021 date.

Per Amendment 0003, Attachment J.7 Note 9 has been revised. Refer to Section M5(4).

Attachments J.12 Wage # 2015-5689 for Hawaii and J.14 Wage # 2015- 5693 for Guam. Under each tab (Base Year to Option 4), Note 10

There are two SCA wage determination Attachments J.12 Wage # 2015-5689 for Hawaii and J.14 Wage # 2015-5693 for Guam. Under each tab (Base Year to Option 4), Note 10 mentions SCA Wage #2015-5689. Please confirm that it is the Wage # 2015-5693 that applies to the Cost Model.

Per Amendment 0003, Attachment J.7 Note 10 has been has been revised. Refer to Section M5(4).

RFP Page 121 of 126, Para (3)

b. Subpara (2)

States: “Experience will be evaluated on the (1) complexity, (2) scope, (3) contract volume/project size and (4) location of the work performed as compared to the requirements contemplated under this solicitation and described in Section C.”

a. Given the increased value of this contract and for all Offerors to meaningfully demonstrate their corporate experience in the four areas listed above, please add a new bullet “i” to read “Projects valued in excess of $3M may be rated more favorably.”

b. Because all US Government agencies utilize the same regulatory response framework and criteria (in particular the NCP and CERCLA) and to promote open and fair competition by allowing all offerors to demonstrate their corporate experience for this contract, please modify bullet “e” to read “Offerors who demonstrate experience working for the US Federal Government will be evaluated more favorably.”

The referenced section remains unchanged.

RFP Page 122 of 126, Para (3) c.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 2 –-

SAFETY.

For all offerors to be able to demonstrate their corporate capabilities in safety, please add to the Basis of Evaluation a new bullet: “Contractors participating in special status safety programs recognized by OSHA for exemplary safety and health management systems and successful safety performance such as the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) or the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) will be considered more favorably. Those programs that are active within the NAVFAC PAC AOR and that have achieved special recognition for outstanding safety performance (e.g., Star Status) will be rated more favorably.”

The referenced section remains unchanged.

Solicitation No. N62742-20-R-1801, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Remedial Action Contract for Sites in Hawaii, Guam and Other Areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific Area of Responsibility

N62742-20-R-1801 Amendment 0003

RFP Page 105 of 126, Para 2.

VOLUME I /

Para 3.

VOLUME II

Due to current COVID variants and regional restrictions, the gathering of personnel to prepare and ship the physical hard copy binders and CD-ROMs has the potential to expose personnel and work products to COVID-19 and to cause unintended virus spread. On the recent NAVFAC Southwest IDIQ, Solicitation N6247319R1237, only an electronic submission of the proposal was required via DOD SAFE upload submission in lieu of hard copy/CDs. The DOD SAFE platform is used regularly by NAVFAC components for receiving contractor proposals safely and securely.

a. For the safety and security of all contractor and Government personnel involved, please replace the requirement for physical proposal delivery defined in RFP Section L. Para 2 VOLUME I / 3. VOLUME II i with a submission requirement via the DoD SAFE platform.

b. As the RFP already requires offerors’ proposals to be submitted electronically, the DoD SAFE platform assures that this will be achieved securely. Furthermore, the Pre-Award Survey documents can be submitted safely and securely as separate files with designated security codes established via compliant information technology protocols for secure access by the Government, assuring the security of the files transferred to the Government.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

8 RFP Page 120 of 126, Para (1)

States: “Recent is defined as five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.” The RFP evaluation criteria’s preference for Navy/ Marine Corps experience; experience in Hawaii, Guam, California, and Northern Mariana Islands; and capability to manage Cost IDIQ contracts as Prime Contractor; all with recent and relevant experience within just the last five (5) years of the solicitation issuance presents a clear and unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor who has held this CPAF contract for the last decade in the NAVFAC Pacific Area of Responsibility (AOR). This is unduly restrictive, severely limits competition, and excludes Offerors who can provide best value to the Government.

a. For all offerors to meaningfully demonstrate their depth and breadth of capabilities within the scope and AOR and provide for a more balanced procurement, please modify the recency definition to ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

b. Please modify the RFP Para b. EVALUATION FACTOR 1, CORPORATE EXPERIENCE and Para. d. EVALUATION FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE submission requirements to extend the recency to ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

a. Section M5(3)a.(1)C. has been revised to state "Recent is defined as five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, except in regards to Key Personnel in which recent is defined as within the last ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation."

b. The referenced section remains unchanged.

RFP Page 121 of 126, para b.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

Please modify the RFP to allow a 2-page introduction within Volume II, Factor 1, to afford all Offerors the opportunity to adequately “demonstrate” corporate and key personnel experience to be considered for this contract, as defined under Subpara a. Minimum Required Experience.

Refer to Section M5 Evaluation Factors for solicitation submittal requirements for each Factor.

Attachments J.8 and RFP 121 of 126, para b.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE.

Para (2)

States: “…The Offeror shall not submit more than two (2) pages single-sided per project. If more than two (2) pages are submitted, the agency will not consider the information on the additional pages.” However, the Attachment J.8 instructions state “The Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) pages double-sided per project...”, which can be interpreted as 4 pages total per project.

a. Based on the configuration of the form and prohibition to modify or remove the written instructions, offerors have very limited space to present project information with enough detail to be evaluated for “complexity,” “scope”, “project size” and “location” as defined in Section M5. Please confirm that four pages may be used for the project presented for Specialized Recent Project/Contract Experience Information using Attachment J.8.

Per Amendment 0003, Attachment J.8 has been revised to state "…no more than two (2) pages single-sided per project." Attachment J.8 has also been revised to provide additional space for offeror information.

Attachments J.8, J.9, and J.10

The extensive instructions at the top of the forms and within the tabulated areas take up valuable space on the form, which severely limits the space available for offerors to represent their experience in a meaningful way within each Attachment. The instructions currently prohibit contractors from modifying the column widths or otherwise modifying the tables within the Attachments. This significantly limits offerors’ ability to meaningfully demonstrate their project experience, capability, and capacity to successfully deliver multiple projects concurrently, and to summarize key personnel experience. This has the unintended consequence of limiting fair and open competition. Typically, offerors are permitted to modify the forms within reason by removing instructions and changing the row and column formats to maximize the available space and page limitations. In the current format, only 50% of the information can be provided as compared to a prior proposal for NAVFAC Pacific using the same Attachment J.8.

a. Please allow contractors to remove the instructions at the top of the forms and to use the space to provide relevant details that can demonstrate their capabilities.

b. Please allow contractors to modify the column widths and to adjust the form to maximize the space available to provide the Government with the level of detail required by Section M.

A detailed project description is needed to provide adequate information for evaluation.

c. To create space in Attachment J.8 to demonstrate the scope relevancy, complexity, innovation, and other aspects of projects that are part of the evaluation criteria, please permit offerors to remove the content within parentheses (row 3) and after the colon (rows 6 and 7).

d. To create space on Attachment J.9 to demonstrate the scope relevancy, complexity, innovation, and other aspects of projects that are part of the evaluation criteria, please permit offerors to remove the explanations after the period, the asterisk, or bolded (rows 3 and 7 for each project presented).

e. To create space in Attachment J.10 to demonstrate key personnel capabilities, qualifications, project relevancy, complexity, innovation, and other aspects that are part of the evaluation criteria, please permit offerors to remove the content within parentheses (row 2, 5, 6, and 7) as well as the second and third sentences in row 10 prior to the four showcased projects.

Per Amendment 0003, Attachments J.8, J.9 and J.10 have been revised.

Solicitation No. N62742-20-R-1801, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Remedial Action Contract for Sites in Hawaii, Guam and Other Areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific Area of Responsibility

RFP Page 113 of 126, Para 3.

Bullet b.

Solicits “...all information required by Factor 1 - Corporate Experience,” however; Attachments J.8 and J.9 contain multiple fields that do not correlate to the RFP evaluation criteria. The instructions request offerors to: Provide the following information on a maximum of eight (8) recent, relevant projects to demonstrate the Prime Contractor’s recent, relevant project experience….” Also, the explanations in the left column are very elaborate and take a large amount of space on the form, limiting the space available for offeror’s content. Please clarify and revise the following items on the various forms.

a. On Attachment J.8 and J.9 for “Names of the Companies that the Project/Contract was Performed By, including Subcontractors,” please confirm that this requires offerors to include subcontractors that worked on the project being presented, whether or not that subcontractor is part of the offeror’s team for this solicitation.

b. Attachment J.8, row 6 requests “Describe the work that WAS performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team. Offeror’s current team includes: Personnel currently employed by the Offeror, …...” This statement is confusing as it relates to personnel (not Contractor/team members) and does not align with the objective of this form to assess Corporate Experience as described in the first sentence of the instructions on this form. To clarify the instructions for all offerors, we suggest this field be changed to: “Describe the work performed by the prime contractor/proposed team only”.

c. Attachment J.8, row 7 requests “Describe the work that WAS NOT performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team. Offeror’s current team includes: Personnel currently employed by the Offeror, ….” This statement is confusing as it relates to personnel (not Contractor/team members) and does not align with the objective of this form to assess Corporate Experience as described in the first sentence of the instructions on this form. We suggest this field be changed to: “Describe the work performed by entities that are not members of the prime contractor/ proposed team.”

d. As used on all three forms, please confirm that the term “Key Personnel” are the project-level Key Personnel (not program or contract level Key Personnel).

e. Attachment J.8, row 3 requires: “Key Personnel Assigned for Duration of Project/Contract (Principal, Project Manager, Site Supervisor)” Please confirm that the three positions listed in parentheses are provided as examples only, and that other project key personnel are to be provided as well.

a. Yes, include all companies that the Project/Contract was performed by.

b. Referenced field in Attachment J.8 remains unchanged.

c. Referenced field in Attachment J.8 remains unchanged.

d. Refer to Section C for Key Personnel identification and requirements.

e. Per Amendment 0003, Attachment J.8 has been revised.

RFP Page 121 of 126, Para b.

(2) Bullet b

States “Use Attachment J.9 to describe capability and capacity to deliver on-schedule products similar to the scope and complexity of the tasks described in Section C of this solicitation assuming a workload of at least ten (10) projects totaling a minimum of $10 million at multiple locations within the solicitation area of responsibility occurring concurrently in addition to ongoing work for other clients….”

a. There is no area on the Attachment J.9 form requiring Offerors to describe capability and capacity to deliver “on-schedule” products …. How is this requirement for “on-schedule” delivery evaluated?

b. There are many US Federal Government contracts that require similar scope and complexity of tasks as those described in Section C of this solicitation to be performed at locations across the US and elsewhere. The limitation for projects on this form to be “…within the solicitation area of responsibility...” is unduly restrictive, presents an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor who has held this CPAF contract specifically within the NAVFAC Pacific Area of Responsibility (AOR) for the last decade, and severely limits competition. Please remove the requirement for projects to be “…within the solicitation area of responsibility…”

c. For an Offeror that is a JV, is each JV member required to complete the Attachment J.9 form?

a. Per Amendment 0003, M5(3)b.(3) is revised to remove that term "on-schedule".

b. Per Amendment 0003, M5(3)b.(2)b. is revised to state "…within the NAVFAC Pacific area of responsibility..."

c. Only one JV member is required to complete Attachment J.9, refer to Section M5(3)a.(7).

SF33 Block 9.

Proposal Due Date.

The RFP requires the development of significant cost and management data, as well as extensive technical information within a short period that includes a long weekend over the Memorial Day Federal holiday. This places tremendous burden on the small businesses that are preparing proposals for this solicitation. Also, the significant questions related to attachments J.8, J.9 and J.10 in relation to the evaluation criteria, format, and page count warrant additional time for offers to prepare their responses. To ensure fair competition and best value to the Government, please extend the proposal due date by two weeks to June 30, 2021.

Per Amendment 0003, the solicitation is extended. Revised proposal due date is specified on Amendment 0003, Page 2.

15 Attachments J.8, J.9, J.10

Please confirm that we may adjust the paragraph indentation within the prescribed forms for Factor 1 (Attachments J.8, J.9, J.10). For example, in Attachment J.10 Offeror’s Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications, the paragraph right indentation on the cells for the project information is 0.4”, which is creating >10% blank space within each cell (0.4” of 3.8” column).

Allowing those cells to have 0” paragraph indentation will allow maximum space to fully respond to the questions, and make them consistent with the cells at the top of the resume (e.g., Name, Assignment, etc.). Attachment J.8 has a similar issue.

Yes, paragraph indentation for Factor 1 Attachments can be adjusted as needed. Per Amendment 0003, see revised instructions on Attachments J.8, J.9 and J.10.

Attachment J.8 Specialized Recent Project/Contrac t Experience Information

Section M states that Offerors shall not submit more than two (2) pages single-sided per project. The instructions on the form state “The Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) pages double-sided per project.” Please confirm if the government would like these forms printed single-sided or double-sided. If double-sided, please confirm that this is meant to be similar to the instructions for the Technical Approach to Safety narrative, which is limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

Refer to answer for Question 10.

Attachment J.8 Specialized Recent Project/Contrac t Experience Information

Would the government consider restructuring this form to maximize the room for answering the questions? We suggest making the structure consistent with Attachment J.3 in the FRAC Solicitation N6274221R1801. With the current format, there will be considerable blank space in the left column because of the expected length of the answers, particularly in response to “Provide a description of the Contract or Task Order scope of work as it is relevant to the Section C tasks and Section M evaluation criteria.” To fully address both Section C and Section M requirements within 2 pages, Offerors need as much space as possible. We have attached completed examples of the original form and our suggested form, with the same amount of text in each to demonstrate the difference that the structure makes in being able to answer the requirements and meet the page limitations.

Per Amendment 0003, Attachment J.8 has been revised.

Solicitation No. N62742-20-R-1801, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Remedial Action Contract for Sites in Hawaii, Guam and Other Areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific Area of Responsibility

Attachment J.9 Workload Experience Form

It is not clear how the information provided in this attachment will be evaluated per the Basis of Evaluation on page 122 of 126 in the solicitation. Please provide additional guidance on how the experience in this form will be evaluated as opposed to the experience in Attachment J.8. Per Amendment 0003, refer to Section M5(3)b.(3)h.

Attachment J.9 Workload Experience Form

Please confirm that the geographic areas that may be rated more favorably (Guam, Hawaii, California, and the Northern Marianas Islands) apply since the instructions for the form state that we are to demonstrate concurrent work at multiple locations within the solicitation area of responsibility. Also confirm that the experience in this form will be rated against the other criteria that may be evaluated more favorably, e.g., sediment removal and/or remediation, Navy/Marine Corps experience.

Per Amendment 0003, Refer to Section M5(3)b.(3)g which has been revised to state "Project experience working in the majority of the following locations (Guam, Hawaii, California, and the Northern Marianas Islands) may be evaluated more favorably." The Basis of Evaluation for Factor 1 is not form specific and will be applied to all information presented in the forms as a whole.

Attachment J.9 Workload Experience Form

Unlike the instructions for J.8 and J.10, the instructions for J.9 do not specifically refer to “recent relevant projects” and use the term “in addition to ongoing work.” Please confirm that we are allowed to show ongoing work and not only projects that meet the definition of “recent” as defined in Section M5.(3)a.(1) on page 120 of 126 in the solicitation, i.e., at least 85% financially executed.

Per Amenment 0003, Attachment J.9 is revised to state "…a workload of at least ten

(10) recent, relevant projects …"

Attachment J.10 Offeror’s Key Personnel Experience/Qua lifications

Some cells for the answers are 11 point font size and some are 12 point font size. Please consider changing the font size in all cells to 11 point font to be consistent with the Section L instructions that state “The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11 point font.” Per Amendment 0003, Attachments J.8, J.9 and J.10 have been revised.

Attachment J.10 Key Personnel Experience/Qua lifications

Please reconsider the requirement for the four projects listed for the Senior Project Manager to meet the definition of “recent” as defined in Section M5.(3)a.(1) on page 120 of 126 in the solicitation, i.e., cannot show ongoing work <85% financially complete or be completed more than 5 years ago. The definition of “recent” may conflict with Section C paragraph 1.3.3.b), which requires us to demonstrate that the Senior Project Manager has more than 6 years of project management experience.

Per Amendment 0003, Section C Subpart 1.3.3 and Section M5(3)a.(1)C are revised.

Attachment J.10 Key Personnel Experience/Qua lifications

May we provide resumes for two Senior Project Managers? The extremely large area of responsibility and the large contract capacity may warrant more than one Senior Project Manager at various periods throughout the duration of the contract.

Only one (1) individual shall be submitted for each Key Personnel position for this solicitation.

Attachment J.10 Key Personnel Experience/Qua lifications

The instructions for Attachment J.10 on Page 121 of 126 of the solicitation state “A letter of commitment shall be provided for each proposed key personnel that does not currently work for the Offeror and shall include the key personnel’s role in the contract.” However, in the Basis of Evaluation on Page 122 of 126, it states “Letters of commitment shall be submitted for all key personnel including subcontractor key personnel that does not currently work for the Offeror.” Please confirm that letters of commitment are only required for proposed personnel that do not currently work for the Offeror, to include subcontractor key personnel.

Per Amendment 0003, Section M5(3)b.(2)c is revised to state "Letters of commitment shall be submitted for all key personnel including prime contractor-subcontractor teams/Joint Ventures/LLCs/LTDs key personnel that does not currently work for the Offeror."

25 Factor 3 Past Performance Please confirm that CPARS/PPQs are only required for the 8 projects provided in Attachment J.8 and not all the projects provided in Attachment J.9 as well.

Per Amendment 0003, Section M5(3)d.(1) is revised to state "The Offeror’s past performance evaluation will be based upon customer satisfaction in the execution of the same recent relevant projects submitted for Factor 1 (Experience), Attachment J.8 and completed projects within the last five (5) years..."

26 Factor 3 Past Performance

Section M states that performance recognition documents received within the past 5 years may be provided. Will the government consider allowing any performance recognition documents, regardless of timeframe, for the eight recent and relevant projects provided in Attachment J.8? The referenced section remains unchanged.

27 RFP Page 105 of 126, Para 3 Please confirm that the 1-page graphic representation identifying the firms/companies that are part of the Offeror’s team may be provided on 11x17. Refer to answer for Question 2c.

Factor 1 Corporate Experience

States that “A subcontractor’s experience and past performance will not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner.” Please confirm that work performed as a subcontractor will not be given the same level of consideration as work performed as a prime contractor, even if it was performed by the prime Offeror. The referenced section refers to a subcontractor of the Offeror.

Due date:

Reference SF33, Block 9 the due date is currently 16 June 2021; we respectfully request a 2-week extension to better respond to the requirements of not only this solicitation but two other major NAVFAC solicitations under NAICS 562910, the NAVFAC Atlantic solicitation entitled “Munitions Response Actions at Vieques, Puerto Rico” (N6247020R2004) and the NAVFAC Pacific solicitation entitled “Fixed Price Remedial Action Contract (FRAC) #7” (N6274221R1801).

Refer to answer for Question 14.

Font size:

Reference Section L, Paragraph L1 2 which states “The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11-12 font size.” Please advise as to whether the font size is 11 or 12 pt. Referenced section remains unchanged.

Submission:

Reference Section L, Paragraph L1

This section requires the submittal of “An original plus three (3) paper copies and two (2) electronic copies (CD-ROM) of the cost proposal” and “An original plus five (5) paper copies and two (2) electronic copies (CD-ROM) of the Non-Cost Proposal”. We respectfully request that the requirement be amended to submittal via the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) application, which is being used for the NAVFAC Atlantic solicitation entitled “Munitions Response Actions at Vieques, Puerto Rico” (N6247020R2004)

Refer to answer for Question 7.

Solicitation No. N62742-20-R-1801, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Remedial Action Contract for Sites in Hawaii, Guam and Other Areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific Area of Responsibility

Recency definition:

Reference Section M, Paragraph M5(3)a.(1)C which states “Recent is defined as five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.” However, it does not elaborate as to whether it’s “completed” or “awarded”. Please advise. Refer to Section M for definition of recent relevant project.

Recency definition:

Reference Section M, Paragraph M5(3)b.(2)c which states “provide information on a maximum of four (4) recent, relevant projects that were completed by each Key Personnel”. Please confirm that ongoing projects may not be used. Refer to Section M5(3)a.(1) for definition of recent relevant project.

Recency definition:

Reference Section M, Paragraphs M5(3)b.(2)a.

and M5(3)d.(1) which state “completed or substantially completed within the last five (5) years.” Please define “substantially.” Per Amendment 0003, Section M5(3)b.(2)a. and M5(3)d.(1) have been revised.

RFP Page 113 of 126, Section

3. Bullet a

Instructs offerors to provide “A graphic representation no more than 1 page in length identifying the firms/companies that are part of the Offeror’s team, and clarifies which companies are the prime, joint venture partners, and subcontractors.” It is unclear what exactly the Government is requesting and how this is being evaluated.

a) Is the Government requesting offerors to provide an organizational chart of the firms/companies that are part of the Offeror’s team?

b) Section M only defines the evaluation criteria for Factors 1, 2, and 3, not Bullet a. How will this graphic organization be evaluated?

a. Per Amendment 0003, refer to revised Section L1 for Volume II Non-Cost Proposal submittal requirements.Refer to Section M5(3)a. for notes applicable to Factors 1 and 3 and Offeror team member requirements and considerations.

b. Graphic representation is required for the purpose of evaluators to better understand the structure of the teaming arrangements.

Attachment J.10.

Instructions

In the cell just above the Project #1 states: “Provide information on a maximum of four (4) recent, relevant projects that were completed by the key personnel that would demonstrate their project experience with the assigned Section C tasks. Information may be provided on Basic IDIQ contracts for the Program Manager, Contract Administration Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Health and Safety Manager key personnel positions, but not the Senior Project Manager key personnel position. Provide the following for each project/contract:...”

a) Reference to “recent” poses a restrictive time-bound constraint that uniquely favors the incumbent contractor that has held this contract for the last decade, does not permit all offerors to clearly demonstrate directly relevant experience in these key roles, and unnecessarily limits competition. Additionally, the second sentence of the Attachment J.10 instructions allows offerors to present IDIQ contracts for four of five key positions, which are typically anywhere from 5 to 10 years in duration. As such, reference to “recent” would prohibit the presentation of relevant IDIQ experience, and therefore again favors the incumbent contractor. Please remove the term “recent” as it should not apply to Attachment J.10 for the reasons stated herein.

Per Amendment 0003, Section M5(3)a.(1)C is revised to state "…except in regards to Key Personnel in which recent is defined as within the last ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation."

RFP Page 113 of 126, Para 3 for Volume II

NON-COST

PROPOSAL

states “…The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11-point font….”

a) Please confirm that the font size limitation only applies to written narrative content.

b) Please confirm that a font size of 8 point or greater may be used within charts and graphics in Volume II, as long as the content is clearly legible.

Refer to answer for Question 2c.

RFP Page 124 of 126, Para d.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 3 -

PAST

PERFORMAN

CE. Subpara (1) refers to “the same recent relevant projects submitted for Factor 1 (Experience) and completed or substantially completed projects within the last five (5) years that are similar to the tasks described in Section C. …” while Subpara (2) instructs offerors to submit past performance documents “for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Experience of The Firm.

a) Projects are required to be presented in two parts of Factor 1: Attachment J.8 and Attachment J.9. Please confirm that the past performance documents (CPAR or PPQ) that are required to be provided in Factor 3 are only for those projects presented in Attachment J.8.

Refer to answer for Question 25.

RFP Page 119 of 126 and Page

Please confirm that the instructions, definitions, requirements, and evaluation criteria contained in Subpara (3) bullet a., parts (1) to (8) pertain solely to the projects presented in Attachment J.8.

Refer to Section M5(3)a. which states "NOTES are applicable to Factor 1, Corporate Experience and Factor 3, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects"

Solicitation No. N62742-20-R-1801, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Remedial Action Contract for Sites in Hawaii, Guam and Other Areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific Area of Responsibility