SBRAC QA_AMD4.pdf

Q ue st io n

Reference/ Section

(Page #, etc.) Question Government Response

Page 120 to Page 123 of 126, Section M5 Evaluation Factors for Factor 1 Corporate Experience

RFP Section C states for scope of work “The contaminants will include, but not be limited to, those identified and regulated under RCRA, CERCLA, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), and petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL); munitions constituents (MC); and munitions and explosives of concern (MEC).

A relatively small number of sites may require remediation of radiological media.” However, the evaluation criteria for Factor 1 (page 122 of 126) bullet a. Minimum Required Experience, first bullet “• Removal actions at sites regulated under CERCLA” and second bullet “• Soil and/or sediment remediation of various contaminants at sites regulated under CERCLA” limit the evaluation to only “sites regulated under CERCLA”. This is contradictory to RFP Section M5 Para (1) A. that defines relevancy for Factor 1 more broadly, as “In general, relevant project means projects whose scopes of work were similar to the types of projects that may be ordered against this contract that require the performance of one or more of the Specific Tasks described in Section C, paragraph 1.2.”

a) There is no explanation in the RFP why sites regulated under all statutes and standards described in Section C Paragraph 1.2 are not being considered equally as a wholistic assessment of an offeror’s capabilities. This makes the basis of evaluation for Factor 1 unnecessarily restrictive and limits competition. To provide a fair analysis of offerors’ experience across the full range of potential sites and task orders anticipated under the contract, please revise the first and second bullets under Minimum Require Experience on Page 122 of 126 from “sites regulated under CERCLA” to “sites regulated under CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, SWDA, POL, MC, or MEC.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

N62742-20-R-1801 Amendment 0004

41 Attachments J.9

Any Prime Contractor is entirely responsible for all aspects of the scope of their project and across the entire duration of the period of performance, from kickoff and client and stakeholder interaction, to planning, reporting, procurement, subcontractor oversight, task execution, safety, quality, regulatory and contractual compliance, schedule, and ultimate achievement of the objectives set for the entire scope of work on that project. This level of oversight and control is recognized and emphasized in the responsibilities defined in Section C for the key personnel and non-key personnel.

a) The instructions in the third row of each of the ten Project tables states: “…. * Do not include the cost of work performed by subcontractors or JV partners that do not have teaming agreements in this proposal.” Also, the instructions in the seventh row of each Project table states, “Do not include work performed by subcontractors or JV partners that do not have teaming agreements in this proposal.” These two statements contradict the notion of how Government contracts are executed as it excludes from consideration the sole accountability and responsibility placed by the Government client on any Prime Contractor for leading, managing, controlling, and delivering projects awarded to the Prime Contractor in compliance with the contractual terms and specifications. As such, it is unreasonable to require that offerors exclude both the cost and the effort for work performed by entities that were under the Prime Contractor’s direct control and direction. This also unfavorably limits competition. For each Project in Attachment J.9, please remove from the instructions in the third row “….* Do not include the cost of work performed by subcontractors or JV partners that do not have teaming agreements in this proposal” and remove from the seventh row “Do not include work performed by subcontractors or JV partners that do not have teaming agreements in this proposal.”

The referenced statements were deleted in Amendment 0003. Refer to revised Attachment J.9 in Amendment 0003.

Page 125 of 126.

Para (3) subpara a states “A subcontractor’s past performance may be submitted for evaluation where the prime contractor provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement that creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor.” Subpara c. states “A subcontractor’s past performance will be given less consideration than a prime contractor’s past performance. The level of consideration will depend on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor’s commitment to the contract and legal accountability….”

a) By what measure is “…the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor’s commitment to the contract and legal accountability….” measured or evaluated?

b) If an Offeror provides the required “…evidence of a legally binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement that creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor…” then this results in a direct relationship between the Subcontractor and the Government. As the Offeror is the Prime Contractor accountable to NAVFAC for fulfilling the contract and the RFP Section C scope of work, then any work performed by any of the Offeror’s subcontractors also falls under the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Therefore, any project(s) presented by that Subcontractor should be considered equally to projects presented by the prime contractor. Please replace the first two sentences in subpara c. with the following: “A subcontractor’s past performance will be given equal consideration to the prime contractor’s past performance.”

a. Section M5(3)d(3)c has been revised to state "The Government reserves the right to consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor, but if the Government chooses to do so, a subcontractor's past performance will be given less consideration than a prime contractor's past performance..."

b. Section M5(3)a(5) has been revised to state "The Government reserves the right to consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor. If the Government chooses to do so, the subcontractor’s experience and past performance will not be given the same level of consideration as either the prime contractor or a joint venture partner."

43 114 of 126, Section L2

4) RFP Page 114 of 126, Section L2. This requires JVs, LLCs and LTDs to provide a “detailed statement signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each firm outlining the following…” Para 2. requires Offerors to describe “The management approach in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise, and control and the controlling partner’s authority to obligate the entity.”

a) How will the information provided in response to Para 2 be evaluated?

The requested information will be evaluated in accordance with the stated references to Joint Ventures throughout Section M.

44 Factor 2 Safety Please confirm that fatality, DART, and TCR data are only required for the specified calendar years (CY2016-CY2020) and not for the 5-year timeframe through the issuance date of this solicitation, e.g., 2021 year-to-date.

The referenced section remains unchanged. Information shall be submitted for the specified calendar years (CY2016-2020).

Clause H21, ORGANIZATIO

NAL

CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

In the solicitation prevents the contractor awarded the contract under this solicitation and its affiliates from preparing scopes of work under this contract and then later bidding on work covered by that scope of work under this contract or any other contract. However, there does not appear to be a prohibition for a contractor that has prepared a scope of work under another contract from bidding on that scope of work if it is issued under this contract. Nor does the solicitation include any language that would prohibit a contractor that regularly prepares remedial designs or specifications, or that performs Title II oversight under Architect-Engineer (A-E) contracts from performing work under this contract. Is it the intent of the Navy to allow contractors who hold NAVFAC Environmental A-E contracts (e.g., CLEAN, CERCLA/RCRA, Multi-Media Environmental Compliance Contracts) and their affiliates to be participants in the bidding of this contract?

Contractors that meet the requirements of the solicitation may sumbit a proposal.

Section III, Appendices, Appendix D - Pre-award Survey Information

Under "Appendix D - Pre-award Survey Information," the first paragraph states: “The following information shall be submitted in a separate envelope marked “Pre-Award Survey.” Should the envelope be bound into Volume I, Section III, Appendix D, or included as a completely separate envelope? If a completely separate envelope is required, is only an original required, or are an original plus three paper copies and two CDs required?

Pre-Award Survey envelopes shall be bound into Volume I, Section III, Appendix D.

Attachment J.10 Offeror’s Key Personnel Experience/Qual ifications

Please confirm that item “c. Start and Completion date of the project” under each project in the key personnel resumes should be the project start/completion dates, and not the dates that the person worked on the project. Confirmed. Dates provided shall be the project start and project completion dates.

48 Attachment J Forms

The instructions for Volume I state that “Offerors shall not deviate from the basic format of the forms identified in this solicitation.” Several of the cost forms have margins and Custom Scaling applied such that when printed, the effective font size is very small (8 point or smaller in most cases). Please confirm that we are not to change the font size, page size, margins, or scaling of the government-supplied forms, and that the forms do not need to comply with the requirement for “typewritten” pages to have 11-12 font size in Volume I and 11 point font in Volume II.

Confirmed. Do not change the font size, page size, margins, or scaling of the government-supplied cost attachments. Contractors must ensure they provide the government-supplied cost attachments in Microsoft Excel format on the CDs.

49 May a list of acronyms be provided with our proposal to assist the evaluators in their review? Refer to answer for Questions 1 and 2 on Amendment 0003.

50 Would the government please consider extending the deadline for submitting questions to 2-3 working days after releasing the Q&A? This will give Offerors a chance to ask follow-up questions if needed. Deadline for submitting questions is not extended.

SF33 Block 9.

Proposal Due Date

1) Offerors are awaiting responses to numerous questions regarding the RFP submission requirements, evaluation criteria, definitions, and other critical areas of the RFP that will impact Offerors’ proposals. With just two weeks remaining until the current proposal due date, the pending Government responses and clarifications leave Offerors very little time to finalize their proposals for this important NAVFAC Pacific single-award best value procurement.

a) To allow all Offerors adequate time to review, address, and incorporate the forthcoming Government responses and any RFP amendments into their proposals, and to ensure best value and adequate competition, we respectfully request NAVFAC Pacific extend the proposal due date to 02 July, 2021.

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

Page 121 of 126, b.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE,

Para (2) bullet c.

regarding Attachment J.10.

This states in part “....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….” The Attachment J.10 does not accommodate space for a letter of commitment, and the RFP does not specify where letters of commitment shall be included.

a) Please confirm the required letters of commitment for key personnel shall be included within the section / tab containing the Attachment J.10 forms.

Per Amendment 0004, Section M5(3)b.(2)c. has been revised to state, "...key personnel that does not currently work for the Offeror. Letters of commitment shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages and shall be submitted with Attachment J.10.

The letter of commitment page limit does not apply toward the overall page limit of Attachment J.10..."

53 Page 120 of 126.

Para (4) requires “If an Offeror is utilizing or relying on experience or past performance information from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent companies/LLC/LTD member companies (where their name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly explain the nature of the involvement of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm/LLC/LTD member companies in the performance of the contract. The proposal shall state the specific resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will commit toward the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated in the proposal, the affiliate, subsidiary or parent company’s experience or past performance and/or key personnel information will not be considered.” The RFP does not specify where the above information is to be provided.

a) Please confirm the required information required by Para (4) shall be included within the section/ tab for Factor 1 Specialized Experience.

Per Amendment 0004, Section M5(3)a.(4) has been revised to add, "Documentation shall be limited to five (5) single-sided pages and shall be included within Volume II, Factor 1."

Page 121 of 126, b.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE,

Para (2) bullet c

Regarding Attachment J.10. This states in part “....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….”.

a) Please confirm the required letters of commitment for key personnel is not page counted.

Refer to answer for Question 52.

55 Page 120 of 126.

Para (4) requires “If an Offeror is utilizing or relying on experience or past performance information from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent companies/LLC/LTD member companies (where their name is not exactly as stated on the SF33), the proposal shall clearly explain the nature of the involvement of the affiliate/subsidiary /parent firm/LLC/LTD member companies in the performance of the contract. The proposal shall state the specific resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will commit toward the performance of the contract….”

a) Please confirm the detailed information required by Para (4) is not page counted.

Refer to answer for Question 53.

Page 112 of 126, Appendix D – Pre-award Survey Information

The financial information and supporting documents are required “for the prime and each party to a joint venture”. The RFP states the information “shall be submitted in a separate envelope marked ‘Pre-Award Survey’”.

a) Shall the required information and documents be further separated in different envelopes for each party to a joint venture?

Yes, due to the Pre-Award survey containing financial information please separate for each party to a joint venture.

Page 121 of 126, b.

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE,

Para (2) bullet

(2) a requires the use of Attachment J.8 for “submission of no more than eight (8) recent, relevant projects completed or substantially completed within the last five (5) years that individually or collectively are similar in scope, complexity, and size to the work described in Section C.” Separately, under bullet (2) b., it requires the use of 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) To ensure consistency across the Attachment J.8 and Attachment J.9 requirements, and properly demonstrate the contractor’s capabilities and experience across the Section scope, please modify the RFP instructions for Attachment J.8 project experience forms from “no more than eight (8) recent,relevant projects” to “a minimum of eight (8), and no more than ten (10) recent, relevant projects”. In this approach, the same number of projects can be presented for evaluation in Attachment J.8 forms and Attachment J.9 forms.

Refer to Amendment 0003 for current versions of referenced attachments. Specified number of required projects for each attachment remains unchanged.

58 Attachments J.8, J.9, and J.10 were modified in Amendment 0003 to include clear instructions on the page limitations based on single-sided pages. Please confirm that the government wishes to receive these forms printed single-sided, and not printed double-sided in accordance with FAR 52.204-4, which is incorporated by reference in Section I.

Confirmed that Attachments J.8. J.9, and J.10 shall be printed single-sided. Refer to instructions on Attachments J.8, J.9, and J.10 in Amendment 0003 for page limitiations.

Attachment J.8 Specialized Recent Project/Contract Experience Information:

Amendment 0003 modified the list of positions under “Key Personnel Assigned for Duration of Project/Contract” and those now mirror the Key Personnel in the solicitation. Please confirm that we are supposed to list only key personnel for whom resumes are provided in Attachment J.10 in that field in both Attachments J.8 and J.9.

Confirmed. Key personnel information included in Attachments J.8 and J.9 shall be consistent with the proposed key personnel in Attachment J.10.

Attachment J.9:

Workload Experience Form

The answer to Q&A 13c states that only one JV member is required to complete Attachment J.9, and refers to Section M5(3)a.(7). Section M5(3)a.(7) states that projects may be submitted for any of the Joint Venture members.

Please confirm that Attachment J.9 may include projects from both Joint Venture members. We understand that the 10-page limit applies to this form regardless if projects are provided from one or more Joint Venture members.

Confirmed, Attachment J.9 may include projects from both JV members, although the minimum requirements for Attachment J.9 must collectively be met by at least one of the JV members.

Attachment J.9:

Workload Experience Form

Please confirm that the “Award amount performed by the Offeror’s current team” should be the total contract value of the project if the Offeror or Offeror’s team member was the prime contractor, or the value of the subcontract if the Offeror or Offeror’s team member was a subcontractor on the project.

Confirmed that "Award amount performed by the Offeror's current team" should reflect the value of the contract performed by the current team. Refer to Attachment J.9 *note, which states that, "Offeror’s current team includes: Personnel currently employed by the Offeror, Key Personnel with letters of commitment provided in the proposal, and personnel currently employed by the JV/LLC/subcontractors where legally binding agreements have been provided in the proposal."

62 Attachments J.8 and J.9

As a follow-up to Q&A 12b and c, both forms have a requirement to “Describe the work that WAS NOT performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team.” Please confirm that, assuming the project was performed by a project team, the majority of which still work for the Offeror, we should include in this section the work that the project team subcontracted and did not self-perform, as this would be the only work not performed by employees not with the Offeror. If the requirement is to describe tasks that were performed by personnel that are no longer employed by the Offeror, please provide further guidance on what level of detail is needed. For example, should this just take into consideration the key personnel positions in this solicitation (Program Manager, Senior Project Manager, etc.), or personnel at all corporate, program, project, and field levels?

Confirmed.

63 Section L3 Amendment 0003 noted that additional amendment(s) are forthcoming, to include answers to additional questions.

Would the government please consider extending the deadline for submitting questions to 2-3 working days after releasing the Q&A? This will give Offerors a chance to ask follow-up questions if needed.

Refer to answer for Question 50.

Amendment 03, response to Q&A#8. Item b

By maintaining the recency definition of five (5) years of the RFP issuance date for projects presented in Factor 1 Corporate Experience (Attachment J.8 and Attachment J.9), we foresee potentially unintended consequences, negatively impacting the Government’s ability to obtain best value solutions over the duration of the contract term while providing fair and open competition to all responsible small businesses entitled to submit offers under this NAICS 562910 set-aside. When coupled with other key elements of the Basis of Evaluation, the 5-year experience/ past performance recency limitation heavily favors the current incumbent NAVFAC Pacific SBRAC Contractor.

Beyond the minimum required experience for Factor 1, the RFP defined more favorable ratings for work performed for the Navy/ Marine Corps and in the preferred locations of Guam, Hawaii, California, and the Northern Marianas Islands and under a Cost contract for a federal agency can only be demonstrated by the current NAVFAC Pacific SBRAC Contractor. Other than the current SBRAC, no other cost IDIQ contract has been solicited/ awarded within the NAVFAC PAC AOR within the last 10 years. As such, no other Offerors can be considered comparable to the incumbent.

a) We recognize the Navy’s intention to obtain fair competition and best value from all qualified contractors that can demonstrate experience performing similar services successfully under contracts, particularly for the Navy/ Marine Corps in these preferred locations, and with the proven experience implementing diverse technologies, adopting innovative actions that result in cost savings, and achieving superior results for the Government. To achieve these objectives, we recommend the Government to reconsider their response to Question #8, item b., by amending the recency definition to ten (10) years from the solicitation issuance date, matching what has already been accepted for Key Personnel experience (Attachment J.10).

The referenced section remains unchanged.

Amendment 03, response to Q&A#13. Item c

Please confirm the Offeror shall submit one Attachment J.9 form to include projects performed by the Offeror/Joint Venture/ LLC members. Confirmed.

Amendment 03.

Proposal Due date

There remains still a significant number of Offeror questions that have not been answered in Amendment 03. To allow Offerors to prepare compliant best value proposals, we respectfully request that the proposal due date be extended to fall on a date two weeks (14 working days) following the issuance of the final remaining Offeror questions and remaining RFP revisions.

The referenced section remains unchanged.