21-R-1801 QA AMD2.pdf

Q ue st io n # Reference/Section

(Page #, etc.) Question Government Response

1 Page 99 of 115 of the

RFP

states that proposals shall be typewritten using 11-point font. The provided attachments (i.e., for project experience, resumes, etc.) use 10-point font. Are offerors allowed to respond using 10-point font as provided in the attachments?

Refer to Section L which states "The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11 point font." Per Amendment 0001, Attachments J-3, J-4, J-5, and J-6 have been revised.

2 L2 Proposal Submission Instructions

Because of the health concerns regarding COVID-19 and government/company policies of having non-essential personnel work from home, we respectfully request that USACE eliminate the requirement of hard copies and CDs for the proposal. With reduced staff and locally mandated work from home requirements, it is difficult to produce and deliver a hardcopy submittal. For example, industry is experiencing limitations with vendors that provide us with binders, tabs, and associated hard-copy materials. In order to produce a hard copy, we would also need our employees to work together in a confined space area while printing and performing a quality check of the printing. This would not permit us to maintain social distancing.

Additionally, mailing the proposal from the mainland may cause delays. To ensure a safe and timely arrival of the proposal, we request that USACE change the solicitation to require us to submit the document via electronic email, DoD SAFE, or similar means. This will allow the Government to receive the document in the safest manner for all concerned.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

3 Attachment J-7

May previously completed PPQs, provided they include all of the same information as the standard NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0, be submitted in lieu of newly completed PPQs for projects in Factor 3, Past Performance that do not have a CPARS? Most small businesses are using the same projects for more than one proposal. Additionally, many of our government and other clients are still working from home or are furloughed. The ability to use existing PPQs will reduce the burden on our clients for completing and logistics of obtaining PPQs for the same project for multiple solicitations.

Previously completed PPQs, in the format included in the solicitation as Attachment J-7 which meet the recent and relevant criteria as stated in the RFP, will be allowed and may be submitted; however, per Section M6(3)d.(2)b. "Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposals PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs…"

4 SF33 Block 9. Proposal Due Date

The subject solicitation was released 1 week prior to the Memorial Day weekend holiday. Many staff have travel plans around the holiday weekend, resulting in lost days in preparing a response to the solicitation. As a result, we respectfully request a 1-week extension to the submittal date to provide adequate time to prepare a response.

Per Amendment 0002, the solicitation is extended. Revised proposal due date is specified on Amendment 0002 Page 2.

5 Please confirm that is it allowable to include an acronym list within the proposal and that it is excluded from page count.

An acronym list is allowable in Volume I per Section L2(2)A. Please refer to Section L2(2)B for solicitation submittal requirements and page limitations in Volume II.

The hard copy submittal and number of copies requires considerable time for production and QC review prior to submission. Shipping the hard copies also adds a couple of days. These factors—coupled with a Monday due date and allowance of questions to be submitted up until 10 working days prior to the due date—condenses the time allowed to prepare a quality proposal. We respectfully request that the Navy extend the due date by 2 weeks to allow sufficient time to receive and review answers to questions, and support time for quality hard copy production and shipping.

Refer to answer for Question 4.

7 Section C, Page 6 Para 1.3.3

Can key personnel positions be dual-hatted? For example, can the Program Manager also be a Project Manager? Only one (1) individual shall be submitted for each Key Personnel position for this solicitation.

8 Section C, Page 6 Para 1.3.3(c)

This paragraph states “The qualified individual for this position shall have as a minimum: Professional certification as a Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE), Certified Quality Engineer (CQE), or Certified Quality Auditor (CQA) by the American Society for Quality is desired.” Can the Lean Six Sigma Black Belt by the Council for Six Sigma Certification be substituted for this requirement?

No, the subsitution is not acceptable.

N62742-21-R-1801 Amendment 0002

9 Section C, Page 8 Para 1.3.5.3

Paragraph 1.3.5.3 states that “All key personnel, with the exception of the QAM and HSM, must be prime Contractor personnel.” Will more favorable consideration in evaluation be given if the QAM and/or HSM are prime Contractor personnel?

No, more favorable consideration will not be given if the QAM and/or HSM are prime Contractor personnel.

10 Section J, Page 103- Attachment J-6

Attachment J-6 states “As required by Section M, paragraph M6.3.b(2)(d), fill in the names of all key personnel to be assigned responsibility for the services bulleted in Section C, paragraph 1.2.3.a and the firm that employs that key personnel.” Did the government want the services only listed in Section C paragraph 1.2.3.a or all of paragraph 1.2.3?

Section M6.3.b(2)(d) is specifically referring to the services listed in Section C, paragraph 1.2.3.a.

11 Vol II Can the bidder provide a one-page introduction to the team along with the corporate information?

Per revised Section L2, Paragraph B, "A coversheet, listing of team members, and introductory sheets shall be limited to three (3) pages in total (one-page each)." The Offerer can include an introduction to the team here; however, any additional personnel information provided but not requested in Volume II of the RFP will not be considered.

12 Factor 3 Past Performance

If CPARS are only available for the IDIQ contract and not specific task order projects, is the contract-level CPARS acceptable, or shall we submit a PPQ for the particular project in Factor 1 Experience?

Per Section M6.3.a.(1), the projects submitted for Factor 3 (Attachment J-7) should support the projects listed under Factor 1 (Attachment J-3). Refer to Section M6(3)a.(1)A. which states "The submission of information or the description of the scope of a Basic IDIQ contract will not be considered a relevant project..."

13 SF33 Block 9. Proposal Due Date

Would the government consider an extension to 30 June 2021 for proposal submittal to account for the additional time needed to obtain new PPQs with most government respondents working remotely and given the requirement for submittal of hard copies?

Refer to answer for Question 4.

14 Factor 1- Experience Per the Section M evaluation factors, since as a minimum, only 5 types of service described in Section C are required, is there any Section C requirements that are weighted higher than others in the evaluation than others?

There is no weight assigned to the minimum qualification for minimum required experience.

15 Attachment J-4

Should major subcontractors/teaming partners also complete Attachment J-4, Workload Form? If allowed, will their Workload Forms be evaluated equally to the Prime and will the major subcontractors/teaming partner workload be combined with the Prime’s workload to demonstrate the total capacity of the entire team?

Prime contractor-subcontractor teams/Joint Ventures/LLCs/LTDs with a binding teaming agreement or contractual agreement can submit Attachment J-4 to demonstrate a history of working successfully together to deliver on-schedule products.

The pre-award survey requests, “the company’s last three complete fiscal years’ financial statements, audited, reviewed, or compiled by an independent accounting firm, including the accounting firm’s cover letter and full disclosure notes for the prime and each party to a joint venture.” Several local small business Hawaii firms that may participate as a member of a Joint Venture do not have audited financial information.

Will you accept a State of Hawaii Department of Transportation acceptance of the company rates and 3 years of unaudited financials, as long as the firm is willing for the government to review all financials?

Refer to Section L, Appendix A paragraph a, "...financial statements, audited, reviewed or compiled."

17 Please confirm that all bidders should use the Wage Determinations (Davis Beacon and the Service Contract Act) provided in the Solicitation.

Per Amendment 0002, Section J has been revised to delete Service Contract Labor Standards Statute Wage Determination No. 2015-5693 (Attachment JH.3). Contractors shall use Service Contract Labor Standards Statute Wage Determination No. 2015-5689 (Attachement JH.1) and Construction Wage Rate Requirementts Statute General Decision No. HI20210001 (Attachment JH.2) in their proposal.

18 If a Joint Venture has applied for a CAGE code through SAM but has not received it by the due date of submittal, will a submittal will be accepted as long as the CAGE code is in place prior to award?

Refer to FAR 52.204-7 and 52.204-16(b). Offerors must be registered in SAM at time of proposal submission

19 Paragraph B of Section L2 of the RFP states “The proposal shall be typewritten, using 11-point font.” However, the files provided by the government for Attachments J-3 through J-6 are in 10-point font. Please confirm that for the attachments, the 10-point font as included in the templates with the RFP is acceptable.

Refer to answer for Question 1.

20 Paragraph B of Section L2 of the RFP states: “The coversheet and listing of team members shall be limited to two (2) pages in total (one-page each).” There are no other references to a coversheet or listing of teaming members in the RFP.

However, following this paragraph there is a bulleted list of showing the general format Non-Price Proposals should be organized in. The first two items are “Cover page” and then “Listing of Corporate names and points of contact information (including Joint Ventures if applicable).” Can the government please clarify the requirement for the “listing of team members” and where this should be included in the proposal? Is this the same requirement at the “Listing of Corporate names?”

Refer to answer for Question 11.

Throughout the RFP page limits for sections are defined as a number of “page(s) double-sided.” For example, “The combined submittal for Attachment J-4 shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages.” Please confirm that this means the following: paper copies are 1 sheet of paper with print on both sides and electronic copy is 2 pages.

Correct. One (1) piece of paper with print on both sides is two (2) pages.

Attachment J-3, Specialized Recent

Project/Contract Experience Information

The instructions at the top of the form state “The Government will consider contract/project information provided in the CPARS/Past Performance Questionnaire (Sections 1 through 4) when evaluating project/contract experience.” If basic contract information in the CPARS is outdated (e.g., period of performance extended, contract value modified), should we provide an explanation of those differences in Factor 3?

The Offeror may provide an explanation in Attachment J-3, if the information is outdated.

Attachment J-3, Specialized Recent

Project/Contract Experience Information

The last question in the form states: “Provide any other information about this recent project or contract experience that will assist the government to evaluate your ability to perform the complexity, scope, volume/size, and/or location of work described in this solicitation.” If complexity, scope, volume/size, and location were described elsewhere on the form, do we need to summarize it again in this space? Or should we only include that type of information if it wasn’t addressed in previous answers?

If the complexity, scope, volume/size, and location were already provided, it doesn't need to be stated again.

Attachment J-4, Workload Experience Form

Per the solicitation, we are to “Use Attachment J-4 to describe capability and capacity to deliver on-schedule products similar to the type and complexity of the tasks described in Section C of this solicitation assuming a workload of at least five (5) projects totaling a minimum of $5 million at multiple locations within the solicitation area of responsibility occurring concurrently.” To align the data required in the form with the evaluation criteria, please confirm that the “Cost of the work that was performed by the Offeror’s team” should be the 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.

Correct.

25 Attachments J-3 and J-4

Both forms have a variation of “Describe the work that WAS NOT performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team.” Please confirm that this should be the work subcontracted to firms other than proposed FRAC team partners for projects performed as a prime contractor, and/or work performed by non-FRAC JV partners or prime contractors for projects performed as a JV or a subcontractor.

Correct.

26 Attachments J-3 through J-6

The instructions for the Volume I Price Volume forms state that “Offerors shall not deviate from the basic format of the forms identified in this solicitation.” Please confirm that Offerors may make modifications to the forms in Volume II Non-Price Factors as long as the basic information required by the forms is provided.

For example, the instructions at the top of each form may be removed, the detailed labels in the forms may be shortened, and the row heights and column widths adjusted. This will allow us to meet the page limitations by maximizing space to provide detailed information in response to the requirements

Offerors shall not remove instructions at the top of the forms nor remove text provided in the Attachments. Modifying the column height and adjusting paragraph indentations are allowed;

however, the Offeror's narrative content shall remain 11-point font.

27 Attachments J-3 through J-6

If we are not allowed to make structural changes to the Volume II forms, please confirm that we may adjust the paragraph indentation within the prescribed forms. For example, in Attachment J-5, the paragraph right indentation on the cells for the project information is 0.4”, which is creating 9% blank space within each cell (0.4” of 4.4” 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.). One of the cells in Attachment J-3 has a similar issue

Refer to answer for Question 26.

Attachment J-4, Workload Experience Form

We understand that we are to list at least 5 relevant, concurrent projects totaling a minimum of $5 million at multiple locations within NAVFAC Pacific’s AOR. The Basis of Evaluation does not describe how this form will be scored. Will offerors be provided the highest evaluation if they have 5 projects that total over $5 million, or will they be evaluated more highly for showing 10 projects totaling $10 million, for example?

Refer to revised section M6(3)b.(3)f, which states "Offerors who demonstrate a substantial amount of concurrent projects containing various remedies and in excess of $5 million in value may be considered more favorably."

Attachment J-5 Offeror’s Key Personnel

Experience/Qualification s

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.

Correct, dates provided shall be project start and project completion dates.

30 Attachment J-6, Key Personnel Assignments

The instructions and third column state that we are to provide assigned responsibility for Section C paragraph 1.2.3.a services. Would the government consider stating “Section C paragraph 1.2.3.a” instead of “Section C” on Attachments J-3, J-4, and J-5 as well? This will reduce the amount of information provided and focus on the key requirements of this contract.

Although Attachments J-3, J-4, J-5 and J-6 have been revised, the referenced "Section C" verbiage for Attachments J-3, J-4, and J-5 remains unchanged.

31 Attachment J-6, Key Personnel Assignments

The instructions state “Consider the Basis of Evaluation criteria set forth at Section C, paragraph 1.2 and paragraph 1.3.3.” 1.3.3 provides the “desired education and experience qualifications for key personnel.”

Can the government please clarify what Basis of Evaluation paragraph 1.2 is referring to for Key Personnel?

Per Amendment 0002, Attachment J-6 has been revised.

32 Factor 1 Experience Only the submittal requirements for Attachment J-4 mention the solicitation area of responsibility. The Basis of Evaluation does not specifically mention that experience in the AOR may be evaluated more highly in Factor 1. Please confirm that this is intentional and not an oversight

Refer to revised section M6(3)b(3)e.

33 Factor 1 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

Refer to section M6(3)a.(5)

34 Factor 2 Safety Please confirm that fatality, DART, and TCR data are only required for the specified calendar years (CY2015-CY2019) and not for the 5-year timeframe through the issuance date of this solicitation, e.g., CY2020 and 2021 year-to-date.

Correct.

35 Factor 3 Past Performance

Please confirm that CPARS/PPQs are only required for the 5 projects provided in Attachment J-3 and not all the projects provided in Attachment J-4 as well. Correct.

Volume I, Section III, Appendices, Appendix A

- Pre-award Survey Information

Under "Appendix A - 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 A, or included as a completely separate envelope? If a completely separate envelope is required, is only an original paper copy required, or are five paper copies and two CDs required?

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

37 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 Submission deadline as referenced in Section L1 remains unchanged.

38 SF33 Block 9. Proposal Due Date

Would the government consider staggering the due date for this solicitation to at least two weeks beyond solicitation number N62742-20-R-1801 (the Environmental Remedial Action Contract)? Since both solicitations are small business set-asides and are for environmental remedial action work within the same AOR, it is likely that some small businesses would like to pursue both solicitations, but may have to choose to pursue only one contract due to the effort required by these two proposals and the current due dates being within 5 days of each other.

Refer to answer for Question 4.

39 Attachment J.5 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 the basic IDIQ contract for the Program Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Health and Safety Manager key personnel positions, but not the 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 contractors that have held this contract for the last five years, 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.5 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.5 for the reasons stated herein.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

40 Attachment J-3 instructs proposers to Provide the following information on a maximum of five (5) recent, relevant projects to demonstrate the Prime contractor’s experience.

a) Reference to “recent” poses a restrictive time-bound constraint that uniquely favors the incumbent contractors that have held held this contract for the last five years, does not permit all offerors to clearly demonstrate directly relevant experience in these key roles, and unnecessarily limits competition. “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.3 for the reasons stated herein.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

RFP Page 99 of 115, Item B for Volume II

NON-PRICE FACTORS

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.

All content provided in Volume II shall be typewritten, using 11-point font.

RFP Page 113 of 115, Para d. EVALUATION

FACTOR 3 - PAST

PERFORMANCE

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.3 and Attachment J.4. 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.3.

Correct.

RFP Page 93 of 115, VOLUME I - COST

PROPOSAL

Please verify that the Table of Contents and any List of Acronyms and Abbreviations are not page counted. Per Section L2(2)A, "There is no page limit for Volume 1."

RFP Page 99 of 115, Para 3. VOLUME II –

NON PRICE FACTORS

(FACTORS 1, 2, 3)

a) Please verify that the Table of Contents and any List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, the cover page, list of corporate names and points of contact info, and copies of JV agreements are not page counted.

b) Para 1. instructs offers to use a font size of 11 point for the Volume II proposal; however, all attachments utilize a font size of 10 point. Please confirm we may complete these forms utilizing 10 point font size.

a. Refer to Section L2(2)B for solicitation submittal requirements and page limitations in Volume II.

b. Refer to answer for Question 1.

45 RFP Page 111 of 115, 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 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 sections remain unchanged.

RFP Page 111 of 115, EVALUATION

FACTOR 2 –- SAFETY

a) 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.

RFP Page 93 of 115, VOLUME I / Page 99 of

115. 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.2 PROPOSAL SUMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 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.

a. The referenced section remains unchanged.

b. The referenced section remains unchanged.

48 RFP Page 109 of 115, 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 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 contractors who has held this contract for the last 5+ years in the NAVFAC Pacific Area of Responsibility (AOR). This is unduly restrictive, 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 PAGE 109 OF 115 (3) NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS 1, 2, 3 submission requirements to extend the recency to ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The referenced section remains unchanged.

RFP Page 110 OF 115

EVALUATION

FACTOR 1,

EXPERIENCE

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

Refer to answer for Question 11.

50 Attachments J.3, J.4, and J.5

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.3.

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.5 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.

Refer to answer for Question 26.

51 RFP Page 113 of 126, Para 3. Bullet b solicits “...all information required by Factor 1 - Corporate Experience,” however; Attachments J.3 and J.4 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 five (5) 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.3 and J.4 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.3 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.3 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.”

a) Correct, this gives the Government an indication of how much of the work was performed by the Offeror.

b) The referenced section remains unchanged.

c) The referenced section remains unchanged.

d) As stated in Section C, key personnel are the Program Manager, Project Manager, QAM, and HSM.

e) Key personnel positions for this solicitation are Program Manager, Project Manager, QAM, and HSM. For the purpose of this solicitation, the Government is only interested in evaluating these positions.

52 RFP Page 121 of 126, Para b. (2) Bullet b states “Use Attachment J.4 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 $5 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.4 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 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.4 form?

The bullet referenced requests information for at least five (5) projects, not ten (10).

a) Per Amendment 0002, M6(3)b(2)b. is revised to remove the term "on- schedule".

b) The referenced section remains unchanged.

c) It is not a requirement.

53 SF33 Block 9. Proposal Due Date

1) 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.3, J.4 and J.5 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 following final answers of all submitted questions.

Refer to answer for Question 4.

Section L3 JOINT

VENTURES (JV),

LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANIES (LLC),

LIMITED

PARTNERSHIPS

(LTD), ETC

of solicitation requires the submittal of additional documentation regarding business entity types

a. A copy of the JV, LLC or LTD agreement.

b. A detailed statement signed by the appropriate individual(s) of each firm outlining the following in terms of percentages where appropriate:

Are these two separate submission or is item “b” the information that is required to be included in the JV, LLC, or LTD agreement? If the JV agreement contains all the requirements noted in “b” will that satisfy the requirements for L.3?

The contractor has the flexibility on how to present the required information.

55 Attachments JL.1A, JL.1 Are Attachments JL.1A, JL.1 required to be submitted for an unpopulated JV, even though there would be no rates? Reference the Note located in section L2(2)A(b).

56 Are explanations required for how the various rates for the Fringe, Overhead, G&A, and the multipliers developed? No

57 In which proposal volume and where do we describe the team members and Key Subcontractor(s)? Is there a limited number of pages for this description? This information can be found in Section C, Section L, Section M and the Attachments.

58 Is an organizational chart required and if so in which volume should it be presented in? No, an organizational chart is not required.

59 Attachment J-2 Given the CIA Security Requirements included in Attachment J-2, is a DD Form 254 required for this proposal?

No, the CIA Security Requirements in Attachment J-2 only apply to Contract Task Orders (CTOs) awarded after the basic contracts are awarded.

60 Page 94 of 115 the Solicitation requires including Cage Code, DUNS, and tax ID number for the JV as well as each JV member. We are proposing as a joint venture of two small companies, and we have applied to obtain a tax ID very early on but to date, we have not received the tax ID for the JV that is needed before we can obtain a DUNS number and Cage Code for the JV. This is mainly because IRS processing time has been significantly affected due to Covid-19 schedule changes. We are currently able to provide this information for each JV member but not for the JV itself. Would it be acceptable if we provide the JV tax ID, DUNS number and the Cage Code at a later date?

Refer to FAR 52.204-7 and 52.204-16(b). Offerors must be registered in SAM at time of proposal submission

61 SF33 Block 9. Proposal Due Date

We would like to request an extension of the due date for the proposal. The client representatives have not been as readily available to respond to our requests for PPQs. In addition, collecting the information needed for a proposal of this magnitude demands more time and effort due to our staff working remotely due to Covid-19.

Refer to answer for Question 4.

ATTACHMENT J-4:

WORKLOAD

EXPERIENCE FORM

asks: “Describe the work that WAS NOT performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team and provide a $ value associated with the work.*”.

Please clarify if this questions is regarding only the professional labor support on the project and does not include equipment, material, ODCs, travel and specialty vendor services

Correct

ATTACHMENT J-4:

WORKLOAD

EXPERIENCE FORM

asks: “Cost of the work that was performed by the Offeror’s team.”

Please clarify if this questions is regarding only the professional labor support on the project and does not include equipment, material, ODCs, travel and specialty vendor services

Correct

64 Does this solicitation apply to the Northwest Firing Range as well? It is unlikely that this contract would be used to cleanup a firing range

REF: For RFP Form, J-

4, WORKLOAD

EXPERIENCE, block 7

“Describe the work that WAS NOT performed by personnel currently on the Offeror’s team and provide a $ value associated with the work.”

Please confirm the Government is requesting Offerors to describe the work performed by a subcontracted firm or personnel to the Prime Contractor and provide the associated $ value of this work that was performed by these entities that not currently part of an Offerors’ proposed FRAC 7 team

Correct

RFP Page 99 of 115, B.

VOLUME II- NON-

PRICE FACTORS

(FACTORS 1, 2 AND 3)

Solicitation submittal requirement list of content for Volume II refers to “Copies of joint venture agreements” under the fourth bullet. The JV, LLC, LTD agreement is already requested in Volume I Price Proposal per RFP page 94 of 115 (to be placed in Section I Standard Form 33 under Tab 2; and detailed further in Section L3

a. Similar RFPs have requested the JV/Operating Agreements and Teaming Agreements to only be included in the Price Proposal. Please confirm the JV/ LLC/ LTD agreement is only required to be provided in the Volume I Price Proposal.

Please provide copies of JV agreements in Volume II as requested.

2. RFP Page 110 of 115.

b. EVALUATION

FACTOR 1 –

EXPERIENCE. Item (2)

a. Bullet a. This statement provides conflicting instructions “…The Offeror shall not submit more than one

(1) page double-sided per project. If more than one (1) page is submitted, the agency will not consider the information on the additional pages.” Please confirm that the Attachment J-3 form is limited to 2 pages total for each project.

b. Bullet b. states “The combined submittal for Attachment J-4 shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages.” Please confirm the Attachment J-4 is limited to a total of 6 pages.

c. Bullet c. states “The Offeror shall not submit more than two (2) pages double-sided per person submitted as Key Personnel.” Please confirm the Attachment J-5 is limited to a total of 4 pages total for each Key

a. Attachment J-3 shall not exceed 1 piece of paper with ink on both sides.

b. Attachment J-4 shall not exceed 3 pieces of paper with ink on both sides.

c. Attachment J-5 shall not exceed 2 pieces of paper with ink on both sides.

d. There is no page limit to Attachment J-6.

68 RFP Page 111 of 115.

Bullet e

This states “…An innovative approach should demonstrate a cost savings greater than 10% of the overall project budget and apply elements of green and sustainable remediation.”

The minimum threshold of 10% appears high when considering complex multi-million-dollar projects with multiple contaminants, technologies, or sites. Recognizing the Navy’s priority for green and sustainable remediation, we recommend this to be changed to “10% of the element of work where innovative technology is applied”

The referenced section remains unchanged as the 10% minimum threshold has been used as an evaluation criteria previously and was demonstrated as an achievable goal.