RE_ W9128F-18-2-0011 questions with answers.pdf

From: Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US) To: Rostermundt, Stephanie A CIV USARMY CENWO (US); Evans, Kali L CIV USARMY CENWO (US); Leptien, David B

CIV USARMY CENWO (US); Miller, Sarah J CIV USARMY CENWO (US) Cc: Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US); Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US) Subject: RE: W9128F-18-2-0011 questions Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:31:46 AM Attachments: 11 June revised NWO-FOA CESU 18-XX CR Tasks.docx

1-• The project description synopsis on Grants.Gov. website (24 mitigation sites only) does not match the attached PWS project description (24 mitigation sites and 71 evaluative testing sites). Which is correct? Does the PWS hold the correct information?

Answer: Yes, the PWS holds the correct information. Attached is the revised FOA with appropriate project description, my apologies for the mistake and any confusion.

2-• What has been discussed regarding Section 106 Consultation about “mitigation” previously with culturally affiliated tribes, COSHPO, and other Army stakeholders? Otherwise the 6.2 Task 2 data recovery plan reporting requirement could go “round-and-round” costing the contractor a great deal of extra time and money if there is not some previous understanding between the various parties before execution.

Answer: Each of the 24 NRHP-eligible sites for which data recovery/mitigation plans will be drafted have been the subject of Section 106 consultation regarding the effects of military training activities at these sites. The NFE will not be responsible for supporting the ongoing Section 106 consultation for these sites. As stated in the PWS (Section 6.2), there will be a preliminary draft (reviewed by the CRM) and a draft final reviewed and approved by the USAG POC (i.e. the CRM), which will then be included in the final document. The intent of the SHPO review is as a peer reviewer, not as part of the final resolution for adverse effects. If the SHPO continues to disagree with the proposed methodology, responsibility will lie with the USAG POC to continue consultations with the SHPO.

3-• Regarding 6.1, Task 1, item 4 in 4th paragraph indicates that associated artifacts will need reviewed?

What exactly does the Army have in mind regarding this? Could this information not be given to NFE/contractor via data tables related to Past Perfect narratives and keywords too?

Answer: Reviewing all relevant information, including the artifact collections - either by reviewing the artifact analysis data, photographs, or visibly looking at the material remains themselves, is part of the background research that will be conducted under Task 1. Several of these sites were first recorded and/or last visited over 20 years ago (see Project #'s in Enclosure 1). The data contained is only as good as that provided in the site documentation.

Therefore, it may be necessary to view the physical artifacts which are located in Building 2420 on Fort Carson.

4-• Regarding Task 2, what exactly does the Army view as “mitigation”? What is the specific adverse effect that will need to be considered (this will influence the nature of the data recovery plan in my mind)?

Answer: The 24 NRHP-eligible sites have been the subject of ongoing Section 106 consultation concerning effects related to military training (e.g., vehicle entries) at these sites. Per the PWS, the intent of Task 2 is to develop a mitigation plan that will support the resolution of adverse effects (as related to military training, and possibly natural impacts) in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and no longer be required to protect the site.

5-• What percent constitutes a valid testing or excavation unit sample for site excavation/mitigation in the mind of the Army?

Answer: There is no set percentage; as stated in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, the appropriate testing and excavation methodology proposed in plans will be sufficient for the evaluation of "needs data" sites and/or the mitigation of NRHP-eligible sites based on the type of site, number of features, research questions to be answered, etc.

6-• Assume there should be recommendations for Tribal consultation within data recovery plans too?

Answer: Yes. Data recovery/mitigation plans, as well as research designs, should always recommend Tribal mailto:/O=USACE EXCHANGE/OU=NWD ADMIN GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BRIAN.D.HESFORD mailto:Stephanie.A.Rostermundt@usace.army.mil mailto:Kali.L.Evans@usace.army.mil mailto:David.B.Leptien@usace.army.mil mailto:David.B.Leptien@usace.army.mil mailto:Sarah.J.Miller2@usace.army.mil mailto:Shanna.M.Comparato@usace.army.mil mailto:Timothy.J.Howland@usace.army.mil

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado

Funding Agency :

Funding Instrument:

Cooperative Agreement

US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

1616 Capitol Ave

Omaha, NE 68102

Funding Opportunity No:

NWO-CESU 18-XX

CFDA No:

12.632

Program Title: Sikes Act 670c-1

Issue Date:

1525-MAY-2018

Application Due Date:

1625-JUNE-2018

Overview:

BAT SURVEYS ATCULTURAL RESOURCES SUPPORT AT FORT CARSON & PINON CANYON MANEUVER SITE Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Bat Surveys ? more than once in this doc. Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): PM, please update Title and subject updated throughout. Verify PoP Comment by Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US): I apologize, ‘Bat Surveys’ removed; POP is correct at 18 months for this support and updated in

The purpose of this project is to provide technical support to the Fort Carson’s cultural resources management program for the development of research designs for “needs data” archaeological sites. Specifically, the NFE will develop research designs for the evaluation of 71 archaeological sites and draft a data recovery plan describing the necessary work to be completed at 24 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible archaeological sites in sufficient detail to support the mitigation of these sites in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

POP: 18 Months

Estimated Total Funding:

$162,000.00 - $180,000.00 Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): If this is an est. shouldn’t we have just one amount Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Tim, We utilize a 10% range to get more accurate proposals

Estimated Number of Awards: 1

Contents of Full Text Announcement

I.

Funding Opportunity Description

V.

Application Review Information

II.

Award Information

VI.

Award Administration Information

III.

Eligibility Information

VII.

Agency Contacts

IV.

Application Information

VIII.

Other Information

Contact Information: Questions relating to Grants.gov including the registration process and system requirements should be directed to the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726. For assistance with the requirements of this Funding Opportunity Announcement, please contact stephanie.a.rostermundt@usace.army.mil or Timothy.J.Howland@usace.army.mil HYPERLINK "mailto:elizabeth.v.wills@usace.army.mil" elizabeth.v.wills@usace.army.mil Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): No Longer an employee of USACE Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Tim, go ahead and update with your information

Instructions to Applicants:

The complete funding opportunity announcement, application forms, and instructions are available for download at Grants.gov.

Applications in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement shall be submitted by the application due date. Applications may be submitted by email to Stephanie.a.rostermundt@usace.army.mil and Timothy.J.Howland@usace.army.mil HYPERLINK "mailto:elizabeth.v.wills@usace.army.mil" elizabeth.v.wills@usace.army.mil Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): No longer an employee of USACE Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Tim, go ahead and update with your information

Applicants shall have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, register with the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

See Section IV of the Funding Opportunity Announcement for complete application submission information.

Section I: Funding Opportunity Description

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGNS AND DATA RECOVERY PLANS BAT SURVEYS ATFOR FORT CARSON & PINON CANYON MANEUVER SITE

Section II: Award Information

$162,000.00 - $180,000.00; 1 award; 18 month Period of Performance Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): If this is based off an estimate should it not be a single amount Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Tim, We utilize a 10% range to get more accurate proposals

Section III: Eligibility Information

Eligible Applicants - Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Nationwide (http://www.cesu.psu.edu/)

1. Cost Sharing – 100% USACE Funded

2. Other – n/a

Section IV: Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package

The complete funding opportunity announcement, application forms, and instructions are available for download at Grants.gov. USACE is not responsible for any loss of internet connectivity or for an applicant’s inability to access documents posted at the referenced website.

The administrative point of contact is Stephanie Rostermundt, 402-995-2083 Stephanie.A.Rostermundt@usace.army.mil

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

All mandatory forms and any applicable optional forms must be completed in accordance with the instructions on the forms and the additional instructions below.

Application shall be submitted NO LATER THAN 1525-JUNE-2018 Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): 15 or 16 june? It is stated as 15 June at the top then as 16 June througout Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): PM-please correct, throughout Comment by Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US): It’s semantics at this point, as there is no telling when this PWS will be posted. Yet, I have changed all application due dates to ’16 June’.

3. Submission Instructions

Applications may be submitted via e-mail to:

a. E-mail:

Format all documents to print on Letter (8 ½ x 11”) paper. E-mail proposal to Stephanie.A.Rostermundt@usace.army.mil

Section V: Application Review Information

Evaluation for Selection To receive consideration for award, the proposal must meet the requirements set forth in this FOA and be presented with adequate detail to assure the evaluator(s) have a good understanding of the proposed requirement(s). The Technical proposal shall be no longer than 10-pages, font 12 (This page limitation is in addition to all required forms). All questions shall be submitted no later than 15 8 JUNE 2018 at 5 PM CST.

Factors I through III will be used to assess the merits of the NFE who will receive the award of the Cooperative Agreement. The selection decision will be based upon the merits of each proposal in comparison to each factor.

Note: Each evaluation factor shall be weighed in descending order of importance. The NFE shall address all factors within their submitted proposal.

Initial Review: The Government will perform an initial review to determine that the applicant is (1) eligible in accordance with Section III of the announcement; (2) all information required by Section IV has been submitted; and (3) all mandatory elements of the SOW PWS are satisfied within the NFE proposal.

Evaluation Criteria:

a. Factor I: Past Project Performance

1. Relevance (Scope, Location, Value);

2. Technical Complexity;

3. Technical Team; and

4. Confirmation of the applicants’ performance through installation Point of Contact

ii. Other Past Performance information considered shall include:

1. SAM (www.SAM.gov) to check for suspension and/or debarment,

2. FAPIIS (https://www.fapiis.gov),

3. Past Performance history known to the agency.

b. Factor II: Technical Approach and Schedule

The NFE shall obtain all necessary permits required by the state and federal agencies to perform the tasks associated within the SOWPWS. The NFE will ensure that the proposal outlines the project team for each project.

i. The technical approach presented shall demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of southeastern Coloradothe archaeology of the Southern Plains.

ii. The NFE will ensure that the proposal outlines the requirements of the SOWPWS. This factor will be rated as acceptableconsidered satisfactory when the applicant specifically outlines:

1. Technical Approach; and

2. Timeline for project completion within the 12 18 month Period of Performance Comment by Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US): 18 months? Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): PM, review for consistency Comment by Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Noted and changed, thanks.

c. Factor III: Cost Review

The NFE shall ensure the total budget proposal does not exceed the funding amount listed in Section II and that the associated costs for the proposal are clear and easily ascertainable by the evaluator(s).

i. The NFE shall ensure the budget line items are appropriate and reasonable with the level of effort needed to accomplish the tasks listed in the SOWPWS. Cost information shall include:

1. Key Personnel with labor rates;

2. Equipment/Vehicle lease or purchase (with completion of Lease vs. Buy template for each); and

3. Associated travel costs per location, to include (if applicable):

a. Estimated flights,

b. Hotel Costs,

c. Estimated days in travel status,

d. Per diem,

e. Applicable leases,

f. Estimated fuel costs

Evaluation Ratings For evaluation of technical factors, the following adjectival ratings will be used:

PROPOSAL MERIT RATING SCALE

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

QUESTIONS

All questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions shall be submitted to Contracting no later than 15 8 JUNE 2018 at 5 PM CST.

4. Review and Selection Process

See above

5. Anticipated Award Date

Announcement Issue Date: 1525-MAY-2018

Announcement Due Date: 1525-JUNE-2018

Estimated Award Date: 266-JUNELY-2018

Section VI: Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

Written notice of award will be given in conjunction with issuance of a cooperative agreement signed by a Grants Officer. The cooperative agreement will contain the effective date of the agreement, the period of performance, funding information, and all terms and conditions. The recipient is required to sign and return the document before work under the agreement commences. Work described in this announcement SHALL NOT begin without prior authorization from a Grants Officer.

2. Administrative Requirements

The cooperative agreement issued as a result of this announcement is pursuant to the administrative requirements in reporting.

3. Reporting

Omaha District POC listed below

Section VII: Agency Contact

Stephanie Rostermundt, Grants Officer, Contracting Division

USACE, Omaha District Tel: 402-995-2083

ATTN: CECT-NWO-E

1616 Capitol Ave

Omaha, NE 68102

E-mail: Stephanie.A.Rostermundt@usace.army.mil

Shanna Comparato, Grants Specialist, Contracting Division Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Tim, ensure to include your information as well.

USACE, Omaha District Tel: 402-995-2066

ATTN: CECT-NWO-E

1616 Capitol Ave

E-mail: shanna.m.comparato@usace.army.mil

Timothy Howland, Contract Specialist, Contracting Division

USACE, Omaha District Tel: 402-995-2471

ATTN: CECT-NWO-E

1616 Capitol Ave

E-mail: timothy.j.howland@usace.army.mil

Section VIII. Substantial Involvement Comment by Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US): SI needs to be updated with information provided within the example sheet. Probably best to set up a meeting or phone call for guidance. Comment by Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US): Included.

1. The Government will be substantially involved during the performance of these activities. The recipient can expect substantial agency collaboration, participation, or intervention in project performance.

2. Substantial involvement will include providing agency review and approval required at the completion of one stage of work prior to moving on to subsequent phases.Up to 2 site visits will be performed by the Agency to collaborate/participate with the recipient in performing the project.

consultation for sites that may be of concern to federally organized, culturally affiliated Native American Tribes.

Under no task in this PWS is it anticipated or expected that the NFE will consult with Tribes.

7-• Assume there should be recommendations for a cultural landscape assessment too?

Answer: Yes, data recovery plans/mitigation plans, as well as research designs, should always consider the cultural landscape.

8-• First page of SOW says, “NFE personnel shall identify themselves as an NFE employee when answering or placing calls on a Government telephone and when leaving outgoing or incoming messages on voice mail…” This statement (and several below) makes it seem that the NFE will be working on Fort Carson?

Answer: This is standard language in all of our PWS/SOW's. Section 2.0 of the PWS does not state the Government will provide office space to the NFE. As such, paragraphs 4 - 6 on page 1, as well as Sections 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.3.10, and 1.3.11 are not relevant to the tasks under this PWS. Visitation to the installation does require an extended access pass, a daily access pass can be obtained at Gate 1, Building 6012 with valid vehicle registration, insurance and driver identification.

9-* 1.3.3 – Suggests that NFE personnel will need to access Ft. Carson? Why, if Gov. will be providing all needed as part of 2.2.

Answer: The NFE may decide it is necessary to access the Curation Facility on Fort Carson where the archaeological collections are housed and/or may decide site visits are required to adequately draft the research designs and/or mitigation plans.

10-* 1.3.4 – Suggests fieldwork is needed? Are folks anticipating a need to visit sites as part of writing plans?

If so, need Gov. to provide maps so logistics such as travel time can be factored into bid.

Answer: If the NFE decides that site visits are required in order to adequately draft the research designs and/or mitigation plans, then Section 1.3.4 states how downrange access shall be obtained.

11-* 1.3.5 – 1.3.11, 2.3 – Why a CaC and requisite training or a hand receipted radio?

Answer: With regard to the CAC and requisite training, see response to question #8 above. If the NFE decides that site visits are required in order to adequately draft the research designs and/or mitigation plans, then the Government will furnish a handheld radio to the NFE (Section 2.3). This is a safety precaution, as there is very limited cellular service available at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

12-* 2.2 Applicable site documentation will be given to contractor only after award? (how does one cost out a project without this info in first place…I guess we have the approximate # so it matters little) Answer: The site numbers, as well as site type and theme, have been provided in Enclosures 1 and 2, which is enough information to calculate an approximate cost.

13-* Deliverable schedule under “Archaeological Site Evaluation Research Design (Preliminary Draft), PWS Sec 6.1” indicates 30 research designs per month. So in the end, there will be 71 printed Task 1 research designs and not 71 in one all encompassing document? Same with the 5 p/month in Task 2, so a total of 95 electronic documents?

Answer: Yes, each research design and mitigation plan is a standalone document.

If any of the answers above warrant revising the PWS, please let me know, thanks.

V/r, Brian

Brian Hesford Project Manager/Trusted Agent Environmental Remediation Branch USACE Omaha District Office: 402-995-2759

Cell: 402-631-3246

-----Original Message----- From: Rostermundt, Stephanie A CIV USARMY CENWO (US) Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:41 PM To: Evans, Kali L CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <Kali.L.Evans@usace.army.mil>; Hesford, Brian D CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <Brian.D.Hesford@usace.army.mil>; Leptien, David B CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <David.B.Leptien@usace.army.mil>; Miller, Sarah J CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <Sarah.J.Miller2@usace.army.mil> Cc: Comparato, Shanna M CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <Shanna.M.Comparato@usace.army.mil>; Howland, Timothy J CIV USARMY CENWO (US) <Timothy.J.Howland@usace.army.mil> Subject: W9128F-18-2-0011 questions

Below are questions for the above referenced solicitation. Please provide responses NLT 10AM 14 June 2018.

Please vet any responses received from the Customer to be sure they are in complete sentence format, not specific to a particular IHE/NFE, answers are definitive, and do not include terms such as “we” “us” “prefer”. If any of the answers include information that conflicts with or is contradictory to the information in the current SOW/FOA, please provide an updated version with your responses.

• The project description synopsis on Grants.Gov. website (24 mitigation sites only) does not match the attached PWS project description (24 mitigation sites and 71 evaluative testing sites). Which is correct? Does the PWS hold the correct information?

• What has been discussed regarding Section 106 Consultation about “mitigation” previously with culturally affiliated tribes, COSHPO, and other Army stakeholders? Otherwise the 6.2 Task 2 data recovery plan reporting requirement could go “round-and-round” costing the contractor a great deal of extra time and money if there is not some previous understanding between the various parties before execution.

• Regarding 6.1, Task 1, item 4 in 4th paragraph indicates that associated artifacts will need reviewed? What exactly does the Army have in mind regarding this? Could this information not be given to NFE/contractor via data tables related to Past Perfect narratives and keywords too?

• Regarding Task 2, what exactly does the Army view as “mitigation”? What is the specific adverse effect that will need to be considered (this will influence the nature of the data recovery plan in my mind)?

• What percent constitutes a valid testing or excavation unit sample for site excavation/mitigation in the mind of the Army?

• Assume there should be recommendations for Tribal consultation within data recovery plans too?

• Assume there should be recommendations for a cultural landscape assessment too?

• First page of SOW says, “NFE personnel shall identify themselves as an NFE employee when answering or placing calls on a Government telephone and when leaving outgoing or incoming messages on voice mail…” This statement (and several below) makes it seem that the NFE will be working on Fort Carson?

* 1.3.3 – Suggests that NFE personnel will need to access Ft. Carson? Why, if Gov. will be providing all needed as part of 2.2.

* 1.3.4 – Suggests fieldwork is needed? Are folks anticipating a need to visit sites as part of writing plans? If so, need Gov. to provide maps so logistics such as travel time can be factored into bid.

* 1.3.5 – 1.3.11, 2.3 – Why a CaC and requisite training or a hand receipted radio?

* 2.2 Applicable site documentation will be given to contractor only after award? (how does one cost out a project without this info in first place…I guess we have the approximate # so it matters little)

* Deliverable schedule under “Archaeological Site Evaluation Research Design (Preliminary Draft), PWS Sec 6.1” indicates 30 research designs per month. So in the end, there will be 71 printed Task 1 research designs and not 71 in one all encompassing document? Same with the 5 p/month in Task 2, so a total of 95 electronic documents?

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Stephanie Rostermundt | Contracting & Grants Officer

US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

Environmental Remediation Branch

1616 Capitol Avenue

Phone: 402-995-2083