Amend_005.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE

U.S. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CONTRACTS OFFICE

1000 WILSON BLVD., SUITE 1600

ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3901

PHONE: (703) 875-4357 FAX: (703) 875-4009

SEE ITEM 6

IQ201391288

RFP-USTDA-14-D-0001

2013-91004A

1 9

11/08/2013

10/18/2013

Amendment 005

SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to prospective offerors’ questions as follows:

Question 134: Page 1, Standard Form 1449, Item 12 “discount terms” & Section E.1.8 Quote

Contents Volume II – Cost/Pricing part b, requests that offerors complete box 12. Can USTDA please provide additional information, FAR clauses, or other instructions on how offerors should complete this item? (Typically, discount terms are offered at the Task Order level and not at the

IDIQ level.) What impact, if any, will discount terms have on the award of the IDIQ’s to prime contractors?

Block 12 of the SF 1449 provides a place for the offeror/contractor proposed discount for prompt payment. If the contractor does not provide a discount in their offer, the

Government will type in “Net 30” (which indicates there is not a prompt payment discount for the contract).

Question 135: Page 1, Standard Form 1449, Item 24 “Amount.” Can USTDA confirm that the

“amount” column noted here will mimic the Section B.3 Schedule of Supplies/Services and be equal to Quantity multiplied by Unit to get Unit Price which will be equal to Amount since the

Quantity indicated is “1”.

Use format of Section B.3. to provide requested pricing data. Unit Price x 1 = Amount.

Question 136: Section C – Contract Clauses, Page 19, Paragraph 3(d) Comptroller General

Examination of Record at FAR 52.215-1 is cited. Typically, the FAR clause is cited for contracts that are “cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or price redeterminable contract” per FAR 52.215-2:

52.215-2 Audit and Records—Negotiation.

As prescribed in 15.106(b), insert the following clause:

AUDIT AND RECORDS— NEGOTIATION (AUG 1996)

(a) As used in this clause, “records” includes books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any other form.

(b) Examination of costs. If this is a cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or price redeterminable contract, or any combination of these, the Contractor shall maintain and the Contracting Officer, or an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, shall have the right to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of this contract. This right of examination shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the Contractor's plants, or parts of them, engaged in per- forming the contract.

Since Task Order awards will be made on a Firm Fixed Price basis, please confirm that this clause does not apply. Please confirm that the audit of records cited above does not apply to small business concerns including small business prime contractors.

That is not correct. FAR 52.212-4(d) is applicable to all commercial item contracts awarded using other than sealed bid, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, and not containing the clause at FAR 52.215-2. FAR 52.215-2 is not applicable to this solicitation per FAR 15.209(b)(1)(iii).

Question 137: Section E. FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation, Page 44, Paragraph 2, Reference: “The

Government reserves the right to award the sample task without discussions based upon the initial evaluation of proposals.” We believe the reference to a “sample task” is erroneous and should be removed.

See response to Question 70 (Amendment 002) and also see Amendment 004(1)(j).

Question 138: Section E.1.8 Quote Contents Part a – Technical Expertise Part i Technical

Knowledge, Page 41, The offeror is asked to provide three (3) examples of activities undertaken in each of the energy subsectors listed. Please confirm that given the breadth and depth of the requirements the examples do not have to be limited to the time frame of the past three years.

Please also confirm that the three examples should be in each of the areas below:

Power Generation (3 Projects)

Power Transmission and Distribution (3 Projects)

Energy Efficiency (3 Projects)

Fossil Resource Development (3 Projects)

Alternative Fuels (3 Projects)

Other Energy (3 Projects)

Environmental Engineering (3 Projects)

Legal Advisement on Energy Projects (3 Projects)

For a minimum total of 24 projects. Is the offeror required to present a minimum of 24 projects per the above areas, three per area?

Section E.1.8. of the solicitation contains no “past three years” limits for submission of requirement under TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.

Question 139: Past Section E.1.8 , Quote Contents Part b – Past Performance, Page 42, The solicitation requests five (5) Government/ Commercial past performance contracts in the past three (3) years. Is USTDA requesting five past performance contracts in the past three years for the prime contractor or the prime and any major subcontractors? If the prime has two major subcontractors (anticipated for more than 20% of the work) does that mean a total of 15 past performance contracts or a total of five in all?

See response to Question 80.

Question 140: Task Orders. Please confirm that Task Orders will be awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis.

Yes.

Question 141: Flow Down Provisions. Based on the answers to the questions above, USTDA may want to review the language related to flow down provisions throughout the RFP

Each FAR clause is unique and tells the prime contractor if the clause is to be inserted, incorporated, will include the language, shall insert, etc (all these term are used to indicate flow-down) into the subcontractor's contract. It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to decide what information will be included in its sub-contracts and which of the flow-down clauses apply based upon the matching of the work effort to the description found in the clause.

Question 142: If an IDIQ prime contractor performs a DM through the IDIQ without any participation from subcontractor X, and a feasibility study recommended through that DM is bid outside of the IDIQ, would subcontractor X be excluded from bidding on that feasibility study?

Alternatively, if the feasibility study is bid out under the IDIQ would subcontractor X be excluded from bidding as part of another IDIQ prime contractor's team?

As long as “subcontractor X” was not a subcontractor on the DM contract that recommended the feasibility study, then “subcontractor X” may bid on the feasibility study. “Subcontractor X” may also be a subcontractor to another IDIQ prime contractor, as long as neither party participated as a contractor or subcontractor on the DM that recommended the feasibility study.

Question 143: In response to question # 92 in Amendment 003, the agency responded that “

USTDA will more favorably evaluate senior level personnel with advanced degrees and at least ten years of experience in their respective fields.” Is it the agency’s intent to make this a formal part of the RFP?

The question and its response were incorporated into a formal Amendment to the

Solicitation. As such, the question and reply are indeed a formal part of the RFP.

Question 144: Please confirm that the table of contents, proposal covers and tabs will be excluded from the 70-page limit.

See amendment 004, RFP Section E.1.8.

Question 145: We would appreciate clarification of the following scenario. Contractor A is awarded an IDIQ contract with Subcontractors B and C on its team. Under the IDIQ, Contractor

A is awarded a Definitional Mission Task Order and uses only Subcontractor B. Subcontractor

C does not contribute to the DM in any way. We understand that Contractor A and

Subcontractor B would be ineligible for any follow-on work resulting from the DM. However, would Subcontractor C, not having participated in the DM, be eligible to compete for a follow-on Feasibility Study or Technical Assistance resulting from the DM in the following roles: (1) as a subcontractor to another IDIQ contractor if the Feasibility Study/TA Task Order is issued under the IDIQ contract; or (2) as a prime contractor or subcontractor if the Feasibility Study/TA is issued outside of the IDIQ under the standard USTDA grant vehicle?

The answer to both (1) and (2) is “yes.”

Question 146: Is a specialized company allowed to subcontract to more than one Prime

Company - i.e., be part of Prime Company A Team/Consortium as well as Prime Company B

Team/Consortium? Will it have any negative impact on the Subcontracting Company or Prime

Companies ( i.e., cause disqualification)

A company may be offered as a subcontractor on multiple proposals, with no negative impact on the proposal.

Question 147: Referencing USTDA Amendment 3 and Q&A, our question focuses on question

91 and the answer provided by USTDA:

Question 91: With regards to the following statement "The successful contractor may be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA funded “program” activities resulting from the performance of individual task orders": would a subcontractor to an

IDIQ prime contractor be excluded from bidding on "program" activities resulting from the performance of individual task orders (e.g. activities recommended under a Definitional Mission contract performed by the IDIQ prime contractor through the IDIQ) if the subcontractor had no role in the performance of that specific individual task order (e.g. a definitional mission contract task order)?

If an ineligible prime contractor and a subcontractor compete for a task order, then the entire team will be considered ineligible. If any party (prime or sub) is ineligible, then the entire team will be considered ineligible.

After reviewing the Amendment 3 Q&A we request a further clarification that impacts whether or not we as a small business will be invited to join a large business team for the overall IDIQ and whether or not we as a bidder as small business Prime contractor will be able to entice large businesses to join our Team.

We will be submitting a bid for an IDIQ award as a small business. We have assembled a team of both small and large businesses. Our intent is to respond to Task Order requests after award by marrying the best team members’ skills with the Task Order requirements.

We also see the potential where assuming we are a Prime Contractor IDIQ awardee we are awarded a Task Order where we don’t need to bring in any team members, but as the prime contractor use our own personnel. Then as part of our work under an awarded IDIQ Task Order, we recommend a feasibility study that USTDA decides to fund.

We understand that as the company that recommended the feasibility study we would not be able to participate on any team for the feasibility study work.

However, we do not see that there would be any conflict in any one of our subcontractors, that was not contracted with us at the Task Order level, to compete for that follow-on work through their own IDIQ contract or other mechanism (such as if USTDA decides to announce a

Feasibility Study procurement in open competition through FBO.gov).

We do understand that they would not be able to utilize our IDIQ Prime Contract vehicle for that follow-on work.

Please confirm, however, if a subcontractor does not participate in any way at the Task Order level they would not have to recuse themselves and could bid for the feasibility study work utilizing their own IDIQ Prime Contract or other vehicle that they hold on their own.

A large business had invited us to be part of their team, but will drop us if any work we do under our own IDIQ Prime Contract, even without their involvement, would result in their having to recuse themselves from any follow-on work we recommend.

Similarly, a large business is reluctant to join our team if, even if they didn’t get any business from us a subcontractor, they would need to recuse themselves from any follow-on work we would recommend and USTDA funds.

We believe is USTDA restricts the loose affiliation that exists at the IDIQ level, USTDA may not get the large pool of resources it is seeking through this IDIQ contract mechanism as companies will be very leery about teaming up with one another as a Prime Contractor IDIQ holder company could significantly curtail another company’s business prospects for USTDA funded activities.

Stated differently: Scenario 1: Let’s assume your firm assembles a team and submits a proposal for a specific feasibility study task order. If any member of that team performed the Definitional Mission that recommended the feasibility study, then that team’s entire proposal will be deemed ineligible.

Scenario 2: Let’s assume your firm performed the above-referenced Definitional Mission without any subcontractors. Your firm would be the only IDIQ prime contractor that would be ineligible to perform the feasibility study. The firms with which you typically subcontract on other IDIQ task orders are indeed eligible to perform the feasibility study.

Question 148: The answer to the above question will have a significant impact on the bidders.

We would very much appreciate it if USTDA would consider extending the deadline for the submission of proposals for ten days following the date when the industry receives an answer to this question and other questions we have previously submitted that have not been answered

(attached below again).

USTDA will adhere to the current procurement schedule.

Question 149: Reference: Amendment 3, Questions 81, 85, 89. If a company is a subsidiary of a larger company, would a successful bid on the part of the subsidiary make other sister subsidiary companies or even main company ineligible to bid on further USTDA activities? If so, would this only apply if the original company performed a definitional mission or was part of a team that performed a definitional mission?

To the first part of your question, “no”. To the second part of your question, “yes.” A parent or sister company would be ineligible to perform a feasibility study that was recommended for funding under a Definitional Mission performed by the subsidiary.

Likewise, if a parent company performed the DM, its subsidiaries would be prohibited from performing the feasibility study, for example. If a subsidiary wins a place in this

Energy IDIQ, the other divisions of the company are not precluded from bidding on

USTDA activities unless the above reference applies.

Question 150: Volume I (b) requires that offerors submit five examples of Past Performance.

Please confirm that prime contractors may submit past performance examples from their proposed team subcontractors with whom they have establish a teaming arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601.

Yes.

Question 151: Background: In Section E.1.8. Quote Contents: Volume I – Technical and Past

Performance, Technical Expertise, part a iii, paragraph 2, Knowledge of U.S. Business

Community/Export Competitiveness, the RFP requires “at least three examples of activities undertaken in the energy subsectors listed in Section D.1.6.1:

Power Generation

Power Transmission and Distribution

Energy Efficiency

Fossil Resource Development

Alternative Fuels

Other Energy.

The Offeror is also required to “provide at least three examples of its technical expertise in

Environmental Engineering and Legal Advisement on Energy Projects”.

Lastly, the Offeror is also required to provide “at least three examples of its technical expertise in project planning and development.”

The RFP notes that: “Examples should also describe significant problems, if any, that the Offeror encountered and how they were resolved; provide the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the Offeror’s clients for each of the examples.”

In total, it appears that the RFP requires at least 27 “case studies” and contact information for each example. This is a great deal of information to be compressed into a 70 page document that also must include a great deal of additional information, including CVs, company information, etc. Would USTDA consider reducing the number of examples/case studies or increasing the page limit?

Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters to sufficiently address the evaluation factors within the seventy (70) page limit.

Question 152: We would like to request that USTDA reconsider the requirement to include

CVs/partial CVs in the 70 page limit for Volume 1 of the proposal and instead allow a separate annex for resumes/CVs. In the interest of transparency and accountability, we believe that it is important to submit the complete credentials of each person who will perform the work on

USTDA’s behalf.

See response to Question 152.

Question 153: General. If a prime contractor has amongst its consortium a company that does not wish to participate in a Task Order activity as they do not want to be conflicted out of follow-on work resulting from say a definitional mission, will USTDA please confirm that the remaining consortium members would not be conflicted from performing the Task Order work and the consortium member that did not participate in the definitional mission Task Order assignment would likely be able to compete for that work without being conflicted.

Would it be acceptable to USTDA for a team member (other than the prime) in a Prime

Contractor consortium to recuse itself from participating in a Task Order activity (bid and otherwise) allowing it to remain eligible to potentially bid on the follow on work that may result from a Task Order activity under the IDIQ?

See response to Questions 148 and 150.

Question 154: Background: USTDA provided the following information in Modification 3:

Question 119: Reference: Section B.3, Page 6, Labor category tables. Are offerors allowed to propose additional labor categories, or is this list exhaustive?

USTDA Response: No additional labor categories may be added.

The RFP does not appear to list a labor category for Project Manager for the overall contract.

Section D.1.7.1 Categories of Specialists states “The following is a list of the essential skill specialties, which represent the Government’s minimum requirements for this contract and for the performance of Task Orders related to IDIQ Activities described in Section D.1.3.”

Based on USTDA’s Response to Question 119, it does not appear that offerors are permitted to include a Project/Program Manager for this IDIQ or labor rates for the Project Manager.

Although the technical specialists will provide technical consulting for each area of their expertise, the project manager would serve as the liaison to USTDA for this contract and oversee the contract and the individual projects.

Please advise if we should include CV/resume and labor rates for a Project/Program Manager in our proposals?

Per USTDA’s previous response, no additional labor categories may be added. Further, it is USTDA position that an offeror’s “overhead” should cover overall contract management; however, see response to Question 118.

Question 155: Please advise if USTDA would consider extending the proposal submittal deadline to allow offerors sufficient time to prepare our proposals?

See response to Question 149.

Question 156: Reference: Section E.2 (d), Page: 43 and 51, Paragraph: Representations and

Certifications. The Representations and Certifications presented on page 51 are out of date, and refer to ORCA, which has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM). Please confirm that Offerors are to complete the most recent version of these provisions.

See response to Question 26. Please reference www.acquisition.gov for current FAR

52.212-3, OFFEROR REPRESENTATION AND CERTIFICATION -- COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (AUG 2013).

Question 157: Reference: Length of workweek on Task Orders. During field trips, will expatriates be allowed to work a 6-day workweek? This will save money on per diem charges for trips over one week.

Yes, however please keep in mind that Task Order budgets are typically calculated by the numbers of days (not weeks) needed to complete a task. Per the solicitation, “Contractors shall submit a budget proposal for a firm fixed price for direct labor, based upon the daily rate for the personnel to be used under that particular Task Order, multiplied by the number of days each individual needs to perform the particular services, on a task-by-task basis per the statement of work.”

All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

http://www.acquisition.gov/