EPA_Response_5-7-15.pdf

RFQ-DC-15-00168_May 7, 2015 1/4

Potential Vendor Questions and EPA Responses for:

Pilot Testing and Technical Assistance on Energy Savings Plus Health for Schools

RFQ-DC-15-00168

1. Who is the incumbent to providing OAR support for this program, if any?

This is a new project. Therefore, there is no incumbent.

2. What is the anticipated start date?

The anticipated start date is sometime between late-June and early-July of 2015.

3. To what extent has EPA already identified potential school districts for recruitment?

EPA has not identified potential school districts for recruitment. That will be the responsibility of the Contractor, in consultation with the EPA Contracting Officer Representative.

4. Is previous direct work with school districts a requirement?

Yes, as stated in the RFQ, the Contractor will be evaluated on technical expertise working with school districts (“The vendor shall demonstrate knowledge of the design, operation and maintenance of school buildings to ensure good indoor air quality and energy efficiency;

capacity to provide training and technical assistance to school districts on energy efficiency and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) assessments and improvements”) and experience working with school districts (“Specifically, the vendor shall demonstrate experience providing training and technical assistance to build the capacity of school districts to implement indoor air quality management practices to create healthy and energy efficient environments.”)

5. Are there definitions or qualifications (e.g., a PhD or specific technical certifications) for key personnel?

No, EPA does not have qualification requirements for the key personnel.

6. Is staffing limited to key personnel, a Principal Investigator (PI) and Lead Technical Trainer, or may additional technical staff be included in the proposed work, such as data input, formatting files, etc.?

Staffing is not limited to the key personnel of a Principal Investigator and Lead Technical Trainer. Additional staff may be included in the proposed work. However, in accordance with the Key Personnel Clause (1552.237-72), the Contractor shall assign to this contract a

RFQ-DC-15-00168_May 7, 2015 2/4

Principal Investigator and Lead Technical Trainer and during the first ninety (90) days of performance. Please refer to the RFQ/SOW for the complete clause.

7. Is the estimated level of effort of 1,080 hours intended to be inclusive of both the Principal Investigator and the Lead Technical Trainer? Does EPA have any total $$ amount dedicated for this RFQ per project funded? How many contracts are expected to be funded?

The estimated level of effort of 1,080 hours is intended to be inclusive of all of the staff proposed for this project. One contract is expected to be awarded. We cannot provide our cost estimate for this project.

8. The lead time between planning, funding (e.g., bond issue), and implementing a building upgrade and renovation project tends to be greater than 18 months for school districts. How far along in completion of the upgrade or renovation is expected for the pilot testing? What is a reasonable “maximum extent feasible” for assessing cost, energy, and IAQ outcomes?

The Contractor is encouraged to identify and recruit school districts poised to undertake a specific building upgrade or renovation project and eager to utilize the Guide to verify that the appropriate assessment protocols and actions are taken to protect or enhance indoor air quality during their project. School district feedback on the usefulness and impact of using the Guide needs to be compiled within the 18-month period. The Contractor is asked to outline their approach for assessing the potential costs and benefits of using the Guide to integrate energy and indoor air quality in the design and implementation of their school building project.

9. Does EPA expect that the districts be identified ahead of time and included in the proposal?

We assume that EPA is expecting us to identify the districts and the school buildings for the pilot. Is this correct?

EPA does not expect the districts to be identified in the proposal. EPA expects the Contractor to identify the districts and school buildings for the pilot in consultation with the EPA Contracting Officer Representative.

10. Can the school pilot upgrades or renovation projects involve projects that are already planned (although not fully engaged to date) and fit within the examples listed in Table 1 from the Energy Savings Plus Health document?

Yes, the school upgrade or renovation projects can already be planned and funded by the school district. The types of projects need to be included by the Energy Savings Plus Health guidance document.

11. Do the 5 pilot projects/buildings have to come from 5 different school districts or may they come from one district? Is the “5 school building upgrade or renovation project”

RFQ-DC-15-00168_May 7, 2015 3/4 meaning 5 different schools, or can the 5 projects derive from one 5 buildings in a large school within a district?

It is allowable that the 5 pilot projects could come from one large school district. However, EPA is seeking feedback on the implementation of the Guide from at least five schools undertaking building upgrade or renovation projects and diversity in school building age, type and demographics would be valuable.

12. Is using and testing the Master Verification Checklist and Energy Savings Plus Health Checklist Generator a key expected component of the pilot testing?

Yes, using and testing the Master Verification Checklist and Energy Savings Plus Health Checklist Generator is a key expected component of the pilot testing.

13. The RFQ throughout the document uses the word “pilot”. A full implementation of an upgrade or renovation projects, depending on the extent of the project, will often take well beyond 2 years to fully engage, track output data, evaluate outcomes, benefits, etc. Can you be a bit more descript in terms of your expectation for a “pilot”?

The Contractor shall collect feedback on the usability of the Guide, the outcomes realized through its’ use (e.g., energy use, indoor air quality, worker safety) in each of the five pilot upgrade or renovation projects and determine the results of using an integrated approach to achieve both energy and IAQ protection goals and objectives.

14. Any consideration given to school district need and/or locations? Is it preferred to select school districts with more intensive facility and/or socioeconomic needs and across diverse locations? Or is it preferred to select school districts with experience and high-capability to implement project of this nature?

EPA does not have specific needs or locations in mind for the school districts and recognizes the need to select school districts with the experience and capacity to implement a project of this nature. In addition, EPA recognizes the value of obtaining feedback on the Guide from diverse school facility types.

15. Does EPA encourage research institutions with extensive expertise in IAQ and schools, such as that of our profile and background, to participate and submit on this RFQ, or is it best to leave it to the private sector or that of general energy contractors?

EPA encourages research institutions with extensive expertise in IAQ and schools to respond to this RFQ.

16. We are required to follow our current travel policy on all federal awards (consistency) and, as this is a firm fixed price contract, we would estimate travel costs based on our travel policy as opposed to the GSA rates. In addition, the RFQ indicates that all travel will be billed and

RFQ-DC-15-00168_May 7, 2015 4/4 reimbursed in accordance with GSA rates. It also indicates that travel costs should be included in the firm fixed price proposal. Can you clarify if 1) we may use our current travel policy to estimate costs and 2) whether the travel is included in the fixed price proposal or will it be billed on a reimbursable basis? In addition, if the sites of the schools are not yet determined, how are the estimated travel costs to be calculated?

Yes, you can use your current policy. Travel should be included in the cost of the quote but it should be listed as a separate cost. It will be billed on a reimbursable basis.

17. For the types of positions included, our estimates, accrues and charges are at a percentage of effort (FTE) and not at hourly rates. We can include estimated hourly rates for comparison purposes but would estimate the costs of personnel based on percent of effort. Is this acceptable?

Yes, this is acceptable.

18. The solicitation indicates that all reports, articles, and results of the award will be the property of EPA. As an educational institution, we would expect to retain ownership of intellectual property developed under the contract and grant the standard federal rights to the results. Is this allowed under this RFQ?

Co-ownership of intellectual property may be negotiable upon award.

End of Document