Amendment_4_EPA_Response_to_RFQ_Questions.pdf

Environmental Response Training Program Government’s Response RFQ Questions – Amendment #4

1. Question: EPA’s response to Question 8 of the Q&A’s requires that rates for all proposed personnel to support this requirement be based on their GSA Schedule contract pricing for both prime contractors and their proposed subcontractors. Under this scenario, for more than one GSA Schedules to be used to meet the ordering activities of this RFQ, (that is, the prime’s GSA schedule and each subcontractor’s GSA schedule) a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) must be put into place between the prime contractor and its subcontractor teaming partners. Under a CTA arrangement, the prime contractor would not act as EPA’s primary point of contact on the BPA. Rather, EPA would need to interact directly with the CTA partners (i.e., the subcontractors) directly. Further, for work under an individual TO that involved more than one CTA partner, EPA would receive a separate invoice from each partner for the specific portion of the work performed by that partner, in accordance with the invoicing requirements for that partner’s GSA schedule. Please clarify if EPA it is EPA’s intent to requires that a CTA be included as part of an offerors response. If EPA is requiring CTA(s), can the CTA(s) be excluded from the stipulated 100 electronic page count?

Answer: EPA is not requiring a CTA. Prime contractors are strongly encouraged to map their subcontractors to the prime’s GSA categories/rates.

2. Question: As an alternative to CTA(s) would EPA consider allowing the prime to map subcontractors to the prime’s GSA categories/rates? This approach would remove the need for offerors to submit CTAs and would also allow the government to interact directly with the successful BPA offeror rather than interacting directly with each CTA team member. In addition, invoicing under the ordering activity would be in accordance with the prime offerors GSA Schedule contract rates and would include any applicable price reductions.

3. Question: If EPA is not requiring a CTA please clarify and not allowing subcontractors to be mapped under the prime’s GSA labor category/rates, please clarify how subcontractor personnel are to be mapped to a GSA schedule category/rate (either the prime or subcontractor’s schedule).

4. Question: The RFQ stipulates that the Government contemplates award of a single BPA against Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 899-1 however, 899-1 covers Environmental Consulting Services that do not include training services. SIN 899-3 Environmental Training Services provides the requirement to address training. Is SIN 899-3 applicable to this

RFQ? If not, should offerors develop the FFP for proposed training outside of their GSA Schedule (i.e. GSA rates would not be used to develop the FFP for each proposed training course).

Answer: Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 899-1 and 899-3 are applicable to this RFQ.

5. Question: Answers to Questions 9 and 24 of the Q&A response seem to contradict each other on how an offeror should propose equipment costs. The answer to Question 9 states that “The equipment costs for contractor owned/rented equipment for the standard course list found on RFQ Attachment 4-3, Schedule for Fixed Priced Courses, are not accounted for as an ODC on Attachment 4-4 Other Direct Costs.” The answer to Question 24 states that

“The equipment to be included on Attachment 4-4 ODCs, is equipment that would be used for the courses and exercises listed in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Performance Work

Statement. All the equipment costs for the standard courses listed in section 5 are to be incorporated into the Fixed Priced courses found on RFQ Attachment 4-3.” Please provide additional clarification on how offerors should propose the stipulated “plug” figure for equipment of $79,639. Should this $79,639 be included as part of the FFP course development? If so, how should an offeror divide the stipulated equipment costs for each year of the contract effort among the anticipated FFP training courses for each year?

Answer: There was a typo in the Government’s response to Question 24 in Amendment 2.

The corrected response is as follows: The equipment to be included on Attachment 4-4

ODCs, is equipment that would be used for the courses and exercises listed in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Performance Work Statement. All the equipment costs for the standard courses listed in Section 6 - NOT Section 5 - are to be incorporated into the Fixed Priced courses found on RFQ Attachment 4-3.” The $79,639 “plug” figure should NOT be included as part of the FFP course development. As stated in RFQ Attachment 4, Pricing Instructions and Schedule of Professional Services, please include the cost of the equipment for the FFP courses in the total price of each course.

6. Question: The answer to Q&A question 10 states that, the QA Officer is not a labor category that will be used to support this requirement. However, Attachment 4-2 of the

RFQ has 200 hours per year associated with a QA Officer labor category. Can EPA provide the labor category description for the QA Officer or remove the requirement of hours for this position?

Answer: Job descriptions have not been provided for every labor category. Per Amendment 3 the job title of QA Officer has been revised to QA Manager. Please refer to RFQ Attachment 8, Quality Management Plan Elements, for details of the QA Manager’s role and responsibilities.

7. Question: Please confirm that the closing time for submissions in response to the RFQ on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 is on or before 4:30 PM EST. FedConnect lists the submission time as 2:30PM EST.

Answer: RFQ closing time will be corrected in FedConnect to reflect 4:30 PM EST.

8. Question: We did not see anything in Amendment 3 in that clarifies our question related to the equipment plug ODCs. We had noticed that the responses to Questions 9 and 24 of the Q&A response seem to contradict each other on how an offeror should propose equipment costs. The answer to Question 9 states that "The equipment costs for contractor owned/rented equipment for the standard course list found on RFQ Attachment 4-3, Schedule for Fixed Priced Courses, are not accounted for as an ODC on Attachment 4-4 Other Direct Costs." The answer to Question 24 states that "The equipment to be included on Attachment 4-4 ODCs, is equipment that would be used for the courses and exercises listed in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Performance Work Statement.

All the equipment costs for the standard courses listed in section 5 are to be incorporated into the Fixed Priced courses found on RFQ Attachment 4-3." Please provide additional clarification on how offerors should propose the stipulated "plug" figure for equipment of $79,639. Should this $79,639 be included as part of the FFP course development? If so, how should an offeror divide the stipulated equipment costs for each year of the contract effort among the anticipated FFP training courses for each year?

Answer: Please refer to the response for Question #5 above.

9. Question. In addition, in Attachment 4-2 of Amendment 3, we noted that the QA Officer has been changed to QA Manager. Because, EPA’s response to question 10 stated that the QA Officer is not a labor category that will be used to support this requirement, as it will be evaluated as part of the overall pass/fail of the QMP, we wanted to clarify whether EPA considers the QA Officer and QA Manager to be the same position (i.e., this was just a change in the title of the position), or if this is a different position. If the latter, please clarify the duties and qualification requirements for the QA Manager.

Answer: Please refer to response to Question #6 above.