Questions_and_Answers_SOL-CI-15-00006.docx

Questions for SOL-CI-15-00006 Tech Support for NARS Q1 - Can the individual identified for evaluation in subcriteria V.3 spatial data expert and V.4 bioindices expert be the same person?

A1: The same person can be proposed for more than 1 key position, except the Project Manager and Quality Assurance Officer must be different people. However, no more than 1 person can be proposed for each key position.

Q2- The instructions in "Section E-3, A. Pre-award Documentation" reference the following requirement under Documentation: Other Equivalent:

A. Pre-award Documentation: The offeror must submit the following quality system documentation as separate and identifiable part of its technical proposal:

Other Equivalent: As required by the Section M Provision Technical Evaluation Criteria and the Section L Provision Technical Proposal Instructions, sample Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared in accordance with the requirements specified in Attachment 4 of the RFP.

Section M Technical Evaluation Criteria requires the respondent’s Quality Management Plan but does not mention Quality Assurance Project Plans as part of the technical proposal response requirements. Attachment 4 NARS RFP QASP mentions the “survey QAAP” [sic QAPP?] as part of the contract performance requirements. Are respondents required to submit Quality Assurance Project Plans even though they are not referenced in Section M Evaluation Criteria? As to Attachment 4 QASP, our understanding of surveillance plans is that they refer to contract activities once a contract is in place, not documents required in a proposal – is that correct?

A2: The typo under Technical Requirements in the Attachment 4-Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been corrected. As required by the Section M Provision Technical Evaluation Criteria and Section L Provision Technical Proposal Instructions, the offerors shall provide a Quality Management Plan as an attachment to their proposal. The language in E-3 FAR 52.246-11 HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENT (DEC 2014) has been revised to be consistent with the Section L provision Technical Proposal Instructions and Section M provision Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Q3 - Under L-16 Local Clauses EPA-L-09-101 SUBMISSION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST PLAN, the RFP states “The plan will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Section M provision entitled "Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Plan."” There is no "Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Plan" in Section M. Please explain how we should treat this missing criteria and/or how the COI Plan will be evaluated.

A3: Local Clause EPA-M-09-101 EVALUATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST PLAN has been added to Section M.

Q4 - Section (i) of the Cost Proposal Instructions indicate that the labor table must be also be included in the technical proposal. Is this table part of the page count or is it excluded from the page limitation?

A4: Yes, the table is part of the page count. As indicated in the technical proposal instructions, exclusions to the page limitation are:

i. Transmittal letters, cover pages, table-of-contents, and dividers.

ii. The offeror’s Quality Management Plan (QMP), letters of commitment, resumes, journal articles (for Criterion V), and presentations (also for Criterion V) shall be submitted as separate, tabbed attachments to the technical proposal and shall not count toward the page limitation. Only resumes explicitly requested by the instructions for specific criteria (i.e., by Criteria I, V.3, and V.4) will be evaluated.

Q5 - The RFP states: "The (COI) plan will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Section M provision entitled "Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Plan." There is no "Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Plan" in Section M.

A5: Local Clause EPA-M-09-101 EVALUATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST PLAN has been added to Section M.

Q6 - The RFP states in the Cost Instructions that the printed cost and technical proposals are to be delivered to the addresses in Section L.25. There is no Section L.25, and we could not locate any delivery instructions elsewhere in the RFP. To what addresses are the cost and technical proposals to be delivered?

A6: The reference to L.25 was an error. The reference should have been to L.22. The addresses are now identified in L. 22.

Q7 - The Technical Proposal Instructions indicate that the proposal outline must follow the outline in the Technical Evaluation Criteria in provision M “EVALUATION FACTORS FOR CONTRACT AWARD”. The outline numbers provided in ‘SECTION M - Evaluation Factors for Award’ do not match the outline provided in the Technical Proposal Instructions and appear to have typographical errors. Please confirm what the correct proposal outline numbering scheme should be.

A7: The Evaluation Factors for Contract Award in Section M-2 are as follows:

I. Key Personnel II. Pre –Survey Planning III. Field Sampling IV. Sampling Logistics V. Quality Assurance, Laboratory Analyses, and Data Analyses

Headers have been added to the columns for clarity.

Q8 - The Solicitation was apparently posted to FedConnect on October 6th, but the FedConnect system did not issue email notifications of the posting to registered participants until October 13th. Can EPA comment on this delay and provide assurances or guidelines to avoid similar problems uploading responses or communications to FedConnect as required? Also, several members or our team were registered as watching the solicitation in FedBizOpps and did not receive automated notifications when the solicitation was posted. Would EPA consider extending the due date of the proposal in consideration of these delays?

A8: The EPA received notification that this was released on October 6, 2015. In addition, according to the FedConnect website, the Solicitation was issued on October 6, 2015. If firm is having issues receiving email notifications as a registered participant, please contact the FedConnect help desk at support@fedconnect.net or at 1-800-899-6665. Due to technical issues experience by Vendors with FedConnect, the EPA will extend the due date to November 12th at 4:30pm.

Q9. 1. Clause H.25 specifies that training of staff will not be directly reimbursed unless there is a unique Government need unrecognized at the time of contact award. Yet PWS C.1.g - Technical Support Services, Pre-Survey Planning, Field Training, appears explicitly to anticipate just this need to provide for contractor staff training.

A9. Clause H.26: LOCAL CLAUSE EPA-H-31-105 has been revised to indicate task orders instead of work assignments. The requirements under PWS C.1.g., would be considered for reimbursement under applicable task orders in compliance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (b) of the clause.

Q10. Clause H.27 disallows workshop/conference costs for any but contractor, subcontractor, or personnel hired under the contract; PWS B.2. - General Requirements, Communications, specifies the contract will pay for non-federal presenters and subject matter experts, but does not specify that they must be hired under the contract.

A2. Section B.2. has been revised in the Performance Work Statement (Attachment 1) for clarification of the allowability of travel costs for personnel and experts, consultants and others hired under subcontracts to provide services to EPA as determined under PART 31 of the FAR.