Amendment_1_-_SOL-CI-17-00102.docx

SOL-CI-17-00102

Amendment 1 Attachment 1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION

1) Question: Section L-25 (b) Technical Proposal Instructions indicates that the “…technical proposal shall be limited to 100 double-sided typewritten pages on standard 8 ½ x 11-inch paper,…” The same paragraph also notes that “a piece of paper that has printing on both sides (double-sided) counts as two pages.” Could EPA please clarify if these instructions equate to 100 single-sided typewritten pages?

Answer: These instructions equate to 100 single-sided typewritten pages. Please see the revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions regarding exclusions from page limitations.

2) Question: Is the minimum acceptable line spacing for the technical proposal single spacing?

Answer: The minimum acceptable line spacing for the technical proposal is single spacing.

3) Question: Is the CBI Plan considered within the technical proposal page limit?

Answer: The CBI Plan is excluded from the technical proposal page limit. Please see the revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions regarding exclusions from page limitations.

4) Question: Is the past performance contract summary information considered within the technical proposal page limit?

Answer: Past Performance is part of the Technical Proposal and is not excluded from the proposal page limit.

5) Question: Does EPA want copies of the past performance questionnaires that will be sent to clients included in the technical proposal?

Answer: The EPA does not want copies of the past performance questionnaires included in the technical proposals.

6) Question: Are the past performance questionnaires considered attachments to the technical proposal and not part of the technical proposal page limit?

Answer: The EPA does not want copies of the past performance questionnaires included in the technical proposals. If included, the past performance questionnaires are not excluded from the technical proposal page limit.

7) Question: Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section E. Contract Activity Information and Technology Requirements includes a number of contractual requirements related to work and deliverables; while we would commit to these requirements, a technical approach for Section E would not be comparable to those prepared for the rest of the PWS.

Does EPA want bidders to include a response to PWS Section E. Contract Activity Information and Technology Requirements in their technical proposals?

If EPA would like contractors to respond to Section E. of the Performance Work Statement, could EPA provide a) instructions for responding to PWS Section E. and b) details on how this material will be evaluated by EPA?

Answer: The EPA does not want bidders to include a response to PWS section E in their technical proposals. Please see revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions.

8) Question: Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section F. Deliverables includes a number of requirements and specifications for the preparation and acceptable formats of deliverables; while we would commit to these requirements, a technical approach for Section F would not be comparable to those prepared for the rest of the PWS.

Does EPA want bidders to include a response to PWS Section F. Deliverables in their technical proposals?

If EPA would like contractors to respond to Section F. of the Performance Work Statement, could EPA provide a) instructions for responding to PWS Section F. and b) details on how this material will be evaluated by EPA?

Answer: The EPA does not want bidders to include a response to PWS Section F in their technical proposals. Please see revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions.

9) Question: In light of the short month and the Presidents Day Holiday, would EPA kindly extend the due date by three working days to the following Wednesday, March 14? An extension like this allows vendors to FedEx the hard copy submissions on Monday, March 12, with a contingency day in case of delivery problems.

Answer: The EPA agrees to extend the time to respond to Solicitation SOL-CI-17-00102 to 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time on March 14, 2018.

10) Question: Does the CBI plan itself count against the page limit? Is it correct to assume that the required CBI plan may be included as an Appendix to the Technical Proposal, not subject to the page limit?

Answer: See response to Question 3. The CBI plan may be included as an appendix to the Technical Proposal. Please see the revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions regarding exclusions from page limitations.

11) Question: The Price Proposal Instructions state: “These instructions apply to both the prime contractor as well as subcontractors and consultants”; and paragraph 2 of the Technical Proposal Instructions states: “The term “offeror” as used in the technical instructions and the technical evaluation criteria shall mean the prime contractor and any proposed subcontractors and consultants.”

Does EPA intend for subcontractors and consultants to submit sealed bid packages separately from the prime contractor for both technical and price components?

Answer: The EPA does not intend for subcontractors and consultants to submit sealed bid packages separately from the prime contractor for both technical and price components.

12) Question: Paragraph 4 of the Price Proposal Instructions states: "When subcontract effort is included in the price proposal, the prime contractor shall submit charts for each year and for the aggregate which clearly indicate the exact allocation of the specified level of effort among the prime contractor and the proposed subcontractors. Specified labor categories as well as job titles within the labor categories should be identified."

Please confirm that the Fixed Hourly Rates proposed for each labor category should be applied consistently to both prime contractor and proposed subcontractor and consultant staff.

Answer: Fixed Hourly Rates proposed for each labor category should be applied consistently to both prime contractor and proposed subcontractor and consultant staff.

13) Question: Instructions for Proposing Other Direct Costs, states "The offeror shall incorporate the Other Direct Costs specified in the chart below into the price proposal or provide rationale as to why these amounts have been increased or decreased in the proposal. Other Direct Costs are recovered at cost without markup or fee."

Page 10, E. Time and Materials Orders - Other Direct Costs, states “Reasonable and allocable material handling costs or material indirect costs may be included in the charge for material or other direct costs to the extent they are clearly excluded from the fully loaded hourly labor rates and are in accordance with the Contractor's usual accounting practices consistent with Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)."

In accordance with our usual accounting practices, other direct costs are burdened with reasonable and allocable indirect costs (no markup in terms of fee). Are the other direct cost figures included in the chart on page 84 inclusive of indirect cost burdens, or should they be burdened in accordance with our NICRA? Please provide clarification.

Answer: The ODCs in the chart on page 84 are not inclusive of indirect cost burdens. Reasonable and allocable material handling costs or material indirect costs MAY be included in the charge for material or other direct costs to the extent they are clearly excluded from the fully loaded hourly labor rates and are in accordance with the Contractor's usual accounting practices consistent with Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). It is within the discretion of the offeror to burden the ODCs in accordance with the above language. Please see revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions, Section II “Instructions for Proposing Other Direct Costs.”

14) Question: Section III, Program Management Plan, states: “The subcontracting approach should identify timely, discrete, and meaningful scopes of work that can be competed amongst small business concerns after contract award when requirements are further defined”

As an IDIQ, future Task Order statements of work cannot be defined discretely at this time. Should the prime contractor identify broad potential statement of work areas for proposed subcontractors and consultants in this section? Please provide clarification.

Answer: Whiles Task Order PWSs will order discrete tasking, the offeror can still identify discrete areas from the IDIQ PWS which are proposed for small business subcontractors and consultants.

15) Question: Section L18 on page 55 of the solicitation states that “The Agency has determined that the offerors identified in paragraph (a), or offerors that have significant business or financial relationships with such entities, may have a significant actual or potential organizational conflict of interest in relation to the requirements of this solicitation. In addition, the Agency has determined that offerors that provide consulting and/or technical services to the types of entities listed in paragraph (a) may present significant actual or potential COI concerns.” The list of entities includes:

· Entities that discharge processed wastewater

· Entities that provide treatment of wastewater and/or drinking water.

Would providing technical, legal, or policy consulting services to these types of entities to assist them in the permit application and adjudication process under the CWA or SDWA be considered a significant conflict of interest under this solicitation?

Could this type of permit adjudication support to regulated entities be disqualifying for an award under this solicitation?

Answer: The EPA has not excluded any firms. In their proposal, the offeror shall disclose the extent of those business or financial relationships with the above described entities, and describe how any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest associated with such entities can be mitigated, neutralized, or avoided.

16) Question: Clause H-6 on page 27 of the solicitation states: “The Contractor, during the life of this contract, will be ineligible to enter into business or financial relationships which would support or affect efforts to contest, oppose, or influence the content of industry effluent guidelines and related programs, for which it has provided, is providing, or has task orders to provide services to the Agency under this contract…”

Would the term “support or affect efforts to contest, oppose, or influence the content of industry effluent guidelines and related programs” include providing technical, legal, or policy services to a regulated entity in support of their CWA permits adjudication?

Answer: Yes, the above would be included. In their proposal, the offeror shall disclose the extent of those business or financial relationships with the above described entities, and describe how any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest associated with such entities can be mitigated, neutralized, or avoided.

17) Question: May the required page numbers (paragraph 5) be included outside the one-inch all around margins (paragraph 1) in a header or footer? May we use the same font size specified for non-text items such as tables and graphics for headers and footers?

Answer: The page numbers may be included outside the one-inch all around margins in a header or footer. You may use the same font size specified for non-text items such as tables and graphics for headers and footers.

18) Question: Will EPA be performing a price analysis, cost analysis, and/or cost realism analysis of offerors’ price proposals?

Answer: The EPA will perform a price analysis of offerors’ price proposals.

19) Question: Page 84, Section II – Instructions for Proposed Other Direct Costs –, first paragraph, states “Other Direct Costs are recovered at cost without markup or fee.” However, page 10, Section B-2, E. Time and Material Orders – Other Direct Costs, appears to allow the markup of ODCs with reasonable and allowable material handling or indirect costs in accordance with a contractors’ usual accounting practice. Please clarify whether material handling or indirect costs can be applied to ODCs under any resultant contract.

Answer: See response to Question 13.

20) Question: Do the amounts shown for ODCs listed in Section II – Instructions for Proposing Other Direct Costs, page 84, include or not include material handing or indirect costs? If the RFP ODCs exclude material handling or indirect costs, will offerors be required to price the applicable material handling or indirect cost applied to ODCs as a separate line item if it’s in accordance with an offeror’s disclosed accounting practice?

Answer: See response to Question 13.

21) Question: In the price proposal, will offerors be required to demonstrate that the labor rates for the individuals identified in the technical proposal are included in the labor rate calculations in the price proposal, and in a magnitude consistent with the significance of the individuals’ role in the technical proposal?

Answer: L-25(b)(1)(6) states that “It is mandatory that the offeror include, in both its cost and technical proposals, a clear explanation of how the individuals or categories proposed correspond to the Labor Categories included in the cost proposal instructions. If proposal costing is not done based on specific individuals that are clearly named in both the cost and technical proposals, it is the offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate clearly in the proposal that the method of pricing accurately reflects the costs of using the individuals cited technically to an extent consistent with the level of effort usage proposed for personnel being technically evaluated.”

22) Question: Will the source selection be in accordance with FAR Part 15?

Answer: Yes, the source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

23) Question: The NAICS code, found on page 43, K-2, (a)(1) is 541620, however it establishes in (a)(2) a small business size standard of 500 employees. We believe the small business size standard should be $15,000,000 for this NAICS code. Can you please confirm?

Answer: The correct small business size standard is $15,000,000 for this NAICS code. See revised paragraph (a)(2) in Provision K-2 FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. (NOV 2017).

24) Question: There appears to be multiple errors in the Other Direct Cost chart found in section II – Instructions for Proposing Other Direct Costs. On page 85, under column Year 3, we believe the total should read $668,816 instead of $668,814. Under column Year 5, we believe the total should be 709,544 instead of $709,545. Under the total column for “Duplicating”, we believe the total should be $270,631 instead of $270,632. Can you please confirm the correct total dollar amounts for each of these?

Answer: The rounding errors have been corrected in revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions.

25) Question: The instructions on page 61 indicate the consultant letters of commitment can be attached as an appendix or attachment in the technical proposal. The letters of commitment, however, contain rate information. We believe we should place letters of commitment in the cost proposal, not the technical proposal. Please confirm that consultant letters of commitment should be placed in the cost proposal, not the technical proposal.

Answer: The rate information may be redacted from the letters of commitment in the technical proposal and a full version of the letter of commitment should then be included in the cost proposal.

26) Question: The instructions on page 61, under exclusions, indicates that subcontracting plans are excluded from page limitations. The subcontracting plan, however, includes rate information. We believe we should place the subcontracting plan in the cost proposal. Please confirm that subcontracting plans (containing information beyond that requested in the project management plan) should be placed in the cost proposal, not the technical proposal.

Answer: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included as an Attachment to the cost proposal. Please see the revised provision EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions.

27) Question: Section J of the RFP on page 42 indicates two attachments: Attachment 9 is listed as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Attachment 10 is listed as the Contractor's Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCOI) Plan. Neither attachment seems to have been made available.

Answer: These are placeholders for the awardee’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Contractor’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCOI) Plan which will be included as attachments in the resultant contract award.

28) Question: Should the COI Plan be included in the technical or price proposal and if it should be included in the technical, would it be excluded from page limitations?

Answer: Provision L-17 EPA-L-09-101 Submission of Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan included in the solicitation states that the Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan should be submitted as part of the offeror’s cost proposal, and is therefore not subject to a page limitation.

29) Question: The Overview notice of the Sources Sought published by EPA and several sections of the RFP highlight EPA’s conflict of interest concerns. For L-16, is the aggregation in the table below sufficient, or does EPA want additional details about specific clients?

L-16 COI Information for: Submitter

Number of unique clients (3 yr)

Revenue (3 yr)

*Entities who 1) discharge processed wastewater, 2) provide treatment of wastewater or drinking water, or 3) manufacture or sell water treatment equipment or chemicals

In responding to EPA’s request for details related to potential organizational conflict of interest (L-16), should we include work for clients whose organization (US parent and all divisions, and subsidiaries) operates facilities that carry out one or more of the listed activities of concern even if our work is for a different division in the client’s corporate structure?

In responding to EPA’s request for details of related to potential organizational conflict of interest (L-16), should we include work that a separate organizational unit of our company supports (no staff are shared) for clients that discharge processed wastewater, provide treatment of wastewater and/or drinking water or manufacture or sell water treatment equipment and/or water treatment chemicals?

Answer: It is assumed that this question is meant to reference Provision L-18 EPA-L-09-102 Disclosure Requirements for Organizational Conflict of Interest versus Provision L-16 EPAAR 1552.233-70 Notice of Filing Requirements for Agency Protests.

Yes, the above would be included. Provision L-18 requires offerors to disclose the extent of those business or financial relationships (cited in paragraph (a) of the Provision) in their proposals, and they shall describe how any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest associated with such entities can be mitigated, neutralized, or avoided. The purpose of requiring the information covered by Paragraph (b) of the Provision is to provide the Agency with an opportunity to assess its vulnerabilities relative to organizational COI with respect to individual offerors prior to award. The Agency recognizes that there exists a need for offerors to gain the requisite experience necessary to fulfill the requirements of the proposed contract, and that such experience is often gained through provision of consulting or related technical services to the types of entities listed in paragraph (a). Accordingly, the fact that an offeror has worked, is working or plans to work for the types of entities listed in paragraph (a) will not necessarily disqualify the offeror from consideration for award on the basis of actual or potential conflicts of interest (COI). There is no precise formula for determining whether an offeror’s business or financial relationships or its past, present, or future effort performing work for entities would result in a determination by the Contracting Officer that award to a particular offeror would not be in the best interest of the Government due to organizational COI concerns. Each offeror will be evaluated individually on the basis of the information disclosed pursuant to the requirements of Provision L-18 and upon the adequacy of the offeror's plan for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating such conflicts.

30) Question: Section L-25(a)(2)(v), Page 60 of the solicitation states that the cover letter shall include the “Name, title, and signature of principals of the firm.” Our company has named officers, as opposed to principals. Please confirm that signature by authorized representative of the prime offeror is sufficient for the cover letter.

Answer: It is confirmed that signature by authorized representative of the prime offeror is sufficient for the cover letter.

31) Question: Section E. Page 16. Can EPA please confirm that a Programmatic QA Project Plan must also be provided to comply with the post award documentation on Page 16 and to ensure a rapid startup of the new contract?

Answer: Programmatic QA Project Plan must also be provided to comply with the post award documentation on Section E Page 16.

32) Question: Section L (1) Technical Proposal Instructions, 1) ii. Page 61 list the Subcontracting Plan among the material excluded from the 100-page limitation. Please confirm that the Subcontracting Plan should instead be included in the Price Proposal Volume because it contains financial information.

Answer: See response to Question 26.

33) Question: Section L (1) Technical Proposal Instructions, 1) ii. Page 61 list sections excluded from the 100-page limitation. Please confirm that the Security Plan should also be excluded from the page limitations consistent with prior RFPs from EPA.

Answer: See response to Question 3.

34) Question: Section L VI. ADEQUACY OF GENERAL SECURITY PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL BUSIINESS INFORMATION (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) Page 64 EPA states “the offeror’s security plan must be compatible with EPA’s Office of Science and Technology Confidential Business Information Application Security Plan (See Attachment 5).” OST’s plan included in Attachment 5 cites applicable laws, regulations, and standards, focusing exclusively on Clean Water Act CBI requirements. Please confirm that the Security Plan only needs to address Clean Water Act CBI.

Answer: The applicable laws, regulations, and standards are identified in Attachment 5, Office of Science and Technology Confidential Business Information Application Security Plan.

35) Question: Section B-2, Part E indicates offerors may include material indirect costs in the charge for materials and other direct costs. However, Price Proposal Instructions, Part II indicates “Other Direct Costs are recovered at cost without markup or fee.” Please clarify if contractors will be reimbursed for material indirect costs for materials/other direct costs incurred in the performance of the contract.

Answer: See response to Question 13.