DES_Q A_12.21.15.pdf

DES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

December 2015

The EPA has reviewed the questions submitted by the remedial contracting community in response to the DES Official Request for Standard Form 330 and is providing the following answers. Questions that were duplicative in nature have been combined into one question and answer. Some of the questions received in response to the Official Request will be addressed in a separate amendment in the near future.

DUE DATE QUESTIONS

Q1: Multiple questions were asked regarding the due date for the submission of SF 330s and past performance questionnaires.

A: The due date for the submission of SF 330s has been extended to Friday, January 29, 2016.

The due date for the submission of Past Performance Questionnaires has also been extended to Friday, January 29, 2016.

Q2: Will FedConnect be available for response submissions on January 18th? Additionally, is FedConnect available during weekends for response submissions?

A: FedConnect is available on federal holidays and weekends.

Q3: Will EPA’s answers to all contractor questions received by today be posted back to Fed Connect through a modification?

A: Answers will be posted as an amendment to both FedConnect and FedBizOpps.

Q4: How will offerors receive confirmation proof (the equivalent of a hard copy time stamp) that their electronic SF330 submittal has been received by EPA as a completed upload in compliance with the due date and time?

A: EPA intends to provide confirmation of receipt by the next business day, by responding to the offeror’s message in FedConnect. If contractors would like to receive confirmation that SF 330s sent electronically via FedConnect were received, prior to the due date and time, contractors should plan to submit a day or two before the deadline so as to allow EPA to provide this confirmation of receipt.

Q5: Related to the question above, how much time should offerors build into their delivery schedule to account for the lag between SF330 submittal upload and actual confirmed receipt by EPA to assure that we are in compliance with the SF330 submittal due date and time?

A: EPA intends to provide confirmation of receipt by the next business day. It is up to offerors to determine how early they wish to submit their SF 330s in order to receive EPA’s confirmation of receipt prior to the due date and time.

Q6: As stated in the Official request for Standard Form 330, the submission of the SF 330 will be made in Adobe .pdf format uploaded to the contracting officer through FedConnect. Is there a maximum electronic size requirement for this submittal?

A: FedConnect has a 100MB size limit. If the 100MB total attachment limit requires it, you may split up submissions as needed into multiple FedConnect messages

SF 330 PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Q7: Multiple questions were asked regarding the margins of 1 inch specified for SF 330s in the Official Request for SF 330s.

A: Because the GSA Standard Form 330 uses margins smaller than 0.5 inch, the requirement for 1” margins has been removed. SF 330s shall be submitted with minimum margin sizes that are consistent with the GSA Standard Form 330.

Q8: Previous versions of the Draft Solicitation did not restrict the size of attachments to only 8.5 by 11 inches. Would a graphic developed on 11 by 17 inch paper be allowed if they were counted as 2 pages as has been done previously by EPA and other Federal agencies?

A: 8.5 x 11 size paper is being requested for consistency and ease of review during the technical evaluation process. Since one 11 x 17 attachment is typically counted as two pages anyway, please provide the content in question over two 8.5 x 11 pages.

Q9: On page 9 of the official request it states that only 8.5” x 11” size paper may be used. May we use an 11x17 for the organizational chart In order to provide a more comprehensive view of our organization, key personnel, and other relevant staff in Section D? (plus duplicative questions)

A: Please see the answer to the question above. All pages must be 8.5 x 11. Please provide your organization chart over two pages, if need be.

Q10: Multiple questions were asked regarding a reduced font size, rather than 12 pt font.

A: A 12 point font is requested for ease of technical review. EPA has already increased the number of pages following the Draft Requests to allow for additional information to be provided.

Q11: In the Request for SF330, Page 9, Item V. Submission Requirements, does the page limit also exclude tab pages provided that there is no text narrative on the tab pages?

A: Yes, the page limit excludes tab pages that contain no text narrative.

Q12: Page 9 of the Official DES Request for SF 330 states a minimum of 12-point, “Times New Roman or Arial font” shall be used. Can an Offeror use 12-point, Arial Narrow font for crafting their response? (and duplicative questions)

A: No, Arial Narrow may not be used. However, the Calibri font may be used as the default sans serif font in Microsoft Word.

Q13: Please confirm that there is no restriction or requirement on the number of resumes to be submitted.

A: Confirmed. There is no restriction or requirement on the number of resumes to be submitted.

Q14: Is Calibri (Microsoft’s current default sans serif font) an acceptable substitute for Arial?

A: Yes, the font style Calibri may be used. However, please do not use Calibri Light.

Q15: Are there any restrictions on what the cover letter may contain?

A: The cover letter should not contain information that should be addressed in one of the designated sections of the SF 330.

Q16: Are section dividers between large sections acceptable (i.e., between large sections such as SF330 Section E and Section F)? If so, would they be excluded from the page count?

A: Section dividers or tabs between large sections are acceptable. They will be excluded from the page count provided that they contain no substantive information.

Q17: Can a disclosure statement be included? If so, is it excluded from the page count?

A: Yes, a disclosure statement may be included and if so, it will be excluded from the page count.

Q18: Are there any file naming conventions to follow or file size limitations for the submission via FedConnect?

A: No naming convention is required. The file size limitation for each FedConnect upload has been provided earlier in this Q&A document.

Q19: Can header/footer information (e.g., identifying submission information such as a logo, date, solicitation number) be placed within the top and bottom 1” margins at the 8pt graphics/table font size?

A: This is acceptable.

Q20: Given the Part II forms are primarily personnel and revenue tables, may we use a smaller font, given graphics and tables can be as small as 8 point font? This allows the Part IIs to remain one page each and while not part of page limitation, single page is a cleaner presentation.

A: An 8-point font size is acceptable for Part II.

Q21: Are resumes and example projects, SF 330 Sections E and F, considered tables, wherein the font size is permitted to be less than 12 point?

A: No, resumes and example projects must adhere to the 12 point font size.

SMALL BUSINESS QUESTIONS

Q22: All previous versions of the solicitation, included page allocations for “large businesses” to address Small Business Participation and was designated as “Section H.6.” The solicitation, however, does not address this item nor has it allocated additional pages for firms to be able to respond. Please clarify how Offerors should address “Small Business Participation” in a response.

A: We are no longer utilizing a separate evaluation factor for large businesses to demonstrate the utilization of small business. This area will instead be evaluated as part of past performance. The past performance questionnaire includes a rating area for small business utilization. In addition, performance evaluations such as CPARS also address the utilization of small business, as applicable. In addition, Section H is available for offerors to provide additional information to address this area.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Q23: Multiple questions were received as to whether recent Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings be submitted in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)?

A: Yes, a recent CPARS may be submitted in lieu of a past performance questionnaire.

Q24: On Page 6 of the Official Request for Standard Form 330, in the first paragraph of IV.2, it states that “some or all of the ten example projects may be currently active or ongoing projects.” Later in the same paragraph, it is stated, “projects that were completed.” In the fourth paragraph it states, “past performance information will be evaluated for completed or on-going projects…” Please confirm it is acceptable to provide project examples that are currently on-going.

A: Confirmed. Project examples may be submitted that are completed and/or currently active or on-going.

Q25: Please confirm that no documentation of Past Performance Questionnaire requests need to be included within the SF330 submission.

A: Confirmed. No documentation of PPQ requests needs to be included within the SF 330 submission. However, offerors are not prohibited from including this information.

Q26: Are Past Performance Questionnaires required to be submitted for the 10 projects included in Section F? The Request for Standard Form 330 states “Offerors may provide the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter . . .”

A: Past performance questionnaires are one means of evaluating past performance information; however, they are not the only means. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to provide the questionnaire for completion by clients, but it is not a requirement that a past performance questionnaire is received for each of the 10 projects since the EPA will utilize other methods, as necessary, to evaluate past performance information.

Q27: Please clarify the instructions for receiving Past Performance Questionnaires. Currently, the solicitation is silent on whether or not an Offeror must use a separate PPQ for each project when that project is being used for more than one CLIN response (e.g., PD1 is the same for CLINs 1, 2, 3 – do you want 1 PPQ or 3?). Also, we recommend that the form be modified to include a box designating the CLIN (or multiple CLINs) that the PPQ is being associated with.

As you know, multiple PPQ responses for the same project places additional burden on clients reviewing projects.

A: The same past performance questionnaire may be submitted for multiple CLINs.

Q28: Please clarify the instructions for receiving Past Performance Questionnaires. If a Section F project has been executed under multiple contracts for several clients, please clarify if we can send the Past Performance Questionnaire along with the Client Authorization Letter to each client we work for on the single Section F Project (at a single site)? (and duplicate questions)

A: If completed questionnaires are received from multiple clients regarding a single Section F project, the EPA will evaluation all information received. Please note that the EPA may also reference other sources of past performance information that are available to the agency to ensure that a comprehensive past performance evaluation is conducted for each offeror, no matter the number of past performance questionnaires received for each project.

Q29: Has the Government considered allowing Offerors to modify the PPQ form, to include either a header or footer so that responses from reviewers are easily associated with each Offeror. We respectfully request being allowed to include a logo and statement noting the proprietary nature of the responses.

A: The past performance questionnaire may be modified to include a header or footer with this kind of information.

Q30: For Past Performance, can we submit PPQs received from our clients for other Federal RFPs for the same projects we intend to present? (and duplicate questions)

A: Please utilize the questionnaire included in the Official Request for SF 330s when sending to clients. However, if an offeror chooses to submit an alternate version of a completed questionnaire for one of the same projects highlighted in their SF 330, the EPA will consider the past performance information that is available on that alternate questionnaire.

Q31: For Past Performance (Page 6 of 10 of Official Request for Standard Form 330), please clarify if PPQs are required since the wording states “Offerors MAY provide the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter…”. In addition, if we submit the letter and PPQ to our clients and they do not email back to the EPA prior to proposal due date, can we include their reference information and date the PPQ was emailed to them within our Section H, Past Performance section for future reference check?

A: Offerors may include this information, but it is not required.

Q32: What should we do if a USACE District is unwilling to fill out and sign a PPQ because their Counsel advised them not to? Their response has been that CPARS provides an official Task Order level evaluation of the Contractor by the Government and is to be used by all Federal Agencies.

A: A recent CPARS rating may be submitted in lieu of a completed past performance questionnaire.

Q33: Similarly, many PRPs at CERCLA sites have restrictions on completing PPQs on the advice of their in-house counsel even though the forms will not be viewed outside your agency. Will you consider projects without PPQs?

A: Yes, projects will be evaluated without PPQs since the EPA has other means of evaluating past performance.

Q34: General—Multiple EPA regions have historically elected to not complete Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) when requested on other government opportunities. Since PPQs are included in the DES request, will the EPA Regions be instructed to fill out PPQs for this opportunity?

A: Recent CPARS evaluations may be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires. If EPA regions choose not to fill out past performance questionnaires, the EPA has other means of evaluating past performance.

Q35: Please allow offerors to submit, in lieu of the Attachment 3 form, existing CPARS/ACASS performance evaluations or previously completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires. This change will reduce the burden on government staff who have already provided written feedback in a standardized format.

A: Yes, CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations may be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires.

Q36: In the PPQ Instructions (Attachment 3), Item 5 in the instructions for the reviewer, how will EPA know which CLIN the PPQ should be applied to if an Offeror is submitting multiple SF330s for multiple CLINs? Should the instruction Item 5 include the CLIN number in the e-mail subject line?

A: The EPA will be able to match the questionnaires to the offerors using the Contract Data section and by referencing the projects listed in the submitted SF 330s, which should match the questionnaires received. The instructions are not being modified at this time.

Q37: The INSTRUCTIONS to Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire (Page 1 of 10) state that the contractor and the reviewer should Complete/Review (respectively) the CONTRACT DATA section on Page 3. The CONTRACT DATA section appears to be on Page 2 of 10. Will EPA provide an update Attachment 3 that corrects that item?

A: Attachment 3 is not being updated at this time; however, offerors may correct the page numbers listed, as needed.