RAF_DES_Q As_1.20.16.pdf

DES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

January 2016

The EPA is providing the following answers to address the remaining questions submitted by the remedial contracting community in response to the DES Official Request for Standard Form 330. All questions have now been addressed and the DES Official Request for Standard Form 330 has been revised accordingly and posted along with this DES Questions and Answers document.

EVALUATION PROCESS

1. How would the government like offerors to indicate that they wish to be evaluated and considered for the reserved small business awards?

A: There is no need to provide indication that offerors wish to be considered and evaluated for the reserved small business awards. Small businesses will automatically be considered and evaluated for one of the reserved small business awards.

2. Under Technical Evaluation Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5, the Official Request states “…,plus any narrative the offeror presents in Section H…” Does EPA consider the term “narrative” inclusive of graphics, tables and/or figures or will only text be considered and evaluated as “narrative”?

A: Narrative in Section H can contain text, graphics, tables, and/or figures.

3. Will EPA consider and evaluate any introductory information (text, tables, figures, graphics) presented at the beginning of Section E Resumes in addition to the Section E forms if it is included in the 75 page limit?

A: Yes. Text, tables, figures, and graphics presented at the beginning of Section E, Resumes will be considered and evaluated as part of the 75 page limit.

4. Will EPA consider and evaluate any introductory information (text, tables, figures, graphics) presented at the beginning of Section F Project Descriptions in addition to the Section F forms if it is included in the 75 page limit?

A: Yes. Text, tables, figures, and graphics presented at the beginning of Section F, Example Projects will be considered and evaluated as part of the 75 page limit.

5. SF330 Section D Organizational Chart is a required form. The Request for SF330 does not indicate under which evaluation factor(s) the Section D will be considered and evaluated. Please clarify where the information presented on Section D will be considered and evaluated.

A: Section D will be considered and evaluated as part of the overall review of the offeror’s SF 330, especially as it relates to Technical Evaluation Factors 4 and 5. The Official Request for SF 330s has been updated to reflect the inclusion of Section D for those evaluation factors.

6. Technical Evaluation Criteria number 5 Capacity to staff the contract and accomplish the work in the required time. It is stated that the evaluation of this criteria will be “as presented in Sections, C, E and Part II of the SF 330 and any narrative in Section H.” Will Section D Organization Chart be utilized in evaluation of this criteria?

A: Please see the answer provided for Question 5.

7. Will EPA consider and evaluate additional information, in Section H under Factor 3 Professional Qualifications, on other management or technical professionals or is consideration and evaluation limited to the “key” personnel as identified in Section E?

A: EPA will consider and evaluate additional information presented in Section H that relates to Technical Factor 3 Professional Qualifications. Additional information can be presented in Section H outside of the key personnel resumes identified in Section E.

8. General—Will the SF330 responses be printed for evaluation, or will the responses be viewed electronically during evaluation? On-screen evaluation versus printout will affect how we prepare our response. If printed, will the proposals be printed in color or black and white?

A: A combination of methods is anticipated. The Agency will encourage that SF 330s be viewed and evaluated electronically to the maximum extent practicable; however, SF 330s may also be printed during the evaluation process for the use of AEEB reviewers. AEEB reviewers will have access to electronic versions of all SF 330s, whether or not they might also choose to reference a hard-copy of the SF 330. If printed, the Agency will encourage the printing of SF 330s in black and white.

9. While offerors have discretion in determining the positions and number of staff proposed as key personnel, can EPA confirm that the evaluation of key personnel will be based on the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel needed to perform the SOW, not on the number of resumes provided? The 75-page maximum length for the SF330 limits our ability to provide a large number of key personnel resumes.

A: The EPA will be evaluating the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel required to perform the SOW, and the evaluation of this factor will not be based solely on the number of key personnel proposed. The EPA will consider the array of disciplines presented, in terms of whether the proposed personnel provide the appropriate technical and management staff needed to oversee the contract and successfully perform the DES SOW.

10. Can EPA provide clarification on how it plans to evaluate an offeror’s knowledge of “regulations that are particular to the states within each region”? What criteria does EPA plan to use?

A: To evaluate an offeror’s knowledge of state regulations, the AEEB may consider information contained in the offeror’s key personnel resumes (Section E), example projects (Section F), and any additional information included in Section H. Each Region has unique requirements relative to its geographic location, such as state and local laws, policies, regulations, etc. that would pertain to projects anticipated for that Region.

11. Will the entities that are part of a joint venture be evaluated individually or collectively? An ongoing Region 9 procurement (Architect and Engineering Services Mine Contract, SOL No. SOL-R9-15- 00006) that we are pursuing contains explicit information about evaluating joint ventures:

”In the event that firms propose under a joint venture agreement, the joint venture must meet the definition of a small business joint venture and each firm must independently demonstrate the ability to implement the requirements of the tasks described in the Statement of Work.”

The clarity of the information in the Region 9 request is helpful to us in preparing our response. Will the DES submittals be evaluated similarly with respect to joint ventures?

A: DES is a full and open procurement, with reserves for small businesses. Therefore joint ventures containing both large and small businesses primes may submit SF 330s under DES.

However, for a joint venture to “qualify” for one of the small business reserves under DES, the joint venture must meet the definition of a small business joint venture. Per guidance listed on the Small Business Administration website, please note that qualifying as a small business joint venture means that each entity of the joint venture must meet the requirements of a small business.

12. For LB and SB submissions, how will EPA evaluate personnel and past performance of team members relative to the LB and/or SB prime?

A: EPA will be evaluating whether the overall mix of personnel, whether part of the LB and/or SB, is appropriate to perform the services listed in the DES SOW. All proposed key personnel will be evaluated based on their qualifications as they relate to the requirements of the contract. In terms of past performance, EPA will determine a confidence rating for the proposed team based on the past performance information related to the ten project examples. There is no stated preference or relative weights that EPA is relying on when evaluating personnel or past performance relative to large or small business primes; rather, EPA will be evaluating the demonstrated capability of the overall team to perform under the contract.

TECHNICAL / STATEMENT OF WORK QUESTIONS:

13. Attachment 1, page 1. The types of sites anticipated for CLIN 3 include “large, diffuse groundwater sites”. Is the term “large, diffuse” meant to define non-point pollution sources? If not, please clarify.

A: The term “large, diffuse” in this context may include a large area of groundwater contamination originating from either a single point, source or a number of point and/or non-point sources.

14. CLIN 0001 support lists the following sites where DES-type activities may be conducted (Attachment 1, page 1 of 22): landfills, manufacturing facilities, groundwater sites with challenging geology and sediment sites. We are aware of several mine remediation Superfund sites within CLIN 0001 that are being technically supported through the current RAC program. Does EPA intend to continue this support for these CLIN 0001 mine remediation Superfund sites using the DES contract?

A: The ability to conduct remediation activities at mining sites is within the scope of DES, but at this time, EPA cannot provide plans for Region 1’s acquisition strategy for their mining sites.

For all projects, EPA will conduct acquisition planning to select the best acquisition tool available, including DES, to meet the specific needs of the project.

15. Region 9 has solicited a new A-E services (AES) contract, as a small business set-aside, to support remedial planning and oversight activities for hard rock mine sites and mine-related sites in Regions 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10. EPA Region 9 anticipates making a single award to a small business that will responsible for a potential capacity of nearly $214M over a 10-year period. It is our understanding that the DES suite of contracts, currently scheduled for solicitation in this fiscal quarter, will have a scope of work nearly identical to that of the EPA Region 9 AES. The primary difference is that DES will service not only mine-related sites but all types of NPL sites. EPA anticipates that the capacity of DES in CLIN 3 (Regions 8, 9 and 10) to be $375M over a 10-year period with up to 7 contract awards.

• Does EPA intend to use the DES contracts to support remedial planning and oversight activities for hard rock mine sites? If so, how will EPA determine which contracting vehicle (DES or the EPA Region 9 small business AES) to use in supporting remedial planning activities at any given mine-related site?

• Does EPA anticipate an increase in funding levels in coming years for remedial planning and oversight activities at mine sites?

• The Region 9 mine sites solicitation specifies $187M in capacity for Regions 8, 9, and 10; should we assume a comparable level of capacity for mine-related sites under the DES CLIN 3 contracts?

• Because EPA will award task orders under the DES contracts competitively, the single-award Region 9 AES contract will be, from an administrative standpoint, a more expedient contracting vehicle than DES. How will EPA promote fair competition among the Region 9 AES contractor and DES contractors for work at mine-related sites?

A: The Region 9 AES contract is intended to be the primary vehicle for remedial planning and oversight activities at hard rock mines sites in the regions identified in that contract, and duplicative capacity has not been included in the DES contract. For all projects, not just mining projects, as part of the acquisition planning process, EPA will consider all acquisition tools and select the tool that best fits the specific technical needs of the project.

16. In the EPA DES Draft Statement of Work issued in August, 2015, it states under Task 2, Field Work and Analytical Support that, “All analytic work shall be done in compliance with the EPA Forum on Environmental Measurement Competency Policy (Policy to Assure Competency of Laboratories, Field Sampling, and Other Organizations Generating Environmental Measurement Data under Agency funded Acquisitions (Agency Policy Directive Number FEM 2011-01).”

1. We assume that the FEM Policy applies to analyses performed by off-site, fixed laboratories, but may not apply to these other types of sampling, measurement, and analyses:

• Mobile laboratory analyses

• Field measurements and analyses (e.g., pH, Hach testing, or similar field measurement approaches)

• Field sampling

2. If the answer to question 1 is that one or more of these other types sampling, measurement, and analyses (i.e., mobile laboratories, field measurements, field testing, or sampling) are included in the requirement to be in compliance with the EPA FEM Policy, is it sufficient to have the appropriate quality management systems in place to demonstrate compliance?

A: The answer to Question 1 above is that sampling, measurement, and analyses ARE included in the requirement to be in compliance with the EPA FEM Policy. To answer Question 2 above, contractors (e.g., laboratories, field sampling and measurement contractors) generating environmental data through measurement under Agency-funded acquisitions must submit documentation of their competency, which may include participation in applicable certification and/or accreditation programs. This may include documentation of experience/training of employees, and in the case of field sampling and measurement, documentation of internal laboratory certification and noting requirements of certification that will be imposed on external analytic subcontracts.

17. Attachment 1 DES SOW. Section 6.2 Value Engineering (VE). The SOW specifies that “The Superfund VE Process requires value engineering activities to be conducted by a third party during the RD for EPA-lead projects.” Can the EPA specify if the VE third party is typically a subcontractor to the firm doing the RD but completely independent of the design team; a separate EPA contract completely independent of the DES RD contractor and it’s team members; or a third party employee of the DES contractor who is not assigned to the RD team and thus independent?

A: Historically, EPA has conducted value engineering for remedial design using all of the tools referenced above. EPA intends to continue to leverage all of these tools moving forward. The choice of tool will be based on project-specific circumstances.

AWARD QUESTIONS

18. Attachment 2. Please confirm that the provisions regarding Conflict of Interest (COI) are provided at this stage of the procurement for information purposes only and that offerors should not provide COI certification or plan with the SF330 response.

A: Confirmed. The COI certifications and COI plan will be requested as part of the RFP stage with the most highly qualified firms.

19. After award, will contractors be required to load our full proposal VERBATIM to the Access database on the website or will updates be allowed to highlight key words for later use in task order competitions?

A: After award, firms will input their SF 330 into an EPA-provided Microsoft Access SF 330 Form, similar to the SF 330 Form provided in previous Draft Requests for SF 330s. Firms will submit their completed SF 330 Form to the Contracting Officer for inclusion in EPA SF 330 Database. Updates to firms’ SF 330s will be allowed at that time and annual updates will also be requested. Conversion of the SF 330 data and attachments to the Microsoft Access SF 330 format and structure will take place after award, and further instructions will be given to firms at that time.

20. Can EPA provide clarification on how it plans to administer the contract (i.e., at the Headquarters, CLIN, and/or Regional levels) to better inform offerors in preparing an effective organizational structure that meets EPA’s needs for managing the DES contract?

A: The Agency plans to administer the DES contracts at Headquarters with a national Contracting Officer, with task orders to be awarded and administered at the CLIN and/or regional level by CLIN-level and/or regional Contracting Officers. While this is the intent, this plan is subject to change based on the needs and resources of the Agency.

21. Will EPA designate or delegate CO authority to a specific regional CO after award? Or will CO authority be retained at EPA Headquarters? If so, which regions will authority be designated or delegated to?

A: Please see the answer to Question 20.

22. Please confirm that the answers provided by EPA regarding questions to the draft Request for SF 330 posted on August 21, 2015, and Attachment 7 (Questions and Answers) are not binding to the Official Request for Standard Form 330 released on December 8, 2015.

A: Answers provided through previous Q&A documents in response to the Draft Request for SF 330s are for informational purposes only and in some cases may no longer be applicable.

The information contained in the Official Request for SF 330s, including any subsequent amendments, is the overarching authority.

KEY PERSONNEL

23. Regarding the 11/6/2015 responses to questions on DES SOL HQ-14-00022, EPA’s responses to questions 12, 16, and 17 seem inconsistent and potentially conflicting with respect to the discussion of task order managers and key personnel.

A: Previous Q&A postings addressed the subject of Task Order Managers by stating that project or task order managers would not be considered key personnel at the contract level, but that resumes could be submitted for any key personnel that an offeror would like to highlight in terms of accomplishing the DES Statement of Work. EPA acknowledges that this answer may have appeared to be inconsistent. To clarify, the EPA is no longer identifying key personnel position titles at the contract level. The offeror has the ability to submit the key personnel resumes that best demonstrate their qualifications and expertise necessary to execute the DES SOW requirements. Therefore, if an offeror wishes to propose someone as a Task Order Manager in Section E in a key personnel role, the offeror is free to do so.

24. Please clarify whether or not an offeror can identify someone as a key person in the SF 330 if that that person’s primary role on the contract will be to serve as a task order manager.

A: Please see the answer to the Question 23.

PAST PERFORMANCE

25. In the last round of answers to questions it states in response to Q23 that “recent CPARS may be submitted in lieu of a past performance questionnaire.” Should the CPARS be submitted as an attachment to our SF330 submittal or transmitted separately similar to the PPQs?

A: The offeror may submit the applicable CPARS record either as an attachment to the SF330 or as a separate submission to the CO. Past performance evaluations such as CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE may be submitted by the offeror to the Contracting Officer, Nadia Velasco, at velasco.nadia@epa.gov by the due date listed in the amendment to the Official Request for SF 330s.

26. The answer provided for Q23 indicates that CPARs may be submitted in lieu of PPQs. To ensure delivery of the CPARs, we would prefer to use the same submittal approach as the PPQs. Please confirm that it is acceptable to use the PPQ form, complete the Contract Data section, attach the CPARs and submit to the Contracting Officer.

A: This approach is acceptable.

27. If EPA intends to receive the CPARs as attachments to the proposal, please confirm that these attachments are excluded from the 75-page limit.

A: Confirmed. Past performance evaluations such as CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE are excluded from the 75-page limit.

28. 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: The Official Request for SF 330s stated that offerors may provide the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter to clients. This was stated because receiving a completed past performance questionnaire for each of the ten projects is not a prerequisite for award. The Agency will not penalize an offeror if clients on project examples choose not to fill out the past performance questionnaire on the offeror’s behalf. For government contracts, offerors have the option of submitting a CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE evaluation in place of a past performance questionnaire, so providing the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter to clients for every project example is not mandatory. The EPA will reference other sources of past performance information, such as PIPRS or contacting private industry points of contact, if needed, to ensure that a thorough past performance evaluation is conducted. Please note that there is nothing that precludes an offeror from submitting CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE evaluations and clients also submitting completed past performance questionnaires that reference the same project examples.

29. In the DES Q&A file from 12/21/15, Q/A 35 states, “Yes, CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations may be submitted in lieu of past performance questionnaires.” If Offerors do choose to submit CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations, please advise how they are to submit this information.

mailto:velasco.nadia@epa.gov

• Should these documents be forwarded directly to the Contracting Officer, Nadia Velasco, by email with the subject line of DES SOL-HQ-14-00022 – CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations – [Offeror’s Name]? OR

• Should these documents be part of the .pdf file electronically submitted through FedConnect?

A: Either means of submission is acceptable. If emailing, please submit CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations to the Contracting Officer, Nadia Velasco, at velasco.nadia@epa.gov. The subject line of DES SOL-HQ-14-00022 – CPARS/ACASS or NAVFAC/USACE past performance evaluations – [Offeror’s Name] is acceptable. Past performance evaluations may also be electronically submitted through FedConnect to accompany the offeror’s SF 330. Past performance evaluations should be submitted by the due date listed in the amendment to the Official Request for SF 330s.

30. EPA indicates that offerors will be allowed to submit subcontracts for past performance projects in Section F. Does EPA plan to provide past performance evaluations for subcontracts that an offeror holds under an EPA prime contract? Or must the offeror rely on the prime contractor to provide the past performance evaluation for that subcontract?

A: The intent of allowing subcontracts as past performance project examples is to afford the offeror maximum flexibility to propose the ten strongest project examples for the proposed team. Therefore, a project example that was performed in a subcontracting role may have a past performance questionnaire submitted by the client (the prime contractor for that contract). In general, the prime contractor should provide past performance information on subcontractors and contractor team arrangements using available sources of information, such as recent Federal contracts, information available in public and commercial databases, and/or requesting that the subcontractor send the Past Performance Questionnaire and Client Authorization Letter to its respective clients.

31. The RFP directed that PPQs must be submitted directly to EPA by our clients. As such, there is no impact from PPQs on page count of the SF330. If copies of CPARS are now included in our SF330 submissions, will they count toward the 75 page limit?

A: Please see the answer to Question 27.

32. Will EPA still access CPARS through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, even if copies are not submitted as part of our SF330?

A: Yes, EPA will access information in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) if copies of CPARS reports are not submitted by the offeror. Even if copies of CPARS reports are submitted by the offeror, the EPA may still access information in PPIRS.

33. Should PPQs still be submitted directly to EPA by our clients?

A: An offeror may submit a past performance report such as CPARS in lieu of past performance questionnaires. If electing to send past performance questionnaires to clients, the completed questionnaires should be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer by the client. Clients providing input and/or submitting questionnaires should hold a Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, or Program/Project Manager role on the contract (or similar active position).

mailto:velasco.nadia@epa.gov