ESO_Draft_RFP_Q As.pdf

Environmental Services and Operations (ESO)

Draft Solicitation Comments

SOL-R1-14-00003

Q1. When does EPA intend to release the Final RFP?

A1. EPA intends to release the final solicitation towards the end of February 2016, but advises potential offerors to monitor www.fbo.gov and www.fedconnect.net for any official posting.

Q2. Can EPA provide the appropriate NAICS code for this solicitation?

A2. The NAICS code for this solicitation remains 562910, Environmental Remediation Services, with a size standard of 500 employees.

Q3. For competitive task order (TO) bids, the time and costs to prepare full technical and cost proposals in response to each request for proposal (RFP) will increase the contractor’s overhead expenditures. Further, competing every TO places an undo cost burden on small businesses. An additional drawback is that the Agency will require additional resources to review, evaluate, and award each TO from among a pool of up to 7 CLIN contractors. It is recommended that some

TOs be set aside for direct award, rather than competed. For example, if a contractor is already working for the agency at a particular site, new or follow-on work could be tasked as a direct

(non-competed) award. This approach would also save EPA costs for a different contractor to come up to speed and develop all new site-specific plans (UFP-QAPPs, SSHPs, etc.) (vs. simple amendments to existing plans for the existing contractor), or, lower value TOs, say a threshold value of <$150,000 could be directly awarded. This value threshold is used by the Air Force.

A3. EPA will follow the fair opportunity procedures that are outlined in FAR 16.505 and will make the process as streamlined as possible while adhering to the regulations.

Q4. Competing every task order (TO) among as many as 7 awardees may curb innovation. Some contractors might not be willing to try as many cutting-edge solutions to remedial problems if a potential failure of a new technology could result in the loss of the opportunity to win other TOs.

Consequently, EPA might not end up with the newest, and potentially more cost-effective, technologies on their projects.

A4. With price or cost being considered under each order as one of the factors in the selection decision for the fair opportunity process, it is expected that offerors will consider cost-effective technologies and solutions in order to submit a competitive task order offer.

Q5. Other EPA solicitations include clause EPAAR 1552.219-71 Procedures for Participation in the EPA Mentor-Protégé Program. Please confirm that this clause is applicable to the ESO solicitation and will be included in the final solicitation, in which the Mentor firm prepares the application for participation with a socially and economically disadvantaged Protégé firm as the

Joint Venture (JV) offeror. Also confirm that the EPA Mentor-Protégé application shall be submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal, with a copy sent to the EPA Office of Small Business

Programs (OSBP).

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.fedconnect.net/

A5. The EPAAR provision 1552.219.71, Procedures for Participation in the EPA Mentor-

Protégé Program, will be included in the final solicitation. In accordance with paragraph (e) of the provision, the application shall be submitted as part of the proposal. The proposal instructions will indicate where this information shall be placed.

Q6. In response to a question on the EPA Architect and Engineering Services Mine Contract

(SOL-R9-15-00006), EPA indicated that a fully-qualified Joint Venture under the SBA-approved

Mentor Protégé program does not need to meet the requirement that each firm independently demonstrate the ability to implement the requirements of the tasks described in the Statement of

Work. Can EPA please confirm that this position also applies to this solicitation?

A6. The mentor firm and the protégé firm do not individually need to demonstrate the ability to meet all of the requirements in the ESO performance work statement (PWS). The combined abilities of the firms, including any team subcontractors, must be able to meet all of the requirements in the ESO PWS.

Q7. Please clarify whether use of RCMS for cost tracking will be required for this contract, and, if so, the costs for preparing site-specific 1900-55 forms is direct billable to the project assigned.

A7. RCMS will not be used for cost tracking under the ESO contract.

Q8. Clause B-2 requires “….Attachment 3 cover all expenses, including report preparation, salaries…” This statement suggests build-up/breakdown of labor rates. What is the intent of inclusion of “report preparation” in light of the fact that report preparation is typically a separate line item related to specific deliverables?

A8. The B-2 clause included in the draft RFP has been replaced. The new clause utilizes the language contained in FAR 16.601 that states the fixed hourly rates include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit.

Q9. Clause B-2 states, in part, “The Government shall pay the Contractor for the life of a delivery order at rates in effect when the delivery order was issued, even if performance under the delivery order crosses into another period.” Please clarify that, as with current FFP and T&M

EPA projects, task orders issued under this solicitation will be priced (FFP and T&M) and billed

(T&M) with rates to be listed in Attachment 3 “Contract Pricing Schedule” or otherwise discounted rates in accordance with the Contract Year Rates for the period(s) for which the work is to be performed.

A9. Yes, the rates listed in Attachment 3, or discounted rates, will be used for billing purposes.

The B-2 clause included in the draft RFP will be replaced. The new clause specifies that the maximum allowable fixed labor rates set forth in Attachment 3 “Contract Pricing Schedule” apply for the duration of the applicable contract year. If work under a task order crosses into another contract year, the Government will reimburse the contractor for labor provided under a task order at the rate in effect for the period in which the work is performed.

Q10. Clause B-2 states, “The Government shall pay the Contractor for the life of a delivery order at rates in effect when the delivery order was issued, even if performance under the delivery order crosses into another period.” What is the typical expected delivery order period of performance for this contract?

A10. The typical expected task order period of performance will vary depending on the type of work ordered. The B-2 clause included in the draft RFP has been replaced. The new clause specifies that the maximum allowable fixed labor rates set forth in Attachment 3 “Contract

Pricing Schedule” apply for the duration of the applicable contract year. If work under a task order crosses into another contract year, the Government will reimburse the contractor for labor provided under a task order at the rate in effect for the period in which the work is performed.

Q11. Clause B-3 2nd paragraph indicates that travel expenses are allowable for employees required on-site if the work site is in excess of fifty (50) miles one way from the individual’s place of employment or residence, whichever is less, and total work day (including travel time) exceeds 12 hour per day. Please clarify if this is meant to be applicable when employees are on travel that includes per diem. Local mileage to visit a work site which is less than 50 miles one way and less than 12 hours direct charge to the project is also reimbursable. An example would be for a Project Manager or other technical staff to visit a work site for inspection, to perform technical effort or to attend a client meeting at any time during the day, but would not consume the entire day. In addition, please clarify that travel expenses incurred during any number of hours during the day are allowable and reimbursable.

A11. Travel costs are only reimbursable if the employee is required on-site and the work site is in excess of 50 miles one way and the total work day, including travel time, exceeds 12 hours per day, which is indicated in the current Federal Travel Regulations (FTR). If an employee needs to travel to a site that is less than 50 miles and the work day is less than 12 hours, like in the Project

Manager example from the question, then travel costs are not reimbursable.

Q12. Clause B-3 implies that travel costs are limited to “worked days” only. If a project requires extended travel over a weekend and a portion of the weekend is a “non-work day” will travel costs be reimbursed for that day?

A12. If a project requires extended travel over a weekend and a portion of the weekend is a

“non-work day”, travel costs may or may not be reimbursed for that “non-work day.” The reimbursement for “non-work day” travel will be determined on a situational basis in accordance with the FTR.

Q13. Clause E-2 states, “The offeror must submit the following quality system documentation as a separate and identifiable part of its technical proposal:” Furthermore, “This documentation will be prepared in accordance with the specifications identified above or equivalent specifications defined by EPA. The offeror shall describe their plan for covering the costs associated with the required documentation.” Please clarify as to: 1) what type of plan is expected by the EPA to address these costs; and 2) what section of the proposal should contain this plan?

A13. The requirement for submitting documentation for covering the costs has been removed.

Q14. Clause E-2, please clarify whether the costs to prepare project-specific supplements to the

Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan for each applicable project will be direct billable to the project assigned.

A14. A quality assurance document that is prepared for a particular project, e.g. a Quality

Assurance Project Plan, can be directly billable to that project, while the contract level QMP is not directly billable.

Q15. Clause E-2 requires that the contractor complies with the ANSI/ASQC E4 1994

Standard. However, that standard has been replaced by a 2014 version and the 1994 version can no longer be obtained. Will contractors still be held to the 1994 version or will this be updated to the 2014 version?

A15. The reference has been changed in the final solicitation. Contractors will be held to the most recent, 2014, version.

Q16. Clause F-5 indicates the period of performance of the contract shall be from Date of Award through 60 months exclusive of all required reports. What period of time will be allowed to complete required reports following the 60 month base period of performance?

A16. The words “exclusive of all required reports” has been deleted from the clause.

Q17. Clause G-3 discusses final indirect rates. Does this clause apply only to those rates used to mark-up other direct costs defined as “materials” that are managed under the cost reimbursable portion of the contract, such as travel? A final indirect rate determination is usually not applicable to the cost elements of the contract that are firm fixed price such as prime labor rates and subcontracted services.

A17. Clause G-3, 1552.242-70 Indirect Costs (APR 1984) Deviation (JUN 1992), has been removed, however FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (JUN 2013) remains applicable.

The FAR clause applies to indirect rates that are applied to reimbursable other direct costs in accordance with contractor accounting practices on a time and materials type task order. The

FAR clause does not apply to the fully burdened labor rates included in the Contract Pricing

Schedule or to fixed price task orders.

Q18. Clause H-12, will EPA ask for cost estimates as part of this process?

A18. Yes, EPA will ask for cost estimates as part of the fair opportunity process for task order awards. EPA will comply with the requirements of FAR 16.505 where the contracting officer must consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in selection decision in orders greater than $3,500.

Q19. Clause H-12 and other sections of the draft RFP indicate “Firm Fixed Price and Time and

Materials task orders may be written against this IDIQ contract.” Clause B-3 and other sections of the draft RFP discuss cost reimbursement mechanisms for travel and other direct costs. Will cost reimbursement be used for travel and ODCs under both Firm Fixed Price and Time and

Materials task orders?

A19. Cost reimbursement mechanisms for travel and other direct costs may be used on time and material type task orders as necessary.

Q20. Clause H-15 states that the contractor may be required to provide to the Government

“Contractor and personnel performance ratings and evaluations.” Personnel past performance ratings are considered confidential and are not released unless required by law. We suggest removing the requirement for potentially providing personnel performance ratings and evaluations.

A20. The Section H-15 clause, EPA-H-27-101 DATA, has been removed.

Q21. Clause H-16 restricts the disclosure of ANY data that is generated or obtained during contract performance. This restriction is general and very broad. For example, it would not allow the use of project information to be submitted for past performance information for new business pursuits or for internal business use to report project activity and status. It is respectfully requested that this clause be removed or replaced with a less restrictive clause.

A21. EPA-H-27-102 states, “Any data that is generated or obtained during contract performance shall be considered confidential, and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than Environmental

Protection Agency employees without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.”

Data generated or obtained during contract performance generally would not be included in any past performance information to be used for new business pursuits. If the contractor wants to disclose data to any party other than EPA, contracting officer approval is needed. Since work is being performed on behalf of EPA, project activity reporting and status updates will be provided to EPA.

Q22. Provision L-11 requests general and organizational financial information. If the offeror is a joint venture (JV), should that information be provided by each JV member firm or for solely for the JV entity? Should financial information be provided for each team subcontractor? Please clarify which entities should provide financial information.

A22. The Section L provision, EPA-L-36-101 Proposal Instructions, has been updated to specify what entities need to submit this information. The information will be required for prime offerors and any joint venture teaming partners, but not team subcontractors.

Q23. Provision L-11(f), are offerors to provide only new awards received during the last FY?

Many projects are multi-year with an initial award during the first year and incrementally funded as options are exercised during the reminder of the project. How should those contracts/subcontracts be included in the table? Should offerors include the entire amount of the contract/task order in the year it was awarded or show the funds awarded/options exercised each year?

A23. Paragraph (f) asks for sales information from the last completed fiscal year of the contractor, plus the two fiscal years that precede the last completed fiscal year. This means that sales information will be provided for the latest three completed fiscal years. Sales and financial information should be reported in the fiscal year in which the sale occurred.

Q24. Provision L-12, the requirement to provide past performance information for proposed subcontractors expected to exceed $50,000 over the life of the contract is a low threshold amount for a contract with a maximum potential value of $850,000,000. Given the nature of the work to be performed, the large geographic areas covered, and the potential need for numerous subcontractors, the requirement may require a significant effort to coordinate and submit past performance information to EPA. Will EPA consider raising the dollar threshold to a more reasonable level, such as $250,000 or $500,000?

A24. The provision has been removed and language has been added to the proposal instructions to more clearly specify what is being requested. The dollar threshold is being raised to $750,000 over the life of the contract.

Q25. Provision L-12(b) requires that the offeror submit a list of “all contracts and subcontracts, or at least the example projects outlined in the Section L-23 provision, completed in the last five years, and all contracts and subcontracts currently in process, which are similar in nature to this requirement.” Please clarify whether this requirement is for the offeror only or for the offeror and proposed major teaming partners/subcontractors as stated in L-12(a).

A25. The provision has been removed and language has been added to the proposal instructions to more clearly specify what is being requested. The instructions will state that the offeror may elect to complete and send out the Client Authorization Letter and Past Performance

Questionnaire for contracts and subcontracts that are similar in scope, magnitude, relevance, and complexity to the ESO PWS. Offerors can submit this information for any teaming partner/subcontractor that meets the raised threshold of $750,000.

Q26. Provision L-12, how does this section relate to the instructions for preparation of Tab 3-

Factor 1: Past Performance, Section 3.1 Project Examples, Section 3.2 Other Past Performance

Information (Section L-23, pages 82-84) and Tab 7 Team Subcontracts (page 89)? Sections 3.1 and 3.2 require the offeror and its team subcontractors/partners provide up to eight projects performed within the last five years and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) be completed for these eight projects. Tab 7 states that information is required for subcontractors with a subcontract value of 10% of the total estimated contract value or $750,000, whichever is less.

A26. If a project is submitted under Section 3.1 that was performed by a teaming partner/subcontractor, then a teaming agreement is to be submitted under Tab 7 in Volume II.

The teaming agreement is not subject to any page count limitations.

Q27. Provision L-12, where is this information to be provided in the offerors proposal? Is it included within the page limitations?

A27. The proposal instructions have been revised to clarify where this information should be included in the proposal and if it is subject to the page count limitations.

Q28. Provision L-12(e) discusses the PPQ that must be submitted. Please include in the RFP if

EPA will accept evaluations from CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System), the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or existing PPQs previously completed by the client in lieu of new PPQs. It is recommended that these alternative past performance systems be allowed. Offerors could provide copies of these evaluations in their proposal.

A28. Please utilize the questionnaire that will be included in the final solicitation when sending to clients. However, if an offeror chooses to submit an alternate version of a completed questionnaire, the EPA will consider the past performance information that is available on that alternate questionnaire.

Q29. Provision L-15 states that “Each offeror shall specifically disclose whether it is directly engaged in or if it has a business, financial, or competitive relationship(s) with firms who have a potential conflict of interest at the sites listed in Attachment 12.” In the final RFP, Attachment 12 will be a list of federal facility sites. Is it the government's intent for offerors, at the time of submittal, to identify potential conflicts for federal facilities?

A29. Yes, it is EPA’s intention for offerors at the time of proposal submittal to identify potential conflicts at federal facilities. The following language has been added to the Section M Provision

EPA-M-09-102 EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: A contractor having conflicts of interests at the sites listed in

Attachment 12 would not cause a disclosure statement to be rated as unacceptable and would still be eligible for award. Organizational conflicts of interest at the sites listed in Attachment 12 will not affect an offeror’s ability to be awarded an ESO contract.

Q30. Provision L-15, please provide examples of scenarios that the government deems an OCI.

A30. The language in provision EPA-L-09-102, DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, has been revised. Each offeror shall specifically disclose whether it is directly engaged in or if it has a business, financial, or competitive relationship(s) with firms who provide technical support to EPA in fulfillment of its responsibilities for oversight and enforcement of both CERCLA and RCRA activities at active, closing, or former federal facility Superfund sites, as well as Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) installations, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), and Formerly Utilized Sites

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites. Based on the criteria provided, the offeror will need to determine if an OCI exists.

Q31. Provision L-17, are offerors required to include a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement with the proposal? If so, in which Volume/Tab should offerors provide the agreement? Is the agreement excluded from page count?

A31. Yes, offerors are required to include a copy of the joint venture agreement in the proposal.

The proposal instructions in the final solicitation will specify the agreement is to be placed in

Tab 7 of Volume II, which is excluded from any page count limitations.

Q32. Provision L-17 states that no single offeror may receive more than one ESO award per contract line item number (CLIN). Please confirm that an offeror can be awarded an ESO contract as a prime on one CLIN and as a Joint Venture under another CLIN.

A32. Yes, an offeror can be awarded an ESO contract as a prime in one CLIN and as a Joint

Venture under another CLIN.

Q33. Provision L-20 states the EPA intends to award contracts to those firms that can provide coverage to the entire CLIN and L-23 limits Past Performance and Technical Proposals to 50 pages without consideration for the number of CLINs an offeror is pursuing. Is it the intent of the

EPA to limit offerors to one proposal to address one or multiple CLINs based on the offeror’s pursuit strategy? If yes, then this places the offeror who has chosen to pursue multiple CLINs at a disadvantage against an offeror who has chosen to pursue a single CLIN. Pursuing multiple

CLINs requires a small business offeror to have a more robust teaming strategy to cover a larger geographical footprint than a small business pursuing a single CLIN. A single proposal that is written to multiple CLINs has fewer pages per CLIN to demonstrate technical capability, organizational structure, and staff footprint within each CLINs geographical region. Since many components of the proposal will be the same regardless of CLIN it is not believed the approach to resolve this issue should be separate proposals for each CLIN. It is suggested to allow an offeror who is pursuing multiple CLINs to add page count above the current limit of 50 based on the number of CLINs the proposal covers to allow the offeror to add CLIN specific project examples and organizational structures.

A33. If an offeror is planning to propose on more than one contract line item number (CLIN), then a separate proposal is required to be submitted for each CLIN. This information has been added to the provision EPA-L-36-101, Proposal Instructions.

Q34. Where on the SF 33 will the offeror designate which CLINs are being pursued?

A34. A component has been added to the cover letter described in the Past Performance and

Technical Proposal Instructions of provision EPA-L-36-101 to indicate the contract line item number (CLIN) for which the proposal is being submitted.

Q35. Provision L-22, it appears that all awardees in all CLINs will be small businesses and there will not be reserves in any CLIN for 8(a), HUBZone, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, or

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses. Will EPA consider reserves for these categories of small businesses?

A35. The ESO contracts will be set-aside for small businesses and there are no reserves for the specific socioeconomic categories.

Q36. Provisions L-21 and L-23, the instructions state that the proposal is to be submitted electronically through FedConnect and a hard copy is to be mailed to EPA. Both the electronic and hard copy are to be submitted by the due date and time identified in the solicitation. It is not understood why the proposal has to be submitted through FedConnect and in hard copy. The reason to submit electronically through FedConnect is to avoid having to produce and send a hard copy. Electronic through FedConnect is the environmentally friendly solution. If offerors are required to submit a hard copy, why must offerors submit an electronic version through

FedConnect, why not just include a CD in the package? Finally, if offerors are required to send a hard copy, please allow the hard copy to be delivered to EPA the next day. The offeror would submit the electronic version in FedConnect by the proposal due date and time and then send the hard copy to EPA.

A36. Please see the proposal instructions in the final solicitation once it is posted for more specific details. EPA will not be requiring a hard copy of the ESO proposals.

Q37. Provision L-23, the instructions specify submittal of the ESO Proposal in both hardcopy format and via electronic submittal through FedConnect. With respect to the electronic submittal via FedConnect, there is a concern that offerors may believe that they have uploaded their electronic proposal before the due date and time, but, because of electronic communication factors out of our control, the EPA may not officially receive the proposal before the due date and time. How will EPA provide offerors confirmation proof (the equivalent of a hard copy time stamp) that their electronic proposal submittal has been received by EPA in compliance with the due date and time?

A37. Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals as early as possible to avoid any last minute complications. EPA plans to acknowledge receipt of the proposals via FedConnect by the next business day. It is up to offerors to determine how early they wish to submit their proposal in order to receive EPA’s confirmation of receipt prior to the due date and time.

Q38. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1.1 states “For the specific purpose of presentation of the projects, two 11”x17” sheets of paper may be used for each project. For the presentation of these projects only, an 11”x17” sheet of paper will be considered as one page.” Does this mean that if an offeror presents information on both sides of an 11” x 17” sheet of paper that this will be considered as one page? Or is each side of the 11” by

17” sheet considered one page? When an 11x17 page is used for a graphical representation in other sections of the proposal, will it be counted as one or two pages?

A38. In Section 3.1.1, one side of an 11”x17” sheet will be considered one page. A single project can be presented on a maximum of two pages. Anywhere else in the proposal other than in

Section 3.1.1, one side of a sheet larger than 8 ½”x11” counts as two pages.

Q39. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1 states that two

11”x17” sheets of paper may be used for each project. Will EPA be providing an 11 x 17 template for the presentation of projects or is it up to the offerors to prepare the 11 x 17s in accordance with the proposal instructions?

A39. EPA will not be providing a template for the presentation of projects. It is up to offerors to prepare the project examples in accordance with the proposal instructions.

Q40. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1.1, is there an orientation requirement (portrait or landscape) for the fold-out 11x17 sheets?

A40. There is not an orientation requirement for the fold-out 11”x17” sheets.

Q41. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Instructions states

“Header/footer/page number information may be placed inside the margins…” Is the company logo allowed within the margins?

A41. Yes, a company logo can be placed within the margins.

Q42. Provision L-23 Volume I: Past Performance and Technical Proposal Instructions, the overall page limit for Volume I is 50 pages. Thirty-three of those pages are reserved for Tab 4

Technical Capability. Tab 3 can include 8 projects at two pages each which will account for an additional 16 pages bringing the total to 49 pages. Can offerors assume that the Section 3.1.2

Project Summary Table accounts for the last page in the 50 page limit?

A42. Yes, the Section 3.1.2 Project Summary Table accounts for the 17th counted page for Tab 3.

Language has been added to the provision to make this clear.

Q43. Provision L-23 notes several items that are excluded from page limitations. Please consider also excluding the following from page limitations: Tabs, Table of Contents, List of Figures, and

List of Acronyms.

A43. The solicitation has been updated to exclude Tabs and the Table of Contents from the page count limitations.

Q44. Provision L-23, the table at the bottom of page 80 of 94 requires a table of contents for each volume. Please confirm that the table of contents is excluded from the page limit for

Volume I.

A44. Yes, the table of contents is excluded from the page limit.

Q45. Provision L-23, Volumes I and II have very specific font size/type, page sizes, and margin sizes requirements, whereas Volume III has none. Please confirm that Volume III is not subject to any font size/types, margin sizes, or page sizes.

A45. Yes, Volume III is not subject to any font size/types, margin sizes, or page sizes limitations.

Q46. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1 states that in order for a team member’s performance to be considered, a fully executed Teaming Agreement must be included with this proposal. Section 3.2 states if a prime contractor is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the Government may consider the relevant experience and past performance history of the individual joint venture partners of the prime contractor in evaluating past performance of the joint venture. Please confirm the government will consider the experience and past performance history of teaming partners with a fully executed Teaming

Agreement and that of the individual joint venture partners of a prime contractor if submitting as a joint venture.

A46. Yes.

Q47. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1 states “Projects submitted must have been executed by the offeror and its team members as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor.” May the offeror submit projects that were executed by a joint venture to which the prime or its team member was a party?

A47. Yes. Language has been updated in the final solicitation.

Q48. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1 defines a project as “Work performed pursuant to one specific task order of an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract at one site or work performed pursuant to a site-specific contract for one site.” In many cases, work performed at a single site may encompass multiple task orders or contracts due to Government administrative needs or the longevity of the project.

Please expand the definition of a project to include the following: Work performed at a single site under multiple task orders or contracts may also be considered a project.

A48. The definition of a project has been expanded in the final solicitation.

Q49. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1, is there a requirement that a certain number of projects must come from the prime?

A49. There is no requirement that a certain number of projects must come from the prime contractor.

Q50. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1, if an offeror is pursuing multiple CLINs will the EPA allow more than eight project examples to allow an offeror to demonstrate CLIN geographical experience and past performance?

A50. As stated previously, if an offeror is planning to propose in more than one contract line item number (CLIN), then a separate proposal is required to be submitted for each CLIN.

Q51. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1, please confirm that only up to eight projects are required, regardless of how many CLINs a firm may be pursuing.

A51. An offeror may submit the same projects for different CLINs. However, the performance work statement gives examples of the types of sites that will be more common in a particular

CLIN, with the expectation that an offeror will tailor its proposal to a specific CLIN.

Q52. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1, are all projects required to be complete or can they be ongoing? If ongoing projects are acceptable, what percentage of the project must be complete, e.g., projects must be complete or at least 50% complete within the last five years.

A52. There is no minimum percentage of completion that must be complete as the relevance of the project may vary depending on the size of the project. EPA will evaluate all projects submitted based on recency and relevancy defined in the solicitation.

Q53. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1 states “The offeror will provide up to eight projects performed within the last five years…” To be more in alignment with the length of these contracts (up to 10 years), it is requested that EPA allows projects performed within the last 10 years.

A53. Projects older than five years are allowable as long as some portion of the performance was completed within the last five years.

Q54. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1, what is the minimum relevant project size in terms of dollar value?

A54. The onus is on the offeror to present projects relevant to the ESO performance work statement.

Q55. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1.1(2)(f), it is not understood why the date of the most recent invoice is an element that must be provided for the task order contract. Invoices are submitted monthly and, for performance-based contracts, upon meeting the milestone in the contract.

A55. The information provides one method of determining the size of the project.

Q56. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.1.2, the last criterion relates to radioactive isotopes and/or UXO. While Radiation support services was listed in both the September 2014 Draft Statement of Work and this Draft Solicitation, Military

Munitions Response was excluded from the Draft Solicitation. It was included in the September

2014 Draft (Page 17 of 19, Section 7.10) but with “(placeholder)” after it. Is it anticipated that there will be a large amount of work relating to radiological sites and/or UXO sites? If not, then it is requested that it not be listed as one of the five criteria for the Project Summary Table. Or if radiation support is, but UXO is not, then please remove UXO.

A56. A subtask of Task 7, Other Technical Assistance, has been added to the ESO performance work statement that describes the oversight of military munitions response activities. The Project

Summary Table remains the same.

Q57. Provision L-23, Volume I is limited to 50 pages, which accounts for 17 pages in Tab 3 –

Factor 1: Past Performance and the specified 33 pages for Tab 4 – Factor 2 Technical Capability.

Please confirm that the paragraph 3.2 “Other Past Performance Information” (Past Performance

Questionnaires [PPQs] and Performance Recognition Documents) are excluded from the 50 pages.

A57. Yes, information provided under Section 3.2 is excluded from the 50 page count limitation.

Q58. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2 paragraph 2) states “the offeror may also include performance recognition documents received with the last five years…” NOTE on page 85 of 94 it states “PPQs and other requested past performance documents included in Section 3.2 are not included in the Volume I page count.” Please confirm that “requested” past performance documents include performance recognition documents described in paragraph 2).

A58. Yes, information provided under Section 3.2, including performance recognition documents, is excluded from the 50 page count limitation.

Q59. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2 paragraph 3), this is interpreted to mean that offerors could include any number of PPQs for additional projects beyond the eight projects offerors provide in response to Section 3.1.1. Is this interpretation correct? If so, the following questions are offered: The PPQ form does not have a place for a project description. How will EPA evaluate relevancy if the project scope of work for the additional PPQs cannot be provided? Will EPA evaluate proposals more favorably if they include several additional PPQs? What is the upper limit for additional PPQs?

A59. Yes, the proposal instructions have been revised to more clearly state what can be provided for additional past performance information. A section for a project description has been added to the PPQ.

Q60. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2, will the EPA accept previous completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)?

A60. Please utilize the questionnaire that will be included in the final solicitation when sending to clients. However, if an offeror chooses to submit an alternate version of a completed questionnaire, the EPA will consider the past performance information that is available on that alternate questionnaire.

Q61. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2, are offerors required to send Consent Letters to our clients?

A61. Offerors should send Client Authorization Letters along with PPQs. The language of that section has been revised to more clearly state what is required.

Q62. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2 requires the

Client contact to submit the completed PPQ directly to the EPA. Will the EPA consider allowing offerors to manage completion of the PPQs and submit as part of their proposal? If yes, will the

EPA consider accepting alternative Government approved formats for the PPQ such as

USACE/NAVFAC Past Performance Questionnaires that have been recently (past 2 years) completed for previous solicitations?

A62. PPQs shall be sent directly to the contracting officer as instructed in the Client

Authorization Letter. Please utilize the questionnaire that will be included in the final solicitation when sending to clients. However, if an offeror chooses to submit an alternate version of a completed questionnaire, the EPA will consider the past performance information that is available on that alternate questionnaire.

Q63. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 3 Section 3.2, will the EPA accept Government Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports as a form of performance recognition documents?

A63. Language has been modified in the proposal instructions to more clearly state that CPARS reports will be accepted.

Q64. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, the RFP states that this

Tab shall not exceed 33 pages, including any personnel resumes that offeror wishes to include.

This statement implies that resumes for key personnel are not required. Please confirm and, if true, add a statement to the RFP that resumes are not required.

A64. Language has been modified in the proposal instructions to indicate that resumes are not to be provided.

Q65. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, please clarify that the 33 pages of the Technical Capability section is to be used for the information listed under 4.1 and does not include 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

A65. Based on comments from industry and additional review, the proposal instructions for this tab have been modified. Please see final solicitation for more information.

Q66. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, instructs offerors to outline “roles and responsibilities of key personnel and other relevant team members.” Paragraph

4.1 goes on to require an explanation of “Qualified management and field teams, including key personnel with relevant experience...” Yet clause G-2 indicates that key personnel will be

“determined on applicable task orders.” Will EPA specify, in the final RFP, certain positions for key personnel? Will the final instructions include a requirement for resumes of key personnel?

A66. The final RFP will not specify what key personnel positions are required and will not require key personnel resumes. The instructions have been modified slightly to require a discussion of hiring, training, retaining, and succession planning for the entire set of requirements with a focus on several elements, but one element will include having qualified management and field teams, including any essential personnel the offeror considers significant to efficiently and effectively perform the ESO performance work statement. It is up to the offeror to determine which personnel are important in its operations to perform the duties in the ESO

PWS.

Q67. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4 states “The contents in Tab

4, Technical Capability shall not exceed 33 pages. This includes the diagrammed organizational chart and the narrative described above, and any personnel resumes the offeror wishes to include.” It is not clear how, or if, personnel resumes will be evaluated. If resumes will not be evaluated, it is suggested to delete the phrase “any personnel resumes the offeror wishes to include.” If resumes will be considered, it is suggested to add evaluation criteria to address resumes, as well as increase the page limitations.

A67. Resumes will not be required in the final RFP.

Q68. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, please reduce the number of concurrent projects stipulated to determine the ability to perform. Please define what is meant by “Oversight or Oversight Support.”

A68. EPA has confirmed the number of projects listed in the Tab 4 table for concurrent projects.

Please see the ESO performance work statement included in the final solicitation for more information regarding what is meant by Oversight or Oversight Support.

Q69. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, is the summary table of the anticipated number of ongoing projects under ESO to be interpreted as a cumulative estimate in which all of the concurrent ESO task type projects are to be summed to give an overall total estimated range of 22 to 31 concurrent projects of all types?

A69. The table included in the provision summarized the number of projects that EPA anticipates a contractor may have ongoing within a particular CLIN at any given time during the period of performance.

Q70. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, will all seven tasks be bid within each CLIN (i.e., CLIN 1, CLIN 2, and CLIN 3)?

A70. Yes, all seven tasks in the ESO performance work statement will be utilized in each CLIN.

Q71. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, it appears that only a single, consolidated response to this factor is needed, regardless if a firm is pursuing one, two, or three CLINS. While the contractor agrees with this structure, it is concerned about the advantage that a firm that is pursuing a single CLIN would have over a firm pursuing three CLINS given the page restrictions (i.e., a firm performing three CLINs could conceivably have three different organizational structures whereas a firm pursuing one CLIN would only have one). Would the government consider adding pages to the page limitation depending on how many CLINs a firm is pursuing?

A71. If an offeror intends to propose on multiple CLINs, a separate proposal is required for each

CLIN.

Q72. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4 states “The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to perform concurrent projects for the EPA CLIN that is being proposed.”

With reference to Table of ESO Tasks, Items 3. (EPA-lead Remedy Operation including Long

Term Response Action [LTRA]) and 6. (EPA-lead Remedial Action or EPA-lead Removal

Action Implementation Support), offerors who are not EPA contractors have no ability to demonstrate their ability to perform concurrent EPA-lead projects; they may, however, be able to demonstrate their ability to perform concurrent non-EPA-lead Remedy Operation (LTRA), Remedial Action, or Removal Action Implementation Support projects. Will a demonstration of ability to perform concurrent projects at non-EPA-lead sites be evaluated by the EPA to be equivalent to direct EPA experience?

A72. Contractors will be evaluated based on demonstrated ability to perform the tasks in the

ESO PWS in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The “EPA-Lead” has been removed from the table.

Q73. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4 Section 4.1, this section

(and Section M) request “How the offeror will maintain and manage multiple strategic teams concurrently for the tasks in the ESO.” Please clarify the EPA’s intent with the use of the word

“strategic.”

A73. The proposal instructions under Tab 4 have been revised. The new language states, “How the offeror will maintain and manage multiple teams concurrently for the tasks in the ESO PWS over a large geographic area within the CLIN for the volume of work” references in the Tab 4 table.

Q74. Provision L-23 Past Performance and Technical Proposal Tab 4, the 2nd paragraph states, “The offeror shall demonstrate…” Please confirm that the definition of offeror is of the proposed team and not solely the prime contractor.

A74. Yes. The offeror is referring to the proposed team.

Q75. Provision L-23 Price Proposal Tab 3, please confirm that if an offeror wishes to be considered in more than one CLIN, then the offeror is to submit maximum loaded labor rates and a separate sample project price proposal for each CLIN in which it wishes to be considered.

A75. Yes, if an offeror wishes to be considered in more than one CLIN, then the offeror needs to submit a separate Contract Pricing Schedule for each CLIN. Since the sample project locations are different, separate sample project price proposals are required for each CLIN in which it wishes to be considered, although the rates proposed may be identical if the offeror so chooses.

Q76. Provision L-23 Price Proposal Tab 3 paragraph (e) states “Maximum loaded labor rates apply only to the employees of the prime contractor(s) or team subcontractor(s) and are not applicable to labor provided by personnel who are not employees of the prime contractor(s) or team subcontractor(s).” Tab 7 paragraph (b) says “State the amount of service estimated to be required and the quoted daily or hourly rate. The offeror shall provide a copy of the proposed subcontractor agreement or a letter of intent, signed by the subcontractor, agreeing to a specified rate for the life of the contract. As required by FAR 15.404-3(b)(2), include a cost or price analysis of the subcontractor’s costs showing the reasons why the costs are considered reasonable.” Since the maximum loaded labor rates in Tab 3 also apply to team subcontractors, it is unclear why a quoted daily or hourly rate and cost/price analysis is required for team members, particularly since the government will be making a reasonableness determination for those rates as part of its evaluation of Tab 3. Therefore, it is suggested to delete these requirements. The suggested revised text would be as follows: “(b) State the amount of service estimated to be required, either as a percentage of the total estimated contract dollar value or as a dollar value. The offeror shall provide a copy of the proposed subcontractor agreement or a letter of intent, signed by the subcontractor.”

A76. The language in the provision has been revised in the final solicitation to specify what is needed.

Q77. Provision L-23 Price Proposal Tab 3 states that a team subcontractor may have a labor rate separate from the prime. In the case of a JV, can the JV partners have separate rate schedules?

A77. Yes, joint venture partners may have separate rate schedules as well.

Q78. Provision L-23 Price Proposal Tab 3, how do the requirements for Tab 3 relate to the requirements for Tab 7? Are maximum labor rates required for the prime (offeror) only or does

EPA also require labor rates from team partner/subcontractors? If rates are required only from the offeror, are those the maximum rates that can be charged by teaming partners/subcontractors?

May team subcontractors submit Contract Pricing Schedules for their services that are completely separate from the prime contractor's rate schedule? If yes, then we request that those sheets be submitted directly to EPA.

A78. The maximum loaded labor rates in the Contract Pricing Schedule will apply to employees of the prime contractor and team subcontractors. If the offeror indicates the labor rates provided are blended rates of prime and team subcontractor employees, then the rates provided will be applicable to both the employees of the prime and the team subcontractors, or all partners of a joint venture. If blended rates are not proposed, then team partners/subcontractors may provide separate maximum loaded labor rates for each year of the contract, similar to what is required by the offeror.