UROC_Questions_and_Answers.docx

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

UNIFIED REGIONAL OVERSIGHT CONTRACT: REGION 5: SOL-R5-15-00006

EPA RESPONSES TO SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

1. The Statement of Work (SOW) for this solicitation is nearly identical to the SOW used for the current Region 5 ROC program, as well as several other ROC programs over the last 18 years, the majority of which were issued under the NAICS Code 562910. However, one of the primary differences is that the subject SOW expands upon field oversight during PRP start-up and implementation/construction of remedies, making a range of remediation-related activities even more likely under this contract, compared to prior ROCs. Considering this approach that is outlined in the solicitation, is it more appropriate for the NAICS code to be 562910 (Remediation Services), rather than the assigned NAICS code of 541620 (Environmental Services)? Please confirm the appropriate NAICS code for this procurement.

Answer: This confirms the NAICS code for this procurement 541620.

1. SF 1447 Sec. 6 indicates that this acquisition is a 100% small business set aside per NAICS 541620; size standard $15M. Similarly 1.d of the Combined Synopsis states that the NAICS is 541620 with a size standard of $15M. However, Attachment 6; Solicitation Provisions, p. 4 of 23, FAR 52.212-1 paragraph a indicates that the size standard may be 500 employees. Could you please clarify the size standard for this procurement.

Answer: FAR 52.212-1 has been revised to reflect the NAICS code 541620 size standard of $15M.

1. Attachment 4-Labor Category Classifications: The toxicologist category includes Certification by the American Board of Toxicology. The requirements for Board certification are more rigorous than those set forth in the Matrix for this labor classification, and do not appear to be commensurate with the credentials required by a toxicologist to perform the type of risk assessments and reviews described in the SOW. Will the Government consider removing the national Board certification requirements or consider allowing additional years of experience as a substitute for this certification?

Answer: Attachment 4-Labor Category Classifications has been updated to remove the Certification of the American Board of Toxicology requirement.

1. The minimum work experience column on Attachment 4 (Labor Category Classifications) indicates that an advanced degree can substitute for a sp1ecific amount of an experience requirement; conversely, can experience substitute for an advanced degree requirement or for a license/certification requirement? Can a combination of an advanced degree and experience substitute for a license/certification requirement?

Answer: An advanced degree can substitute for experience, but experience will not substitute for an advanced degree. A combination of an advanced degree and experience will not substitute for a license/certification requirement.

1. Attachment 5-Contract Clauses: Page 11. Limitation of Future Contracting. Item (b) under the LOFC clause limits any remedial planning and/or implementation projects for sites within the geographical area(s). Does this include only sites that are issued under this contract? If not, are only EPA-lead Superfund or RCRA sites included? For example, does this limit remedial planning/implementation on State-led or Brownfields sites?

Answer: This applies to sites ordered under this contract.

1. Attachment 6-Solicitation Provisions-52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items. Page 9 states that the Technical Capability section of the proposal should include a description of our capabilities to accomplish each of the four tasks listed in the SOW, a resume for the proposed Key Person, a Management Plan and a Technical Proposal for the Chanute Air Force Base. The Formatting and Other Restrictions for Technical Capabilities and Experience states that the Technical Capability section is to be no more than 10 pages and the Management Plan no more than 15 pages. Are the resume and the Technical Proposal for the Chanute Air Force Base to be included in the 10 pages allotted for the Technical Capabilities section?

Answer: The resume and the Technical Proposal for the Chanute Air Force Base is not included in the 10 pages allotted for the Technical Capabilities section.

1. Could you please clarify the page limitations for the proposal.

Technical Capability = 10 pages

1. Is the key person’s two page resume (one page-double sided) included in the 10 page limitation?

Answer: No.

1. Is the Technical Proposal for Chanute Air Force Base in response to the Scenario 1 included in the 10 page limitation?

Answer: No.

1. Is the following an accurate reflection of the page count requirements for the Technical Capabilities and Experience Section – Total page count 40 pages

0. 10 pages technical Capability (exclusive of resume and Chanute AFB Technical Proposal)

0. 5 pages Experience

0. 15 pages Management Plan

0. 10 page Conflict of interest plan

Answer: Yes.

1. Is there a page count for the past performance section?

Answer: No.

1. Is there a page limit on the past performance portion of the submittal?

Answer: No.

1. Is there a page limit for the proposal?

Answer: Yes.

1. At the bottom of page 9 in attachment 6, the technical capability section of the proposal is required to be limited to 10 pages (excluding the management plan). Are the key personnel resume and letter of commitment (required to be in this section) part of the technical capability page limit?

Answer: No.

1. Is the Unified Regional Oversight Contract (UROC) scope for Region 5 or Region 6 currently being performed under an active contract? If so what is the contract number and are the contract details published in the EPA Active Contracts by Contract Number list available on the EPA website?

Answer: No, there is not an active contract.

1. Confirm if the incumbent vendor is held by Techlaw, Inc under the Contract #: EPS50606.

Answer: There is currently no incumbent performing this requirement.

1. Could you please tell me if the abovementioned contract has an incumbent and if so who that incumbent is?

Answer: There is currently no incumbent performing this requirement.

1. Are there currently any incumbents that hold this contract? If so, who are the incumbents?

Answer: There is currently no incumbent performing this requirement.

1. Is this a new type of contract vehicle for oversight work in Regions V and VI?

Answer: This is a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract.

1. Could you please specify in detail what is required for the technical proposal?

Answer: Refer to Federal Acquisition Provision 52.212-2 located in Attachment 6.

1. Should it be determined that a change in NAICS code is appropriate, it is hereby requested that an extension of the due date be granted to allow those firms not currently eligible to bid on this contract who would become eligible based on the NAICS code change sufficient time to prepare a bid.

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended. Proposals are due Thursday, June 4, 2015 by 12:00 pm CST

1. Since the response period includes the Memorial Day holiday weekend, would EPA consider an extension of the solicitation response date to June 2, 2015?

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended. Proposals are due Thursday, June 4, 2015 by 12:00 pm CST.

1. Why such a tight timeline for responding to this solicitation? The RFP was published on May 16, 2015, and propsals are due May 26, 2015.

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended. Proposals are due Thursday, June 4, 2015 by 12:00 pm CST.

1. Is there a chance for the due date to be extended to at least 30 days, which is the turnaround time we typically see for EPA solicitations?”

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended. Proposals are due Thursday, June 4, 2015 by 12:00 pm CST.

1. The 12-(calendar)day proposal response time appears to be insufficient for the level of effort required to respond to this solicitation with a quality submittal [which includes addressing specialty personnel, addressing all of the SOW items listed in the RFP, preparation of a management plan, revising our COI plan to meet the specified page limit requirements, blending labor rates for positions with multiple in-house personnel expected to work on the project, preparation of a cost proposal with required backup, addressing potential new information from EPA inquiry/question responses, and completion of the first task order proposal (which, according to Section C of the Attachment 6 scenario, appears to be a 15-(working)day level of effort in and of itself)]. Please consider extending the response time for this submittal so that contractors can adequately address the RFP requirements and transmit their experience/capabilities in a reasonable time frame.

Answer: The proposal due date has been extended. Proposals are due Thursday, June 4, 2015 by 12:00 pm CST.

1. Attachment 1 (pages 11-12) states that a draft project plan is due at the project kickoff meeting (which needs to take place within 5 days of project award) for EPA review and comment. However, there is no information on what the project plan will need to entail. Is there information or guidance that EPA can provide to clarify the content and level of effort for this plan? Also, the final project plan is due 5 days after the kickoff meeting. Will EPA be reviewing and commenting on the daft plan during the kickoff meeting? If not, when should the contractor expect comments from EPA on the draft plan in order to meet the 5-day-post-meeting deadline for the final project plan?

Answer: The Statement of Work has been revised to remove the reference to the project plan.

1. According to the solicitation, inquiries and questions regarding this RFP are to be submitted in writing on May 19, 2015. Will responses be posted to these inquiries/questions prior to the may 26, 2015, submittal date? If so, when and where will these responses be posted?

Answer: Responses will be posted on May 20, 2015 through FedConnect.

1. Page 14 of Attachment 5 implies a separate EPA project officer and contracting officer for each region (5 and 6). Will separate contracts be awarded for the individual regions or is EPA expecting contracts that cover both regions?

Answer: EPA intends to award two or more Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts from this solicitation. Any contract resulting from this solicitation will cover both Regions 5 and 6.