Amendment_1_Q A_v2.pdf

Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) IV SOL-R8-12-00001 Amendment #001

Q&A Responses

Q1: Attachment 2, Response and Key Personnel Qualifications. Regarding the qualifications of the Health Physicist, is a PhD and 30 years’ experience considered equivalent to the BS or MS degree plus ABHP certification?

A1: The ABHP certification is required in lieu of the MS degree (see the “and/or” wording), so a PhD in Health Physics would certainly qualify, as that is a higher degree than the MS.

Q2: Please confirm that the Health Physicist is not a key position.

A2: The Health Physicist is not one of the Key Personnel.

Q3: B.5, Travel, p.10. This clause states: “(ii) The Contractor agrees to make every effort to mobilize field personnel from the nearest available location to the site of the cleanup;

however, in no event shall the travel charges exceed what the charge would be if the employee were mobilized from the Contractor's primary mobilization point.” In the event of an NSI, if EPA requests resources beyond the CRT, can mobilization costs for additional national resources be recovered?

A3: This would be an extremely rare situation, but the Contractor would be allowed to request compensation for additional resources if necessary, and the additional costs would have to be approved by the CO on a case by case basis.

Q4: H.19, Removal Cost Management Software System (RCMS), p. 51. Clarification is needed regarding “Use of RCMS is mandatory for all Removal and Oil Fund Access Task Order TDDs”. Is it EPA’s intent that all oil funded removal TDDs utilize RCMS, or also all oil funded TDDs including SPCC and FRP inspections utilize RCMS too?

A4: For clarification, Oil Fund Access (HR appropriation funding) task orders are funded by the USCG and will be separate from the general Oil (H appropriation funding) task orders that are used for SPCC and FRP inspections. The intent of this language is to require preparation in RCMS only for USCG funded TDDs (Oil Fund Access), but for EPA to reserve the right to direct the contractor to prepare RCMS on any other TDD as assigned.

Q5: L.2, Proposal Preparation Instructions, p. 83 Task 2: “For vermiculite insulation, the level of effort indicator should be both the amount of material present (in cubic yard…” It is assumed that the question regarding vermiculite insulation is a house by house determination for the amount of material present (cubic yards). It is also assumed that if vermiculite is identified in the curbside debris pile, the entire curbside debris pile would be considered asbestos containing waste material (ACWM) and quantified. Is this the intent?

It is also assumed that any vermiculite that remains on the property and not on the curbside is not included in this estimate.

A5: The assumptions presented are correct.

Q6: L.2, Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.83, (b) Activities Tasked to START. The last sentence states: “…the OSC will be limiting each work week to sixty (60) hours.” Please verify if the 60 hour work week limit applies to each individual team member or to the entire work crew (e.g., is the work being conducted 10 hours per day 6 days per week; OR, is the work be conducted 24/7 with staff shifts/rotations to manage each individual to the 60 hour work week).

A6: The work being conducted would be ten hours per day, six days a week. This would apply to the entire work crew. 24/7 operations would NOT be authorized.

Q7: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.83, Task 3. This task states, “Collect and Hazcat approximately 25 samples per day from unknown household hazardous waste the ERRS has collected and brought to the waste processing facility.” Please state the intended purpose of the Hazcatting operations (e.g., waste characterization, full chemical identification, etc.).

A7: The purpose of the hazard characterization (HazCat) is to determine the waste stream that an unknown substance should be assigned. A full chemical identification would NOT be required.

Q8: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.83, Task 4. This task states, “The OSC has requested daily samples for asbestos that are analyzed by PCM and have a 72 hour turnaround. The closest working laboratory is in Denver, CO. START will verify/validate 100% of these samples.” The following questions apply to this Task:

(a) Is the laboratory to be procured and subcontracted by START as a Tier 4 laboratory (and therefore funded under the START TDD), or will the laboratory be a Tier 1 – Tier 3 laboratory (Regional Laboratory, RAS, or DAS; and therefore not be funded under the START TDD)?

(b) Does the 72 hour turnaround refer only to the laboratory analytical data? If the answer is “yes”, please specify a turnaround for validated data.

(c) Please confirm that START will validate the asbestos data (which will be funded under the TDD) and that the data will not be validated by the ESAT contractor (which would not be funded under the TDD).

A8: (a) The laboratory would be procured and funded under the START TDD.

(b) The requested turnaround for initial sample results would be 72-hours with the results of the verification/validation process being available one-week after the initial results are reported.

(c) START would be tasked to procure and fund all verification/validation activities.

Q9: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p. 90. Is fee allowable on non-team subcontracts, travel and other direct costs? If so, should a representative fee be applied to those direct costs proposed in each response scenario?

A9: Non-team subcontracts are considered “Specialized Labor” per the Section B clause, Other Direct Costs. This clause classifies “Specialized Labor” in the same category as Materials, per the clause, “Payments – Fixed Rates Services” which is included by reference in Section G. Materials under this type of contract are cost reimbursable, and thus is not subject to profit or fee.

Q10: M.3, Evaluation Factors for Award, p.102, Management Ability. There are four subfactors listed for the evaluation. In the corresponding place in Section L, there are only three listed. The additional subfactor in Section M is “Demonstration of the offeror’s ability to select an effective staffing mix appropriate to individual tasks.” Please confirm whether this Section M subfactor is intended to be included, and if so, please add to Section L requirements. However, It is our suggestion that this subfactor should be deleted from Section M. We believe that the demonstration of this capability is redundant to the demonstration of the second subfactor listed in Section M, i.e., selecting an effective staffing mix for an individual task is part of managing a multi-disciplinary team performing multiple tasks.

A10: This additional subfactor in M should have been included in L, but upon further review it has been removed entirely. The offeror’s ability to select an effective task-appropriate staffing mix will be sufficiently evaluated by virtue of reviewing the offeror’s response to scenarios in Factor 2.

Q11: Attachment 2, Response and Key Personnel Qualifications. This section requires a Readiness Plan to be prepared with a robust list of requirements. Nowhere in Section L or M is this Readiness Plan mentioned. This results in three questions:

• Where in the proposal should the Readiness Plan be included?

• Is it included in the overall 150-page limit? If it is, it will significantly affect our ability to adequately respond to the Readiness Plan requirements or the requirements of other sections. We request the Government consider providing an additional number of pages for the Readiness Plan beyond the overall 150 pages.

• How will the Readiness Plan be evaluated? Will it be part of one of the other Evaluation Factors, and if so, which one? Or will it be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as several other plans are? Or perhaps some other evaluation basis? Please clarify.

A11: The Readiness Plan is required and should have been included in the Section L instructions and Section M evaluation factors. The solicitation has been amended to add this requirement to Section/Factor 1 – Technical Ability. However, the plan will be excluded from the page count.

Q12: Attachment 1 – SOW, p. 1-6, and Attachment 2, Response and Key Personnel, p. 2-5:

• p. 1-6: “Contractors who respond to incidents in the field shall maintain ICS training in accordance with FEMA guidance on ICS levels of training for response personnel”.

The statement goes on to say that at a minimum this includes training up to ICS 400 and all prerequisites (IS 100, IS 200, ICS 300), as well as FEMA IS 700 and IS 800.

• p. 2-5, Adjunct Team Member Requirements: “In general these personnel are expected to have ICS training and the ability to function in a NIMS/ICS structure in those functions that are consistent with the START SOW.”

The two references above are unclear. Please clarify the requirement regarding “who respond to an incident” shall have this depth of ICS training.

Also, please clarify to what level of ICS training that all Adjunct Team Members have to be compliant.

A12: All response personnel (primary or adjunct) need to have NIMS/ICS training to be able to work in an EOC or IMT environment in accordance with the SOW. Offerors should refer to FEMA guidance on ICS levels of training for response personnel.

Q13: Attachment 2 – Response and Key Personnel Qualifications. The RFP lists the position of industrial hygienist twice, once as an adjunct team member (Page 2-5) and once as a general contract key person (Page 2-7). The position requirements listed are identical. Are these, in fact, two different positions? Is it EPA’s intent that bidders propose two different people for this position, or can one person fill both positions?

A13: Only one industrial hygienist is required.

Q14: Attachment 2 – Response and Key Personnel Qualifications. Under the requirements for the key geologist position (p. 2-9 to 2-10), the final requirement listed states, “Maintains state certification for each State in Region 1.” We assume this is a typo and should read “each state in Region 8.” Correct? Also, does EPA require that the key geologist maintain a certification in each state, or is it acceptable for him or her to be a certified geologist in at least one state in the region, with the ability to obtain additional certifications if necessary?

If we must propose a geologist with a certification in each state, is it acceptable to propose more than one key geologist so that among all of them, we have all state certifications covered?

A14: “Region 1” is a typo and should read “Region 8.” This has been corrected in the amended version of the RFP. With regard to the state certifications, not all states in Region 8 require such certification. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to propose a person who is either already certified or is capable of obtaining state certifications as necessary. It is not required that the key geologist be certified in all applicable Region 8 states prior to contract award, but it is expected that the person can obtain a certification if the need arises. In any case, the costs of state certifications are the responsibility of the Contractor when they are obtained.

Q15: Attachment 1, SOW, II.A.2, p.7, Counter-Terrorism Response. The SOW states,“...contractor shall provide..........NRCB monitoring and testing equipment and supplies......provide EPA with expert guidance and recommendations on NRCB response equipment.” Please list the equipment required and direct the potential bidders to the cost element to recover those costs.

A15: This language has been amended to replace “NRCB” with “CBRNE” (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive). There is no equipment required for this currently, but if necessary it would be requested by an OSC and treated as “non-routine items” per the Section B clause, Equipment.

Q16: F.2, Reports of Work, 1.(d)(6) and 1.(e)(5). Average cost of direct labor. May these please be removed as they related to taking an average of average rates? These are cost plus requirements and not fixed labor rates requirements.

A16: Yes, the clause has been amended to remove these requirements.

Q16: F.2, Reports of Work. 1.(d)(3) and 1.(e)(3). EPA is requiring labor hour reporting at the contract level 1.(d)(3) and at the work assignment or deliver order level 1.(e)(3). This makes the reporting requirement redundant and the financial package voluminous. May the contract level labor requirement be deleted since the same information is supplied at the work assignment level?

A16: Yes, the clause has been amended to remove the contract-level labor reporting requirement under 1.(d)(3). The WA/DO (equivalent to TO in the case of this contract) requirement under 1.(e)(3) remains unchanged.

Q17: L.2., Proposal Preparation Instructions, pp. 82-84. For Scenario 1, in Paragraph 2 of the Background section, one of the elements of EPA’s Mission Assignment is stated “2) perform emergency removals at approximately 10 businesses to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the environment.” Under Task 6 of the Activities Tasked to START, the last sentence states “Removal oversight and support activities are not a part of this scenario.” Should the offerer’s response to this scenario include only those activities associated with removal assessment activities?

A17: Yes, the offeror’s response to this scenario should only include those activities that are associated with removal assessment work.

Q18: B.2, Fixed Rates for Services, Labor Rates. Will fees for the use of certain software and/or systems such as GIS and CADD fees that a contractor normally bills as a direct charge as per their standard practice be considered allowable costs or should they be included in the fixed labor rates for the appropriate labor category?

A18: In accordance with the Cost Proposal Preparation Instructions in Section L, p. 89, (1)(iii), “All proposed fully-burdened labor rates shall be consistent with the offeror’s accounting system and the Section B clause, ‘Fixed Rates for Services—Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract.’” In addition, part (v) of this section requires the offeror to provide supporting documentation to justify all proposed indirect rates. If it is the offeror’s standard practice to direct charge for certain software/systems as applicable to specific tasks, it is acceptable to do so, as long as the proposal clearly states what it is included in the fixed rates and the offeror’s cost estimates for each scenario use the same methodology.

Q19: B.2, Fixed Rates for Services. This clause states “the following fixed rates shall apply for payment purposes for the duration of the contract”. Does that mean there are one set of rates for the entire seven year period of performance?

A19: As stated in the Cost Proposal Instructions in Section L, “(ii) For each potential year of the contract (seven in total), the offeror shall provide a separate table listing proposed fully-burdened hourly labor rates, including an overtime rate if applicable, for each proposed category of labor;” and in part (iii), “The offeror’s proposed fully-burdened rates will be utilized to populate the table of fixed rates in this clause [B.2.] for any resultant contract.”

Q20: B.2 Fixed Rates for Services. Will EPA be providing the “estimated direct labor hours” to complete the table in section B.2? If not, how will EPA allocate hours and evaluate the fixed rates with each firm proposing its own labor categories?

A20: EPA will not be evaluating total costs for the life of the contract. The contract ceiling is provided in B.8, Minimum and Maximum Amounts. The cost evaluation will be based entirely on the information provided by offerors in the Cost Proposal Instructions in Section L, i.e. the offeror’s proposed fully burdened-rates for each potential year of the contract and the offeror’s cost estimates for each of the three scenarios.

Q21: B.2 Fixed Rates for Services. Would EPA like one table for Non-Level A rates and another table for Level A rates?

A21: EPA will not direct the offeror as to how the rates should be presented.

Q22: B.2 Fixed Rates for Services. Will team subcontractors provide fixed hourly rates in a separate schedule B.2? Or is there one schedule for the entire team?

A22: The Cost Proposal Instructions in Section L state, “(iv) The offeror shall identify any proposed labor category that will be performed by a subcontractor. Subcontractors proposed as part of a team arrangement shall be billed at the rates specified for the prime contractor in the Section B clause, ‘Fixed Rates For Services – Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract’ and shall not be billed as specialized labor in accordance with the Section B clause, ‘Other Direct Costs.’ Only the fixed rate specified for a particular labor category in Section B shall be utilized, whether the work is performed by the prime or a team subcontractor.” Since rates are distinguished by labor category, regardless of whether the labor is performed by the prime or a subcontractor, there should be no need for a separate schedule for team subcontractors.

Q23: B.2 Fixed Rates for Services. Will the contractor be reimbursed for equipment costs during “inclement weather, unsafe conditions, or other conditions beyond either the control of the contractor or the control of the Government”?

A23: No. This language has been modified as follows:

“In the event that on-going work on-site is interrupted at any time due to inclement weather, unsafe conditions, or other conditions beyond either the control of the contractor or the control of the Government, as determined by the on-scene coordinator, EPA will not pay the contractor for any labor or equipment costs during such interruptions; that is, EPA will not reimburse the contractor in excess of those hours actually worked on the site.

The Contractor shall not be reimbursed for standby.”

Q24: B.3 Equipment. The Contractor provided Equipment requirement for prior written approval before incurring costs in excess of $1,000 appears to be very restrictive in the case of Emergency Responses. Will there be any flexibility in this requirement in the event of a major response, such as Scenario 1 included in the RFP?

A25: In most cases, a TO ceiling for Equipment will be established by the CO at TO issuance, or upon issuance of a TDD. If none is established, the ceiling will be $1,000 per this clause.

If the Contractor believes a higher ceiling is necessary, prior written approval from the CO must be obtained.

Q26: B.3 Equipment. Since we cannot anticipate availability of equipment from the EPA warehouse, can we make the assumption that the items will be available for the sake of cost estimating associated with the three scenarios in the RFP?

A26: The Cost Proposal Instructions in Section L, p.90, clearly state “For purposes of this proposal, the offeror shall assume all emergency response equipment listed at the link provided in the Section B clause, “Equipment” is available from the Government for use under each scenario at no additional cost to the contractor.”

Q27: B.5 Travel. This clause states “the amounts specified in the schedule for travel are estimates only”. What schedule is being referenced? Where do we find the estimates?

A27: This language was inadvertently left in from the current contract. The RFP has been amended to remove this language.

Q27: B.6 Other Direct Costs. This clause states “the amounts specified in the schedule for specialized labor are estimates only”. What schedule is being referenced? Where do we find the estimates?

A27: This language was inadvertently left in from the current contract. The RFP has been amended to remove this language.

Q28: B.8 Minimum and Maximum Amounts. Should the $23.1M of increased capacity pool be included in the offeror’s price? And if so, where?

A28: No.

Q29: B.9 Mobilization. This clause states that ongoing work from the predecessor contract will be transitioned to this contract during the mobilization period. Will individual TDDs be issued during the mobilization period to cover the costs of the transitions?

A29: No work will be specifically tasked to the contractor until the contract start date. As stated in this clause, “The costs for mobilization shall be included in the fully loaded fixed rate.”

Q30: F.2 Reports of Work, p. 20. This clause states: “(ii) For the current reporting period, display the expended direct labor hours and costs broken out by EPA contract labor hour category for the prime contractor and each subcontractor and consultant.” Question: Subcontracting or specialty services is not routinely scoped on a labor hour basis. Examples include Geoprobe services, and utility locators. These costs are usually expensed as an aggregate cost for the total service. Will all procurements be required to define labor hours in addition to services under such fixed price subcontracts?

A30: This requirement refers to subcontract effort that is billed as direct labor. Not all subcontracted effort will be billed this way. See B.6, Other Direct Costs, on Specialized Labor and ODCs.

Q31: Will the entry into, and generation of reports from RCMS be a TDD-billable cost?

A31: Per clause B.2., contract-level reporting costs shall be included with the fixed rates and, “Any specific Task Order Level reporting, not included at contract level, will be billed at the Non-Level A rate of the individual who prepares the report.”

Q32: K.8 General Financial & Organizational Information – In (g), please define a separate rate entity.

A32: A separate rate entity would be an independent firm, not a division or subsidiary corporation of another company.

Q33: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.80. Under “Cover Page/Table of Contents”, RFP states that a brief Executive Summary may be included. Do the pages for this Executive Summary count within the 150 page limit or are they excluded?

A33: The Cover Page, Table of Contents, and optional executive summary are all excluded from the page limit.

Q34: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.80. Under Technical Proposal Instructions, the RFP states that the proposal shall be written so as not to exceed 8.5” x 11” sized paper.

Will the Government allow 11 x 17 foldouts for graphics in order to present approaches and data in a clear and concise manner?

A34: No, the proposal should meet the specifications provided.

Q35: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.80. Under Technical Proposal Instructions, the

RFP states that “Each paragraph shall be separated by a least one 12-point line.” Can the following be exempt from this requirement: graphical text, table text, captions, headers, and bulleted lists?

A35: Yes.

Q36: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.82. Under Section 3 – Responses to Scenarios, the

RFP has an incomplete sentence which states “This page limit is inclusive of …” Please complete this sentence so we can fully understand the Government’s intent.

A36: This sentence should not have been included and has been removed. All requirements for this section of the Technical Proposal fall within the 150-page page limit.

Q37: L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, p.8. The second paragraph after the table states: “In addition to the three work plans, the offeror shall also provide a description of the elements and information that would be included in each of the following documents for Scenario 1 only” and the last sentence in the third paragraph states “Responses for each document shall be no longer than four (4) pages”. Does the 30 page limit include the 4 pages for each of the four documents (up to 16 pages total), or are those 4 pages for each of the four documents (up to 16 pages total) in addition to the thirty (30) page limit specified in paragraph 1? In other words, is the page limit thirty (30) pages for the three work plans PLUS an additional sixteen (16) pages for a description of the elements and information that would be included in each for the four documents specified for Scenario 1 only (46 pages total)?

A37: The 30 page limit for the work plans does not include the required descriptions of the four documents for Scenario 1. Each of the four document descriptions has its own separate 4-page limit, making the maximum page limit for this section a total of 46 pages.

Q38: L.9 Past Performance Information, p.91. The RFP states, “Offerors shall submit the information requested below as part of their proposal for both the offeror and any proposed subcontractors for subcontracts expected to exceed $500,000.” Does this mean that the offeror and any such subcontractor EACH must submit at least 3 completed contracts and all contracts in progress that are similar, or does this mean that the offeror and such subcontractor COMBINED must submit at least 3 completed contracts and all contracts in progress that are similar? Please clarify.

If it is required that each subcontractor at that level submit at least 3 completed contracts and all current relevant contracts, we request the Government increase the Technical Proposal page count. We further request that the government consider increasing the overall page count by 24 pages to account for two such team subcontractors each with 3 completed contracts and 3 current contracts and assuming 2 pages for each contract write-up which is needed to address all the RFP requirements.”

A38: A list of 3 relevant contracts or subcontracts completed in the last 3 years is required for both the prime and for any team subcontractors if the subcontract is expected to exceed $500,000. This is not a combined requirement. However, the Government does not believe 2 pages is necessary for each write-up in order to provide the information required, thus the page limit will not be increased at this time.

Q39: L.9 Past Performance Information, p.92. Must the Past Performance Questionnaire be sent to all three client references stated in items (h), (i), and (j) on this page, or can a single questionnaire be sent to the reference most knowledgeable about the contractor’s performance of work under this contract?

A39: Offerors may send one questionnaire to the most appropriate reference for each contract, rather than sending one to each reference listed if they choose. However, the Government reserves the right to contact any of the references listed to obtain past performance information on the offeror.

Q40: L.9 Past Performance Information, p.42. The solicitation states that the Client Authorization Letters should be sent no later than 5 days after proposal solicitation. This seems to conflict with the requirement to have Past Performance Questionnaires sent in by the date of submittal. Please clarify.

A40: Offerors should send Client Authorization Letters in sufficient time for clients to respond by the proposal submission date, December 18, 2012. The language in L.9 has been amended to correct this inconsistency.

Q41: L.10 Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program, p.94. In items (b) and (c), the RFP states that a percent of total contract value should be presented. In Section B.8, Minimum and Maximum Amounts, the RFP states that the estimated potential value of the contract, if no catastrophic events, would be $46.2 M while the maximum potential value with such events would be $69.3 M. Which contract value number should we use for purposes of calculating SDB participation?

A41: Offerors should use the $46.2 M figure, exclusive of the potential catastrophic value.

Q42: Will the award of Option Periods be based on any performance criteria (e.g., CPARS scores)?

A42: The Government has the unilateral right to exercise Option Periods when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to do so. Contractor performance would certainly be a factor in considering exercising the option. However, the prospective contract will not use “award terms” and thus no specific performance criteria is defined to determine the likelihood of exercising an option.

Q43: Will the EPA equipment including response vehicles be available 24 x 7 for emergency responses?

A43: Yes.

Q44: With each firm proposing their own personnel classifications and skill levels, how will EPA compare the hourly rates provided between contractors?

A44: The offeror’s proposed fixed rates will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and the offeror’s proposed cost estimates for each of the three scenarios will be used for price evaluation purposes.

Q45: With no total rolled up price to evaluate each offeror, how will EPA compare price proposals among contractors?

A45: See the answer to Question 44 above.

Q46: The NAICS code listed is 541620-Environmental Consulting. The previous START contract in Region 8 was solicited under the NAICS code which has been used for START contracts in other region, 562910-Remediation Services. In the interest of teaming arrangements that have already been made, can EPA clarify why the NAICS code used for this opportunity is different than the one used previously?

A46: Since the majority of the services provided under START are considered to be advisory and assistance services, the NAICS code for Environmental Consulting, 541620, was considered to more appropriate.

Q47: Table B.2 and the cost proposal instructions contradict each other. The cost proposal instructions require us to submit labor rates and labor categories. Table B2 requires estimated direct labor hours and total cost as well. Will table B.2 be revised to remove the estimated direct labor hours and total so that it corresponded to the cost proposal instruction to submit just the labor categories and labor rates?

A47: The table included in B.2. is intended to act as a placeholder and should not dictate the format of the offeror’s cost proposal. Offerors should disregard the formatting and headings of the Table in B.2. and submit their proposed fixed rates in accordance with the requirements of Section L.

Q48: B.2. Fixed Rates for Services, p.6. This clause states, “The Government shall pay the

Contractor for the life of the task order at rates in effect when the task order was issued, even when performance under the task order crossed into another period.” We have had COs interpret this clause differently. Please clarify if this means that the rates may change to the next year’s labor rate when crossing multiple years. If a project goes on for 3 or 4 years, this gives the contactor no pay increase mechanism to help keep staff employed.

A48: This sentence has been revised as follows: “The Government shall pay the Contractor throughout the life of the task order at the rates appropriate to the current period of performance. If a task order crosses into another performance period, the applicable fixed rates will change accordingly.”

Q49: L.2. Technical Proposal Instructions, p.80. Regarding the requirements for font size and margins, must all of the attachments (Quality Management Plan, Conflict of Interest Plan, Corporate Health and Safety Plan, and Personnel Resumes) also comply with the 12-point font and 0.75-inch margin restrictions?

A49: Yes, these restrictions apply to all parts of the Technical Proposal.

Q50: Should copies of the client authorization letters and questionnaires be included in our proposal as an Appendix (outside of the 150 page limitation)?

A50: Copies of the client authorization letters and questionnaires need not be included with offeror’s proposals at all. EPA will receive copies of the completed questionnaires directly from the offeror’s references.

Q51: Can letters of commitment for proposed staff be submitted as an Appendix (outside of the

150 page limitation).

A51: If the offeror includes letters of commitment with its proposal, these may be included in

Appendix D with the personnel resumes.

Q52: Under Task 1 for both Scenario 1 (Large Earthquake) and Scenario 3 (Oil Spill) you refer to the use of customized templates already developed by EPA Region 8. Does Region 8 currently have customized templates they want the START IV contractor to use? And, if so, will you provide these templates? Or, is it the expectation that the new START contractor will develop new templates?

A52: The new START contractor will be tasked to develop new templates. The offeror is not required to propose templates for these documents, but merely provide a description of the information and elements that would be included in these documents for Scenario 1. For purposes of responding to the scenarios, the offeror should assume that EPA would have previously tasked the contractor to develop general versions of these documents such that they can be easily adapted/filled in as needed.