ATTACHMENT 21 - Questions and Answers 6.26.2020.pdf

SPE60320R0515 California Environmental Services Attachment 21 – Questions and Answers dated 6-30-2020

1. For Attachment 5 – Norwalk Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Reference Item 16 – Norwalk Semi-Annual Sampling Report, please confirm quantity of 4 is correct. As this is a semi-annual report, would a quantity of 2 be appropriate?

RESPONSE: See Revised Price Proposal Worksheet in Amendment 0004.

2. For Attachment 5 – Norwalk Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Reference Items 85 and 86, the task descriptions indicates HAS; should these reference items be for sonic drilling?

3. For Attachment 5 – Norwalk Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Reference items 119 and 120, the cells in column “G” lack the required formula to calculate the extended cost.

4. Section L, Page 67, Item c), vi): Do orphan sites that are remediated and closed through DTSC’s Hazardous Substances/Materials Site Remediation Contract qualify as proof of the outcome of remedial activities with site closure or no-further-action? Under these circumstances no letters from regulatory agencies are issued because the projects are completed by the overseeing agency.

RESPONSE: See Revised Section L, pg. 68

5. Section L, Page 67, Item c), vi): Does proof of the outcome of remedial activities include sites where the offeror completed the corrective action with no further action required for petroleum contaminants; however, the site was not closed due to ongoing actions to address CERCLA contaminants.

RESPONSE: See Revised Section L, pg. 68

6. Attachments 5, 6, and 7 (Price Proposal for each facility) do not contain a line to represent annual wage escalation. Is this intentional? If so, how would the government like offerors to account for the wage escalation necessary to address inflation?

RESPONSE: Yes. Offeror’s pricing proposal must account for entire Contract POP.

7. Vol II, Past Performance Volume II, Section B.ii states: “The Government will accept no more than three PPQs when received directly from the Offeror’s reference…if a teaming arrangement is present, the Government is seeking PPQs from all teaming arrangement entities.”

If an offeror is submitted under a joint venture, would the Government like three PPQs total, divided between the two companies that form the JV, or three PPQs from each company? Do we understand correctly that four additional references may be submitted (two relating to DLA contracts, and two relating to Private Sector or Government contracts) for a total of seven allowed PPQs?

SPE60320R0515 California Environmental Services Attachment 21

RESPONSE: The Government requests a minimum of three PPQs from each entity in a teaming arrangement.

See revised Addendum to 52.212-1(b)(iii)(2)(B)(ii) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), pg. 69. As applicable, a maximum of seven PPQs are permitted per offeror, or entity in a teaming arrangement.

8. Vol. I, Subfactor 5 Can the Government please confirm how many relevant experience projects it would like in total? We understand it as such:

Section 5.1: Unlimited number of projects Section 5.2: Description of 5 to 10 facilities required, but no limit on the projects/systems at each.

Section 5.3: At least three contract examples, but no maximum.

Does this accurately represent the Government’s expectations for the number of relevant experience examples?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is correct.

9. Section L, Section (4)a and 4(b) Section (4)a on page 62 of the RFP, Offerors’ Declaration of Partnerships, Subcontracting Plan states: “Offerors OTHER THAN Small Businesses submitting proposals must submit a Subcontracting Plan that satisfies the requirements listed in FAR 19.704.”

However, Section (4)b on the same page states: “If proposing as a team or joint venture arrangement, offeror MUST provide a summary of the responsibility of each teaming partner and sub-contractor. (SEE ATTACHMENT # 18 – DLA Energy 19.3 Feb 2018).”

If an Offeror is both a JV and a Small Business underneath the NAICS code for this solicitation, is the Offeror required to complete Attachment #18, or simply provide a summary of responsibility?

RESPONSE: See Revised Section L, pg. 62.

10. Attachment 17 The RFP Package includes Attachment 17: CAC Procedures, but the RFP makes no reference to this attachment. Can the Government specify how it would like Offerors to address this document within the proposal?

Does the Government anticipate that Offeror Site Managers will perform day-to-day on-site management post award?

RESPONSE: There are no specific requirements to address Attachment 17 in the proposal instructions. CAC requirements are provided in PWS Section 3.15 “Access and Identification Badges.” Offerors may include in their Technical Approach a discussion of CAC requirements.

11. Section L, Sub-Factor 5, Section 5.2 Is it acceptable to provide multiple facilities supported under the same overarching contract to meet the minimum requirements of 5-10 facilities?

RESPONSE: See PWS Section 1.1. Yes, if facilities are unique commercial facilities, DOD installations or their geographically separated units.

12. Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement, Section 4.2.6 – Emergency Response.“ The emergency environmental response services includes on-site observation by the Project Manager designated by the contract”. Is it acceptable to the Government that the alternate PM or Site Manager provide the observation if the PM is not available?

RESPONSE: PWS Section 4.2.6 requires the designated Project Manager provide the observation.

13. Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement, Section 4.3, Compliance Tasks. How are the associated environmental permit fees being handled under this contract? Are they a FFP cost that should be included with the Facility Compliance Quarterly Summary reports, will they be priced at the task order level, will they be reimbursed on a T&M basis?

RESPONSE: See revised Section L, pg 70.

14. Appendix F: Facility Specific Appendix: DFSP Ozol, Table 4.3. Are all the items listed “as required” in Table 4.3 to be priced in the Quarterly Facility Compliance Tasks or will they be priced at the task order level based on an as needed basis.

RESPONSE: Items listed “as required” in Table 4.3 are included as part of PPW Reference Items 013 and 014 in CLIN 0002.

15. General - We respectfully request a deadline of the proposal submission until July 13, 2020 to ensure adequate time is provided for fair and equal competition for all bidders.

RESPONSE: See Amendment 0003. Any proposal due date extensions will be provided via amendment.

16. RFP page 61 of 82 (b) Submission of offers, i. Faxed proposals are not authorized: Please provide the max file size for email proposal documents.

RESPONSE: See revised Section L, pg. 61.

17. RFP page 61 of 82 (b) Submission of offers iii. Proposal Format and Content: Is it acceptable to use less than 12-point font for graphics?

RESPONSE: Yes; see revised Section L, pg. 61.

18. RFP page 61 of 82 (b) Submission of offers iii. Proposal Format and Content: Is it acceptable to use less than 12-point font for tables?

RESPONSE: Yes; see revised Section L, pg. 61.

19. RFP page 61-62 of 82 (b) Submission of offers iii. Proposal Format and Content: Items (1) Cover Letter, (2) Mandatory Fill-in, (3) Acknowledgement of Amendments, (4) Declaration of Partnerships, and (5) Evidence of Responsibility. Are items 1-5 submitted separately from the proposal volumes or are they included in Volume III Price?

RESPONSE: Separately; see Revised Section L starting on pg. 61.

20. RFP page 62 of 82 (b) Submission of offers iii. Proposal Format and Content: (5) Evidence of Responsibility.

Is any information required from the Offeror for this item?

RESPONSE: No; see revised Section L, pg. 62.

21. RFP page 61 of 82 (b) Submission of offers iii. Proposal Format and Content: Is it acceptable to use less than 12-point font for headers and footers?

RESPONSE: Yes; see revised Section L, pg. 61.

22. RFP page 62 of 82 (b) submission of offers iii. Please confirm that Tabs and Divider pages that help with proposal organization are not included in the 100-page limit.

23. PWS page 15 of 53, 3.16.1 Project Manager (and Alternate). Is the Project Manager Alternate required to meet the same minimum requirements as the Project Manager?

RESPONSE: In accordance with PWS Section 3.16.1, all requirements apply to both Project Manager and Alternate.

24. RFP page 78 of 82 Sub-Factor 5.1. The evaluation criteria indicate that Offerors showing experience at more than 5 facilities may be rated more favorably. What number of total facilities will be rated more favorably and what is the maximum number of projects?

RESPONSE: There is only a Sub-Factor 5 (Relevant Experience). Offerors may propose as many facilities and projects as they choose in their Technical/Management Proposal Section 5.1. The Government will evaluate in accordance with 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), Factor 1.

Technical/Management Sub-Factor 5 on Page 78.

25. Teaming agreements are required in both item 4; Offeror’s Declaration of Partnerships and in Appendix D, JV or Team Documentation/Agreements. We request that the requirement to include the teaming agreement in the page-counted Section II Technical/Management be eliminated OR that the teaming agreement in Appendix D is not page counted.

RESPONSE: See Revised Section L, pg. 62-63.

26. RFP page 67 of 82, Section 5.2, iv asks that the Offeror should include the steps, ancillary functions, etc. in the table. Please describe what is meant by “steps” and by “ancillary functions”.

RESPONSE: See Revised Section L, pg. 68.

27. Question due date – Price Proposal Form. Please allow 3 working days after a change in the content of the price proposal form for additional clarification questions.

RESPONSE: The period for submitting questions closed on June 15, 2020 in accordance with Amendment 0001. The Government will not accept any further questions.

28. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. Please confirm the monthly costs for remedial systems O&M, including GAC changeouts and NPDES-required testing, will be captured under Ref Item numbers 0008 and 0009?

RESPONSE: All O&M tasks, including GAC changeouts and NPDES-required testing, are included in Reference Items 008 and 009. O&M tasks are identified in the O&M plan available upon request to Rhoji.Fernandez@DLA.mil.

29. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. Reference Item numbers 0008 and 0009. Will the contractor only be reimbursed quarterly for O&M activities?

RESPONSE: Yes. The Contractor will be reimbursed for inspected and acceptable invoices for the FFP reference items in accordance with the invoice instructions.

30. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. Please confirm the number of GAC changeouts for both the UTF and Admin Area GW treatment systems. The presence of PFAS in groundwater at the Admin Area System results in potential more frequent changeouts and use of specialty filter media to effectively remove the PFAS from the GW.

How many changeouts of GAC, and what type of GAC, are to be assumed?

RESPONSE: See revised Ozol FSA in Amendment 0004.

31. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. Confirm the requirement of quarterly reports to the Water Board.

The current NPDES permits require semiannual and annual report to be submitted.

RESPONSE: See revised Ozol FSA in Amendment 0004. The Government notes the Ozol PPW Reference Items 0008 and 0009 are inclusive of all requirements established in Ozol FSA Sections 4.2.2.1 and Ozol PPW Reference Items 0010 and 0011 are inclusive of all requirements established in Ozol FSA Section 4.2.2.2.

32. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.2.3. The Facility Monitoring Plan specifies annual GW monitoring reports; the PWS FSA specifies semiannual reports. Will the contractor be required to prepare and submit semiannual or annual GW monitoring reports?

RESPONSE: In accordance with FSA Section 4.2.3, the Contractor shall conduct groundwater monitoring and reporting: “for the DFSP Ozol facility and the Concord Pump Station for two events (Fall and Spring).”

33. Ozol PWS Section 4.3.2. Please confirm the “Consolidated Permit” for DFSP Ozol refers to the current NPDES permits for the UTF Groundwater Treatment System and the Administration Area Interim GW Recovery System.

RESPONSE: The consolidated permit in PWS Section 4.3.2 refers to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)-issued consolidated permit for each facility. The Ozol FSA states: “As stated in the PWS.”

34. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.3.11. Please confirm the contractor will be required to remain a member of USA North and respond to all USA North calls for the DFSP Ozol – Concord Pump Station pipeline until the pipeline is formally abandoned. On an annual basis, more than 700 calls are made that must be responded to by the contractor.

RESPONSE: In accordance with Section 4.3.11, the Contractor will be required to be a member of USA North:

“On an annual basis, the Contractor shall renew the required membership. The Contractor should anticipate an average of nearly 3 calls per work day.”

35. Ozol Attachment 6 – Price Proposal. We request that the UTF remedial systems (CLIN 008) and Admin Area remedial systems (CLIN 011) be changed to a monthly invoicing frequency, like utilities (CLIN 007) and facilities maintenance (CLIN 015), to alleviate cash flow issues for small businesses.

RESPONSE: Since there are seven CLINs in the solicitation, it is assumed that the question refers to Reference Items and not CLINs. See revised Ozol FSA Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 and Ozol PPW in Amendment 3. These sections have changed the reporting frequency from a quarterly to a monthly report. Additionally, Reference Items 008 and 011 have been changed from quarterly to monthly.

36. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.4.2.5. Will DLA replace the warning beacon on the western mooring dolphin prior to the start of the new contract? This warning beacon uses old technology and will require the use of a boat to perform any repairs or maintenance.

RESPONSE: No modifications to the pier are planned at this time.

37. Ozol PWS FSA Sections 4.4.2.2 and 4.4.2.3. Please confirm the weekly inspection and repair of security fencing only applies to the chainlink fencing surrounding the Administration Area and the inner chainlink fence in the Tank Farm Area.

RESPONSE: Ozol FSA Section 4.4.2.2 does not apply to inspection of fencing. However, the Ozol FSA Section

4.4.2.3 was revised to reflect that all fencing in its entirety will be inspected weekly.

38. Ozol PWS FSA Sections 4.4.2.2 and 4.4.2.3. Please confirm the weekly inspections do not include the perimeter property boundary fence that abuts East Bay Regional Park and neighboring ranch properties.

RESPONSE: See answer for Question #40.

39. Ozol PWS FSA Sections 4.4.2.2 and 4.4.2.3. Trimming trees and bushes on adjacent properties will require encroachment and access permits from the adjoining landowners. Will DLA or Air Force enter into these agreements?

Otherwise, will the contractor only be required to remove/trim bushes and trees within the Government property boundary?

RESPONSE: See revised Attachment 3 – PWS APP F of Amendment 0004. The Contractor will only be required to remove/trim bushes and trees within the Government property boundary. The Offeror’s proposal should reflect this approach.

40. Ozol PWS FSA Section 4.3.7. For DFSP Ozol, is the contractor required to perform pest management for all buildings and structures at the facility including buildings leased to East Bay Regional Park?

RESPONSE: See revised Attachment 3 – PWS APP F of Amendment 0004. The Contractor will only be required to perform pest management within DLA operational areas. Pest management will not be required within the areas utilized by the East Bay Regional Park, the Air Force, or other Air Force tenants.

41. Ozol Attachment 6 – Price Proposal. Should reference item numbers 87 and 88 on Attachment 6 (Ozol) be Sonic Drilling instead of HSA Drilling? HSA drilling for the same depths are presented on reference item numbers 75 and 76.

RESPONSE: See revised Price Proposal Worksheets in Amendment 0004.

42. Ozol Attachment 6 – Price Proposal. Reference item numbers 113 and 114 referencing 2WD and 4WD backhoe and loader; reference item 125 Dump truck with operator; reference Item number 163 Vacuum Truck with operator and Reference Item number 167 Water Truck with operator do not have an accompanying mobilization line nor fuel. Should those costs be rolled into the appropriate line costs?

RESPONSE: See revised Attachment 6 – Price Proposal for DFSP Ozol in Amendment 0004. Pricing shall include the mobilization and fuel for the Reference Items 0113, 0114, 0125, and 0163.

43. Ozol Administration Area System O&M Plan. The Administration Area System O&M Plan dated June 2019 provided by DLA is not the current O&M Plan. The most current Administration Area System O&M Plan is dated May 2020. Please provide the most current O&M Plan for this system.

RESPONSE: The Contracting Specialist will provide Offerors with the Final Operations and Maintenance Plan, Administration Area Interim Groundwater Remediation System, dated May 2020 to offerors that requested copies of attachments not available on public websites in accordance with the Note in Section J of the solicitation.

44. Section L, Pages 66, Item 5), a) and b); and Page 68, Item B – Will the offeror’s team member’s (i.e., subcontractor) experience be accepted as qualifying experience for Volume 1, Sub-Factor 5 (Relevant Experience) and Volume II (Past Performance)?

RESPONSE: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant experience and past performance IAW

52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAR 2020).

45. Should offerors who are proposing on both the DFSP San Pedro and DFSP Norwalk sites submit separate Volumes I, II III and IV for each site (i.e. total of 8 volumes)?

RESPONSE: Yes. See Addendum to 52.212-1(b)(iii)(6).

46. Will offerors be required to be registered on DIBBS at the time of proposal submission or at contract award. We are concerned that our ability to register our firm with DIBBS will be delayed due to DIBBS use of a verification process which requires the receipt of a post card in the mail before registration can begin. Per DIBBS Support, it may take more than the standard 2 weeks for the transfer of information from SAM to DIBBS – which is required to complete the registration process. “In today's internet security environment, delays can occur while registering in DIBBS. DIBBS now uses a two-part verification process that includes a physical address verification. Post cards are usually delivered in 7-14 days of the request. Please adjust your expectation that this process could take a significant amount of time to complete. We are unable to expedite the process.”

RESPONSE: The Contractor shall register in DIBBS if awarded a contract. In accordance with F1.11(c), the Government is not receiving quotes via DIBBS. However, the Contractor shall use DIBBS to receive orders in accordance with F1.11(c),

47. Do the small business goals of 32.36% for small businesses; 3% for HUBZone Small Businesses; 3% SDVOSB; 5% SDB; and 5% WOSB referenced in SF1449 - Sol. SPE603-20-R-0515 refer to the total contract value or the percentage of subcontracted work?

RESPONSE: See L-0001 L7 SOCIOECONOMIC PROPOSAL (DLA ENERGY MAR 2007). “Small businesses will be credited for the dollar value/percentage of the work they perform as if the work were subcontracted to a small business concern.”

48. For Volume II-Past Performance- References: Is DLA’s expectation, in addition to the three main references that will include PPQs, that offerors provide two additional DLA references, plus two private sector or plus two private sector or other government references, for a total of seven (7) references? (SF1449, page 69 of 82).

RESPONSE: Yes, if applicable.

49. Section L, Page 61, Item b, ii: Please consider extending the RFI deadline to June 16th. DLA just provided a considerable number of reference documents on June 5th via the DOD Safe file transfer site and the current deadline of June 9th does not allow offerors adequate time to review those references and pose relevant questions.

RESPONSE: See Amendment 0001 of solicitation. The period to submit questions was extended to June 15, 2020 at 1:00 PM local Fort Belvoir, VA time.

50. Section L, Pages 66, Item 5), a) and b); and Page 68, Item B – Will the offeror’s team member’s (i.e., subcontractor) experience be accepted as qualifying experience for Volume 1, Sub-Factor 5 (Relevant Experience) and Volume II (Past Performance)?

RESPONSE: With respect to Volume I, Technical Management Proposal Subfactor 5- Relevant Experience and Volume II, Past Performance see Amendment 0004.

51. Section L, Pages 62, Item (6), A: Please clarify if Appendices A through E of Volume 1 are included in 100 page limitation.

RESPONSE: Yes, Appendices A through E of Volume 1 are included in the page limitation.

52. Section L, Page 69, Item ii.: states that PPQs must be completed and submitted directly from the Offeror’s reference. However, most small business offerors are using the same projects for more than one proposal and already have existing PPQs on file. Additionally, shelter-in-place orders have been issued in many states throughout the U.S., and many of our government and private clients are now working from home or are furloughed. To reduce the burden on our clients for completing PPQs for the same project for multiple solicitations, as well as the inability of some clients to complete a PPQ as they are either working from home or furloughed:

a. May a CPARS be submitted in lieu of the PPQ? We have some customers, including USACE districts, that are not allowed by their legal departments to provide a PPQ if a CPARS has been completed.

RESPONSE: No. Please see Section L, Addendum to 52.212-1(b)(iii)(6)(B)(i), pg. 69.

b. May a NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0 completed for a previous solicitation be provided instead of submitted instead of the form in Section J?

RESPONSE: Offerors must use the PPQ form in Section J.

53. Please verify the following laboratory methods/requirements. We recommend the following changes/amendments (as some of the methods requested do not exist):

Norwalk:

• Item 204: replace “purgeables” with “extractables”

• Item 205: include the term “purgeables plus extractables”

• Items 222 and 223: clarify ambient air vs. soil gas;

• Item 222: add option of using bags instead of canisters for item 222

• New item add TO-3; recommend adding this method as it is routinely used

San Pedro:

• Item 209: replace “purgeables” with “extractables”

• Item 210: include the term “purgeables plus extractables”

• Items 227 and 228: clarify ambient air vs. soil gas; add TO-3 (as a separate item?);

• Item 227: add option of using bags instead of canisters for item 227

• New item add TO-3; recommend adding this method as it is routinely used

RESPONSE: See revised Price Proposal Worksheets in Amendment 0004.

54. In the various deliverables (e.g., reference item 15 and 16 for the DFSP Norwalk contract), is it DLA’s intent for the bidders to provide the not only for the cost of the final deliverable (e.g., the report of findings) but that the bidders costs be fully inclusive of the fields tasks required that will be documented in the report? As an example, for the groundwater monitoring report, does DLA expect that the proposed cost of that deliverable include all of the field work, laboratory analysis, purge water disposal and the cost to prepare and submit the report of findings in the pricing?

Alternatively, is DLA looking only for the price to prepare the report and will negotiate separately, after the contract is awarded, the cost to conduct the field portion of the groundwater monitoring and sampling?

RESPONSE: Offeror’s costs for reporting deliverables are fully inclusive of the field tasks required that will be documented in the report unless otherwise specified in the PWS or Facility FSA. In accordance with SECTION

B – SUPPLIES/SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED AND PRICES

(ENVIRONMENTAL) (DLA ENERGY MAR 2009), Page 6 of 82, CLINS 0001-0003 are associated with specific tasks and associated deliverables identified in the PWS and Facility Specific Appendices (FSAs). Offeror’s Firm- Fixed-Prices shall be reflective of all labor, materials, and other costs associated with performance of the tasks and completion of deliverables.

In this example of Norwalk reference items 015 and 016, both are semiannual reports described in Norwalk FSA Section 4.2.3.1 that cites “IAW Section 4.2.3 of the PWS, the Contractor shall conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling at DFSP Norwalk in accordance with the sampling and analysis plan prepared by DLA” followed by more details of contractor’s responsibility. PWS Section 4.2.3 states that “The Contractor shall perform gauging and groundwater monitoring and reporting at the site in accordance with the facility-specific Groundwater Monitoring Plan.”

55. Amendment 1: With the due date for questions being extended by 6 days, we request that the due date for the proposal also be extended by a minimum of 6 days or a minimum of 14 days after issuance of the responses to questions, whichever is latest.

RESPONSE: See Amendment 0003. Any proposal due date extensions will be provided via amendment.

56. Attachment J and RFP page 69 of 82 #3 and #4. The RFP indicates that additional references on Attachment J are to be supplied “if applicable”. (1) Are we required to provide these additional references in addition to the references for the PPQs? (2) If these references are required, can they be the same reference as provided in the PPQs?

RESPONSE: (1) Yes, if applicable. (2) Yes.

57. Regarding Appendix G, Section 3.9 (Permits, Licenses, and Fees); 2.1.1 (DFSP San Pedro Administration Area), 2.1.2 (DFSP San Pedro Tank Farm Area), 2.1.3 (DFSP San Pedro South Control Area);

and 4.4.4.5 (Emergency Generator/Diesel Engine):

Are the permits that were provided as appendices to the O&M plan (e.g., air permits, WDR permits) current and complete? If not, please provide copies of the most current permits.

RESPONSE: Offerors were provided permits and pertinent information in O&M Plans. Where applicable, additional permits have been provided to Offerors in accordance with the the note in Section J.

58. Re Appendix G, Section 2.1.2 (DFSP San Pedro Tank Farm Area):

What is the contractor’s responsibility with respect to the O&M and the expansion of the thermal remediation systems?

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for thermal remediation systems in the San Pedro Facility Specific Appendix G. For this solicitation, there is no requirement for thermal remediation system O&M or expansion.

59. Re Appendix G, Table B-2 sixth row, Electric Service for High Voltage (Thermal Remediation):

The table references Note 2. Please direct us to where this note is presented in the PWS.

RESPONSE: See revised DFSP San Pedro FSA of Amendment 0004. The Notes have been removed from Table B-2.

60. Re 4.4.2 (Grounds Maintenance):

The PWS states the designated areas include the DFSP San Pedro Main Terminal and Pier 12. The DFSP San Pedro Main Terminal is divided into the following areas: Administration Area, Main Tank Farm Area, and South Control

Area (formerly pump house area). Can DLA please provide details as to what areas exactly are to be maintained and how frequently?

RESPONSE: Offerors are advised to refer to the 2014 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) in accordance with PWS Section 4.4.2. DLA must comply with the mowing and vegetation management strategies in the INRMP. Due to seasonal variations, specific frequencies are not available, as the Contractor must ensure compliance with changing conditions. For further assistance, we are providing the 2019 CareTaker Landscape and Mowing Training slides for DFSP San Pedro, available upon request.

61. Past Performance, Subfactors 5.1 and 5.2 (Relevant Experience/Offeror’s Experience with DOD and DLA Federal Contracts):

Is it acceptable for contractors to use past ID/IQ contracts a project to demonstrate corporate experience?

RESPONSE: Yes, it is acceptable to use past IDIQ contracts to demonstrate past corporate experience in accordance with Technical/Management Proposal Subfactor 5, Sections 5.1 and 5.2.

62. For Volume II-Past Performance- References: Is DLA’s expectation, in addition to the three main references that will include PPQs, that offerors provide two additional DLA references, plus two private sector or other government references, for a total of seven (7) references? (SF1449, page 69 of 82).

RESPONSE: The Government requests a minimum of three PPQs from each entity in a teaming arrangement.

See revised Addendum to 52.212-1(b)(iii)(2)(B)(ii) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), pg. 69. As applicable, a maximum of seven PPQs are permitted per offeror, or entity in a teaming arrangement.

63. RFP page 62 of 82 (b) submission of offers iii. Please confirm that a proposal acronym list does not count against the 100-page limit.

64. RFP page 62 of 82 (b) submission of offers iii. Please confirm that the proposal table of contents does not count against the 100-page limit.