A07_Amendment_W56ZTN-16-R-0002-0007.Executed.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide Questions and Answ ers (Q&A) clarifying the answ ers issued in the previous amendments.

This amendment is also to provide Web-based Submission for offerors having their proposal submissions through the electronically submission. See Information in Summary of Changes for further details.

The proposal due date of 02 December 2016 at 2:00PM EST remains unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 8

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Nov-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W56ZTN-16-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Sep-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Nov-2016

CODE

ACC-APG - GARRISON DIVISION (W56ZTN)

ACC-APG GARRISON DIVISION

6001 COMBAT DRIVE

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005

W56ZTN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W56ZTN-16-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0007

This Amendment is also to add the Electronic Proposal Submission method to Section L – Proposal Submission of the Amendment 0006 posted in FedBizOpps on 17 November 2016 as below.

If the proposal is submitted through the following Web-based Submission electronically, no hard copy is required to be mailed.

Web-based Submission electronically via the U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE):

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/

Recipient’s Point of Contact (POC) email address: Offeror shall have both POC's email addresses below in their electronic submission .

lori.l.nguyen.civ@mail.mil and sherry.l.compton.civ@mail.mil

Please note to follow the instruction provided in the web site.

Q&A FOR BESS III - W56ZTN-16-R-0002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS from 1 - 72 can be obtained in the Solicitation Amendment W56ZTN-16-R-0002- 0002 posted in FedBizOpps on 24 October 2016.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS from 73 - 111 can be obtained in the Solicitation Amendment W56ZTN-16-R- 0002-0003 posted in FedBizOpps on 28 October 2016.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS from 112 - 120 can be obtained in the Solicitation Amendment W56ZTN-16-R- 0002-0005 posted in FedBizOpps on 10 November 2016.

Q Page Section QUESTION AND ANSWER

121 Page 44 Section C.5.1.3

QUESTION #121 The first line on this page notes the need for four years combined experience in the laboratory and managing QA/QC procedures. By my read, this requires that the QA/QC Officer to have direct laboratory experience rather than overseeing the work of subcontracted laboratories. Is this correct? If direct laboratory experience is required, this seems overly restrictive and not representative of the true needs of the solicitation. Please reconsider this requirement.

ANSWER #121: Direct laboratory experience or sampling and analysis experience are the requirements.

122 108 1 QUESTION #122: “the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal” seems to fit best value evaluation rather than acceptable vs.

unacceptable evaluation

ANSWER #122: This verbiage will be changed as follows: “The proposal will be evaluated to determine if each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP”.

123 Page

Volume III Price

QUESTION # 123: Item 5 states that the Government intends to incorporate a ceiling rate per year on any proposed fully loaded rates. Please clarify how the proposed rates will be utilized for cost plus fixed fee task orders. Will actual raw labor rates and indirect rates still be billed? Will ceilings apply to unburdened labor or indirect rates under cost plus fixed fee task orders?

ANSWER #123 If the labor category was proposed under the basic effort, awardees must utilize the proposed rate for any task order that contains the particular labor category. Actual raw labor rates and indirect rates may be billed only if the sum of these elements does not exceed the ceiling rate per year on any fully loaded rates proposed (and accepted) under the basic effort or subsequent awarded task orders. As previously stated, the overall ceiling rate will apply to fully loaded rate under cost plus fixed fee task orders and firm fixed price task orders as well.

124 QUESTION #124: In reference to Q&A #75, shall the Offerors assume that the Regulatory Specialist and Health and Safety Officer pricing on the revised version of A07 RFP Attachment 1 issued with Amendment 003 is the only level of Regulatory Specialist and/or Health and Safety Officer to be employed throughout this contract?

ANSWER #124: That is correct.

125 QUESTION #125: In reference to Q&A #81, The Government’s answer of “Yes” is insufficient. Does the “Yes” answer the answer:

1. The question of whether the Offeror will need to cast-average based on the anticipated need of individuals over the course of the contract? Or

2. Is this information required to “adequately support and explain the reasonableness and realism” for rates?

3. Or Do we (the Offeror) need to provide all of the rates that went in determining our Professional Level 3 rate, for example?

In order for the Government to be able to evaluate all pricing proposals submitted by Offerors, it would seem that it needs to ensure that everyone is providing similar information and a similar distribution of work amongst the multiple Professional Level 3, for example, positions.

ANSWER #125: Each offeror's cost/price proposal shall contain sufficient quantitative and narrative documentation necessary to adequately support and explain the reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost/price proposed in the proposal. The offerors are encouraged to provide whatever supplemental information is necessary to help the Government understand why the proposed costs are reasonable and realistic (refer to paragraphs 2 – 3 of the (iii) Volume III – Price of the RFP).

126 QUESTION #126: In reference to Q&A #83: Again, it is imperative that the Government provide sufficient guidance on the expected types of Task Orders to be issued in each of the contract years to enable the Offeror and its subcontractors/team members to distribute the various A07 RFP Attachment 1 total labor hours to each entity and labor category (e.g., Civil Engineer, Environmental Engineer, etc.).

Without this guidance, it is likely that some Offerors will merely load the hours up with the lowest rate positions/disciplines in their Team.

ANSWER #126: The task order requirements will be made in accordance with paragraph H.2. of the RFP, Task Order Awards Among Contract Awardees. Labor categories (LCATs) proposed which are listed in the revised schedule of labor rates (Attachment 1, Revision 1) will be used throughout the contract (Base Contract). If any LCATs which are proposed in the base contract meet the task order level then these LCATs will be applied to the level of the task order. Other levels which are not included in the revised schedule of labor rates may be required and specified in the task order levels and will contain their own evaluation method.

127 QUESTION #127: In reference to Q&A #86, The Government’s answer to this question indicates that an Offeror is to modify Table 5.1 as necessary to align with its Disclosure Statement. Since the exact same information is required by A07 RFP Attachment 1, are you stating that this Excel worksheet should/can also be modified to meet the firm’s Disclosure Statement? If so, how will the Government ensure that its comparison of different Offeror’s pricing is looking at the same criteria?

ANSWER #127: Offeror should read and understand requirements of the RFP and all questions and answers listing in the amendments. Price proposals will be analyzed and evaluated in accordance with Price factor of Section M (Pages 69-70 of the Amendment 0006). The bottom line is that offeror’s proposed rates must be in accordance with their Disclosure Statement.

128 QUESTION #128: In reference to Q&A’s # 98, 103, and 108: The government’s answer to this question is thoroughly confusing. Throughout the RFP and earlier answers to questions, the Government instructed the Offerors to add additional labor categories as necessary to cover the labor positions that it envisions using for the contract. Now, this question’s answer seems to indicate that the Offeror should not worry about other positions that will be delineated in the Task Orders, Please clarify exactly what labor rates the Offerors are to provide in A07 RFP Attachment 1, including specific disciplines and the their anticipated hours annually.

ANSWER #128: See Answer #126.

129 QUESTION #129: Based on the answers provided by the Government to the various Price Proposal and Labor Rates questions, including those discussed above, it is requested that the Government provide information on exactly how the labor rates presented by an Offeror and its subcontractors via A07 RFP Attachment 1 will be used throughout the contract. This is especially prudent since the contract will likely have both Firm Fixed Price and Cost Plus Fixed Fee work scopes over its execution. Will the labor rates provided in A07 RFP Attachment 1 be merely used for proposal evaluation and award or will they become the maximum allowed pricing per A)7 RFP Attachment 1 Labor Position for the applicable year of the contract. If the latter is the answer, how will changes in a Contractor’s provisional rates be address on any Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders.

ANSWER #129: Labor rates provided in A07 RFP Attachment 1 will become the maximum allowed pricing per A07 RFP Attachment 1.

130 QUESTION #130: Regarding Amendment 005, Q&A 120 - Table A instructions of: "Offeror shall submit at least two (2) sample tasks of the following subfactors to meeting the requirements of each subfactor of the PWS." Please clarify:

Is the Government requesting that a technical approach/sample project be submitted for two of the sub factors in Table A OR is the request to submit two technical approaches/sample projects for each Subfactor in Table A?

ANSWER #130: See revisions of Section C (PWS), Section L (Proposal Submission), Section M (Evaluation), and Attachment 4 – Sample Tasks as listed/attached in the amendment 0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

131 QUESTION #131: The issuance of Amendment 5 for RFP Number W56ZTN-16- R-0002 causes a complete redevelopment of the Technical Proposal. A due date of 11/28/16 (the Monday following Thanksgiving) provides insufficient time to develop a quality response to the newly required sample tasks. We hereby request an extension of 2-4 weeks to allow offerors the time needed to redevelop their technical proposal submittal.

ANSWER #131: The extension has been granted in the amendment 0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

132 QUESTION #132: As a clarification of the submittal requirement, are we to submit a total of two sample projects, or, two sample projects per subfactor?

ANSWER #132: Offeror shall submit at least a total of two (2) sample tasks out of the 5 proposed sample tasks for Section 1 – Technical factor of Volume I of the Amendment 0006. The two sample tasks shall be from different proposed sample tasks.

QUESTION #133:

a) First, the following statement in the RFP (under Volume I, Section 1, Technical Factor (page 60)) is a bit confusing, so can you clarify?

Specifically, while it states we need to submit at least 2 attached sample tasks...the statement at the end indicates that we need to meet the requirements of each subfactor.

b) From RFP--"To be rated as acceptable for the Section 1, the offeror shall submit at least two (2) attached sample tasks of the following subfactors to meeting the requirements of each subfactor of the RFP."

c) Additionally, the evaluation criteria for Factor 1 still states the following...indicating that we must respond to all subfactors to obtain an

Acceptable rating.

d) From RFP (page 64, Section A (Basis of Award))--"To receive consideration for further evaluation, a rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors),...."

e) From RFP (page 65, Section B (Factors and Subfactors to be Evaluated))-- "Each sub-factor will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach associated with each factor meets or does not meet the RFP requirements.

To receive an overall “Acceptable” factor rating, all of its subfactors must receive an “Acceptable” rating."

ANSWER #133:

a) Refer to Page 60 of Amendment 0006, Section 1: See Answer #132. To be rated as acceptable for the Section 1, the offeror shall submit at least a total of two (2) sample tasks meeting requirements of the sample tasks proposed.

b) See Answer #133 a).

c) Refer to Page 65 of Amendment 0006, Factor 1, Technical Factor: See

Answer #133 a).

d) Refer to Page 64, Section A, Basis of Award: …To receive consideration for further evaluation, a rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors) Changed to read as “To receive consideration for further evaluation, a rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include at least a total of two subfactors proposed).

e) Refer to Page 65 of Amendment 0006, Section B, last sentence of paragraph 2: To receive an overall “Acceptable” factor rating, all of its subfactors must receive an “Acceptable” rating: Correct. It means that “To receive an overall rating of “Acceptable” factor, each subfactor of all factors (technical, key personnel, and past performance) must receive an “Acceptable” rating.”

134 QUESTION #134: To confirm your instruction in Amendment 5, #120, you are asking offerors to discard the technical approach that they have spent 6 weeks writing and prepare a new technical approach in roughly 2 weeks over the Thanksgiving holiday? We were planning to ship our current proposal in 3 business days, so we would appreciate an additional 2 week extension past the 11/28 deadline, as there was no advance warning for this change in technical direction.

ANSWER #134: An extension has been granted in Amendment 0006 posted in

135 QUESTION #135: Does the Government still wish to see 100 pages of text in Volume I as part of the new approach, or are there page limits to be instituted for each Sample Task?

ANSWER #135: The page limit of 100 pages for Volume I (Technical) has not been changed as part of Amendment 0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

136 QUESTION #136: Do you still want offerors to respond as originally instructed for Subfactor 6, Other Environmental Requirements, in addition to the sample tasks requested in Amendment 5? Or has this Subfactor been deleted from Volume I entirely?

ANSWER #136: See requirements at Amendment #0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

137 QUESTION #137: The answer to Question #106 states that “a project may be defined as an entire task order contract only if it is 90% completed; projects for single task orders may also be used as long as they are 90% completed.” Does this still apply to Section L instructions, and if so, is it safe to assume that the 90% reference is changed to 75% per Amendment 5?

ANSWER #137: See proposal submission (Section L) and evaluation approach (Section M) in Amendment #0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

138 QUESTION #138: For consistency, could the Government release a revised version of the RFP that incorporates the numerous changes in the amendments by using highlighted or red text?

ANSWER #138: A revised version of the PWS as well as Sections L and M has been made in Amendment 0006 posted in Fedbizopps on 17 November 2016.

139 QUESTION #139: Is it APG’s intent that we simply need to prepare a response for two of the five subfactors presented in Amendment 05 Table A versus for all five subfactors? If so, our response will be significantly less than the 100 pages allocated for Factor 1.

ANSWER #139: See Answer #135.

140 QUESTION #140: For Factor 3, Past Performance, Amendment 05 indicates that we can only provide past performance for subcontractors who are providing >25% of the labor…does that mean we can’t include subcontractors’ past performance if they are performing less than 25%?

ANSWER #140: It is correct. See page 62 of Amendment 0006 posted in

141 QUESTION #141: With the significant change in the technical approach, please consider further extending the proposal as it’s currently due the day after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, meaning we will need to finalize it on Tuesday 11/22 or Wednesday 11/23, which gives us less than 2 weeks to rework the entire Factor 1.

ANSWER #141: An extension has been granted in Amendment 0006 posted in

142 QUESTION #142: There is confusion among our team members as to whether the sample task write-ups replace addressing requirements for the PWS, or whether it is in addition to addressing the requirements of the PWS. While the response to Question #120 states that proposal submission and evaluation stated in Table A replaces the subfactors on pages 98 – 99 and pages 108 – 109 of the solicitation, the middle column (Proposal Submission) and right-hand column (Government Evaluation) of Table A states, “to be rated as acceptable, the offeror must demonstrate all of the following items, including the methodology and approach fully addresses ALL requirements of the IRP Program (ALL requirements of Compliance Support, ALL requirements of Natural Resources, ALL requirements of Cultural Resources, and ALL requirements of NEPA).” If we were to write up a methodology and approach for just the sample task, it would not address all of the requirements of each of the Subfactors found on pages 14 – 37 in the solicitation.

So, for example, the sample task for natural resources BMPs to promote wild pollinator health would not address PWS requirements found on pages 32 – 33 of the solicitation including wetland delineations, flora and fauna surveys, stream assessments, Endangered Species management, INRMPs, other Natural Resource Plans, waterfowl surveys and artificial nesting structures, etc. Likewise, the write-up for the NEPA mitigation monitoring would not address the other PWS requirements, particularly NEPA documentation (RECs, EAs/FONSIs, EIS/RODs). Please provide additional clarification.

ANSWER #142: See Answer #130.

143 QUESTION #143: For the NEPA Mitigation Monitoring sample task, it will be difficult to prepare a specific write-up since we don’t have specific details (e.g., what type of mitigation, how many, where). Are you looking for more of a general write-up?

ANSWER #143: The Government is looking for more of a general write-up.

144 QUESTION #144: Clarify Section C.5.1.3 of the PWS (page 37) of Amendment 0006 posted in FedBizOpps on 17 November 2016.

ANSWER #144: The Section C.5.1.3 of the PWS (page 37) of Amendment 0006 has been updated as read below (the update has been in BLUE text).

C.5.1.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Officer/Manager shall possess a minimum of a BS in engineering, construction management, geology, chemistry, or related field from an accredited institution. Must possess professional registration in their respective field (to include but not limited to the fields of geology, chemistry, engineering) if applicable. Minimum of four (4) years combined experience in the laboratory and managing quality assurance/quality control procedures. If the candidate does not possess laboratory experience nor have a BS or higher degree in Chemistry, must demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years of experience in the sampling and analysis of environmental media as well as performing quality assurance functions. Responsible for providing internal quality assurance surveillance during implementation of the project. Responsible for coordinating field and laboratory quality assurance surveillance.

(End of Summary of Changes)