DRAFT_RFP_dated_4_Oct_2016_QUESTIONS-ANSWERS_16_Nov_2016_W9124J-17-R-0006_ERMA_IDIQ_FY18.pdf

Question

Number Reference

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q1

Will there be a seperate RFP for unrestricted/large business?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: There will not be a separate RFP for unrestricted/large business.

Q2

The goals set forth in the Small business participation plan will impact teaming decisions.

In the last ERMA RFP the goals were set forth in section M, which is not included in the Draft RFP.

Can you provide us the goals now, that is before the final RFP, so that we can best meet our goals?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: The

Government is currently reviewing your question. If the Government decides to incorporate your suggestion(s)/concern(s), those changes will be reflected in the Final RFP, if/when released.

Q3

I am a minority own business with NAICS

531210 code can I partner with engineering outside company to submit to this?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q4

Since many of the task orders that best align to this PWS are large performance based contracts

(PBCs) or performance base remediation (PBR) projects, with Periods of Performance of 8-10 years, will you consider: Reference Q4a-4e.

Q4a

Page 64 - Section L/Factor 1 &

Page 66 - Section L/Factor 3

1) Allowing the Offeror to pull specific sites from a single TO/installation that meet the project definition requirements (80% complete, $1M+)?

This would allow the Offeror to demonstrate recent and relevant projects with timelines frequently associated with PBCs/PBR sites.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q4b

Page 65 - Section L/Factor 1 &

Page 67 - Section L/Factor 3

2) If this (request from question 1) is unacceptable, will you consider allowing a project that is less than

80% complete (e.g., 50%)? Without this consideration, a 12 month/$1M simple project that does not adequately demonstrate the ability to manage difficulty due to short duration would be favored over a complex, 10 year, multi-million dollar project that may only be working in Year 7. The longevity of the project’s performance period has a direct relationship to the customer’s ability to assess the contractor’s success or failure.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q4c

Page 64 - Section L/Factor 1 &

Page 66 - Section L/Factor 3

3) Since several of our Performance Based

Remediation projects/task orders include many sites at multiple installations, can we segregate specific sites from two different installations to be used as two different “projects” if they meet other requirements, e.g., % complete, $1M+, etc.?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q4d

Page 60 - Section L/Instructions to Offerors

4) The RFP states, “A proposal conference will be held in conjunction with the Site Visit at White

Sands Missile Range, New Mexico on 1

November and 2 November, 2016.” Will the release date for this RFP be before or after the site visit.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: If/when

FINAL RFP is released, notification will be posted on FBO.gov. Also, please reference Site Visit Slides posted on FBO.gov on 7 November 2016.

Q4e Page 66 - Section L/Factor 3

5) The RFP states “At least two (2) of the projects shall be submitted by the Prime and at least one (1) project may be submitted for a

Subcontractor.” Would you please clarify, since 6 projects are requested.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q5 Will Solicitation reserve for SDVOSB?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

DRAFT RFP POSTED 4 OCT 2016/QUESTIONS IN RESPONSE TO DRAFT RFP (DUE BY 19 OCTOBER 2016)

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q6

Please remove the key personnel limitation requirement for the subject task order from this

RFP. The restrictive language focusing on key personnel (which must be from the prime and therefore are key on the overall MATOC) with experience in the State of New Mexico and with specific RCRA experience with the state agency

(NMED) will drastically limit competition on this nationwide MATOC.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q7 PWS/ Personnel Expertise Technical

In the PWS at C.6 PERSONNEL EXPERTISE, C.6.1, it states that “ALL Key Personnel shall be the Prime Contractor’s employees. “Paragraph

C.6 is written such that this requirement applies to

Base Contract Key Personnel and TO Key

Personnel. This requirement is repeated in Factor

1 of the RFP.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q8 RFP/PWS - Personnel

Contracting/

Personnel

Please consider modifying the requirement to allow small businesses to use major subcontractors for TO Key Personnel positions such as the Regulatory Specialist. It is difficult for a small business to maintain a pool of regulatory specialists knowledgeable in the regulatory requirements for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q9 PWS/Personnel Expertise

Contracting/

Personnel

In the PWS at C.6 PERSONNEL EXPERTISE, C.6.1, it states resumes must not be more than one page. Factor 1 of the PWS does not state a page limitation for resumes. Can resumes for proposed key personnel exceed one page? One page resumes do not allow adequate space to demonstrate the years of experience required for key positions, e.g., 10 years of experience in program management for the Program Manager.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q10 RFP/Factor 1 Technical/Projects

For the six projects required in Factor 1, must all six projects be performed by the Prime or can one or projects be from a major subcontractor partner?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q11 RFP/Factor 1 Technical/Projects

For Factor 1, it states that for projects that three must focus on IRP and three focus on MMRP. Can hazardous, toxic, or radiological projects performed outside of the IRP be used in addition to IRP projects?

Similarly, can munitions investigation and remediation projects outside of the MMRP be used in addition to

MMRP projects? We, and likely other firms, have projects that were funded under other programs that show more breathe of capabilities than those we have performed under the IRP and MMRP, but which are the essentially the same technically as IRP and

MMRP projects.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q12 RFP/Factor 3 Technical/PPQs

For Factor 3, can we submit recently completed

PPQs or CPARS for projects in lieu of requesting a new PPQ? This will reduce the need of the government staff to response to new requests.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q13 RFP/Factors 1 and 3 Technical/Projects

Can the projects submitted for Factor 1 be submitted for Factor 3?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q14 RFP/Factor 3 Technical/Projects

For Factor 3, can projects where the Offeror was a major subcontractor be included?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q15

RFP/Limitations on Size of

Proposal

General

Requirements Can the offeror use Arial 8 or 9 for exhibits?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q16 Section L Volume I, Factor 1

Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach requires Offerors to submit six (6) projects for which they were the Prime Contractor from six (6) different DoD installations, three (3) of which shall focus on IRP, and three

(3) shall focus on MMRP. Given the broad scope of work and regulatory compliance authorities (i.e, RCRA) required in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), we find limiting project examples to only IRP and MMRP programs very restrictive. Would the Government consider changing the requirement to three (3) of which shall focus on HTRW and three (3) of which shall focus on MEC/UXO to demonstrate the depth and breadth of experience in providing services similar to those in PWS of the solicitation.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q17 Section L Volume II

Past Performance requires five (5) projects to demonstrate Recent and Relevant past performance. Should Offerors provide past performance information on the same projects as submitted in Volume I, Factor 1, or are Offerors to submit five (5) different projects in addition to the six (6) projects required in Factor 1?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q18

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate

Experience and Management

Approach Contracting

On page 65 of 72 in the Solicitation, projects are required to be at least 80% complete by the proposal due date. Would the Government allow projects to be at least 50% complete by the proposal due date?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q19

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate

Experience and Management

Approach Contracting

With regard to the definition of a project on page 65, would the government consider the representation of contract line items numbers (CLINS) within a single task order that meet the 80% complete criteria as a project? For example, a task order award contains 40

CLINS to address contract objectives at 40 sites.

Work on some CLINS could be demonstrated to be at

80% but progress on the task order as a whole is less than 80%. This would allow contractors to demonstrate PBC experience for large multi-year / multi-site contracts awarded as a single task order that would not meet the 80% criteria under the current definition.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q20

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate

Experience and Management

Approach Contracting

Will a teaming partner's corporate experience presented in a project be considered relevant?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q21 Evaluation Criteria Contracting

Volume I, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate

Experience and Management Approach. Would the government reconsider its requirement that each of the six projects are from different DoD installations? There are examples where multiple highly relevant Task Orders showing diversified services (e.g. IRP and MMRP) have been completed at one DoD installation.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q22 Evaluation Criteria Contracting

Volume I, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach and Volume II, Factor 3:

Past Performance. Would the government reconsider its requirement that work must be at one site or multiple sites at a single DoD installation or facility.

For instance, most ORAP projects have been performed at multiple installations under a single

Task Order. The government’s current definition would preclude the use of these TOs, and other similar ones, for either Corporate Experience and

Past Performance.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q23 General Contracting

We request the inclusion of the FAR 2.243-5

Changes and Changed Conditions.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q24 Evaluation Criteria Contracting

If a Joint Venture executed a project, can each partner of the joint venture claim that project as experience, or does the corporate experience reside exclusively with the JV entity, the partner's actual portion of the work they performed, or other.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q25 Evaluation Criteria Contracting

In Factor 1, the RFP states that, Offerors shall submit at least one project of value greater than

$7.5M; the remaining projects shall be of value greater than $1M. Do each of the remaining projects need to be greater than $1M each, or cumulatively total greater than $1M. If the government is requesting each project greater than $1M, would the government consider reducing the size limit to $500K each.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q26 General Contracting

For purposes of the proposal, is the Offeror defined as the Prime Contractor, or the Team?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q27 General Contracting

We request an extension in the due date for questions related to the Live Task Order Proposal as the background documents have not been provided, nor has the site walk occurred.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Site Visit

Questions are due by NOON (CST) 30

November 2016.

Q28 RFP Release Date Contracting

In the Draft RFP Pgs. 60 and 61 lists a due date of 18 January 2017 by NOON CST. Is that the true due date, and if so should offerors expect the

Final RFP at any date?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q29 Past Peformance Contracting

Should the minimum of 5 projects in Factor 3, Past Performance be the same projects as what is in Factor 1, Corporate Experience?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q30 Evaluation Criteria Contracting

The Draft RFP states that this is a FFP sample problem. AEC typically has used LPTA as their evaluation criteria vs. Best Value. What will the evaluation criteria be for ERMA FY18?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q31 Relevant Corporate Experience Contracting

Are all of the 6 projects required in Factor 1 to be from the Prime, or can offerors submit teaming partners projects as long as they were the Prime

Contractor?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q32

Section L, Volume III. Factor 4, Live Task Order Price

Proposal, Tab 2, (a) (iii) Contracting

There is a requirement to provide direct labor rates for both prime and subcontractors. Since the proposed labor is only for the sample task, if there are ID/IQ team subcontractors who will not perform part of the sample task, would any rates be required from those team subs?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q33

Section L, Volume III. Factor 4, Live Task Order Price

Proposal, Tab 2, (a) (iii) Contracting

Is the audit information required only for the prime, or also from team subcontractors?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q34

Section L, Volume III. Factor 4, Live Task Order Price

Proposal, Tab 2, (d) Contracting

If there is a team subcontractor who is not planned to be a part of the sample task, is the audit information still required?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q35

Attachment 6, Live Task Order

Proposal CLIN Structure Contracting

Is it acceptable for Offerors to break down their costs into Sub-CLINS to provde additional detailed breakdown?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q36

Section L, Volume III. Factor 4, Live Task Order Price

Proposal, Tab 2, e (1) Contracting

Please clairfy whether the proposal must contain the back up documentation referenced (quotes, purchase order, historic price, estimate, lease, etc.)

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q37

Attachment 1, PWS for ID/IQ contract, Section C.8.10.1

Are Offerors requried to submit a COI Disclosure as part of the Live Task Order Proposal?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q38

Section L, Volume III. Factor 4, Live Task Order Price

Proposal, Tab 2, e (1)

Please provide a copy of the RCRA permit and other site specific documents prior to the site visit scheduled for 11/1/16.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q39

Attachment 2, 1.6.12 Key

Personnel

Please clarify if this requirement mean a minimum 5 years of experience on project within

NM / NMED HWB?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q40

The site visit info says a DVD with all relevant documents will be provided to attendees at the site visit and bidders not attending the site visit may request that DVD via instructions provided.

Contractor respectfully requests DVD be mailed as soon as possible to allow some review of site information before the site visit.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: DVDs were distributed during the Site Visit.

Reference Instructions posted on

FBO.gov to request copies of

Documents and Site Visit Photos.

Q41

Attachment 2, 1.6.12 Key

Personnel

Can years of experience in each category be combined to meet the required 5 years? For example, could proposed TO Manager have 3 years NM experience as TO Manager and 2 years as senior engineer and satisfy the 5 year minimum?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q42

Factor 2, Technical Approach to the Live Task Order Technical

Will the Government make available to all offerors all of the previous documentation (plans, reports, correspondence with NMED, etc.) for the

14 sites?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference

Instructions posted on FBO.gov to request copies of Documents and Site

Visit Photos.

Q43 Live Task Order PWS Technical

The requirement to have all three key personnel for the sample task have 5 years of RCRA Corrective

Action experience in New Mexico and one project with the NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau in the last

10 years is overly restrictive within the small business community and will severely limit competition. It is unnecessary for the successful performance of the contract. We request that this requirement be relaxed so that only one of the key personnel have to have this experience. We also request that the 5 years of

RCRA Corrective Action experience that qualifies an individual not be limited to New Mexico.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q44

Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) Contracting

Can the Government reconsider using LPTA? LPTA is appropriate for non-technical services or commodity

(like lawn moving services). LPTA should only be used when procurements meeting four specific conditions: 1.The requirements are well defined;

2.The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal;

3.Price is a significant factor in the source selection;

and

4.There is neither value, need, nor willingness to pay for higher performance.

We highly suggest a Best Value approach.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q45 pg 68 of 72 tab 2, (a) direct labor categories Contracting

The RFP requires contractors to use the labor categories in the SCA. However, most staff needed for the work are classified as exempt. In order to equitabily compare proposal pricing, it is suggested that the government define the labor categories and mimimum requirements for each category.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q46 pg 65 of 72, Live Task Order Contracting

The PWS requires TO Key Personnel to have qualifications that are not necessarily applicable to future task orders. How will this factor be scored when assessing a firm's overall qualifications for the prime contract?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q47 pg 65 of 72, Live Task Order Contracting

In order to adequately assess the elements needed for this task order, substantial review of documents will be required. How will those documents be provided to bidders?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference

Instructions posted on FBO.gov to request copies of Documents and Site

Visit Photos.

Q48 pg 66 of 72 Contracting

Past performance requires a minimum of 5 projects - is there a maximum? Suggest no more than 10.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q49 pg 67 of 72

Contracting and

Technical

The draft RFP requires PPQ forms be sent to the contracting officer. We strongly and respectfully request that CPARS and previous PPQs be used to judge performance. Clients strenuoulsy object to the continued need for new PPQs when

CPARS already document performance. The burden on the government and contractors is excessive and inefficient.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q50 Section 5.5.1 RAB

Contracting and

Technical

How shall the contractor estimate a FFP level of effort for RAB activies that may be required at some future time, when those activies are not defined?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q51 Live Task order

Contracting and

Technical

Is the contractor responsible for paying the New

Mexico review fees?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q52 page 65 of 72 Factor 1 resumes Contracting

Section C 6 of the basic PWS lists 6 positions, 3 at the contract level and 3 for task orders. Please confirm the government requires only 1 resume for each position.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q53 page 65 of 72 Factor 1 resumes Contracting

Request the resumes do not count in the the 25 page limit for Factor 1.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q54 Section 1.6.12 Key Personnel Contracting

The section states in part: A minimum of 5 years of experience and 1 project in the last 10 years is required.

---Please verify that not all of the 5 years of experience must be in New Mexico.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q55 Section 1.6.12 Key Personnel Contracting

The section states in part: The following are considered key personnel by the Government for this Task Order: project (Task Order) manager, senior scientist/engineer, and regulatory specialist.

--- Please clarify if any of these key personnel can be with a Team Subcontractor or if all must be with the Prime Contractor.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q56 Section 1.6.12 Key Personnel Contracting

Please verify that the key personnel for this TO are not the only personnel who can be assigned in these roles on other TOs released under this contract.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q57 Questions Contracting

Will the Government please grant an extension for the due date for the questions to 7 business days following the site visit?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q27.

Q58

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

Does the contractor pay the NMED Regulatory

Review fee? If so, how much is it? Does it escalate and if so, what is the escalation?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q59

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM) Please provide the RCRA Permit referenced here.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q60

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

Can the contractor speak with NMED regarding the actions and objectives described in Table 1? If so, please provide contact information to the regulatory agency.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q61

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

Previous and similar PWSs have had regulator briefings and participation at the site meeting/walk – is this the case here? If not it is recommended so the contractors have a common platform regarding regulatory pathways and site specific concerns that an incumbent firm will have.

USG RESPONSE 16 Nov 2016: State

Regulators were not available/did not attend the Site Visit.

Q62

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

“Complete the Corrective Action Complete

(CAC) Petition" of the listed RFI sites – for the petition, is the contractor to assume the equivalent of no further action required and that only a desk top petition is required?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q63

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

For sites WSMR – 67 (SMMU-121,122, SWMU-

123), please provide the predecessor work plan and report that have led to Accelerated Corrective

Action (ACA) site status. Also please provide the written NMED concurrance with the ACA sie status.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q64

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

For the CAC Petition for the list of sites starting with WSMR-30, please provide the predecessor work plans and reports for each site including the

NMED concurrence of those reports.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q65

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

For the CAC Petition for the list of sites starting with WSMR-30 A. Under the option for

Implementation of approved Corrective Action at these sites what “Implementation” should the contractor assume by each site? Does the

Government have a common understanding (i.e.

Tech Approach and IGE) of the site status and objective they can share so the realm of proposed

Implementations do not have vastly different yet plausibly defensible “Implementations”?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q66

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

For NMED approved Closure Report Sites starting with CCWS-71, please provide the predecessor work plans, reports, and the NMED concurrence of those reports.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q67

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

For the Conduct Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Achieve the Final Annual Report sites starting with WSMR-70, please provide the current work plan and NMED approval and the most recent report with the NMED concurrence.

Work Plans and Reports are required to describe the number of MWs, the MW as built, sampling protocol, MW conditions leading to rehabilitation efforts, the laboratory methods required to address Chemicals of concerns, trend analysis and other factors that may need to be factored into a proposal cost.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q68

WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts

Requirments

Technical (PWS

Environmental

Remediation

Services

White Sands Missile

Range, NM)

To address “Remaining Events shall be conducted based on the GWM Program schedule through the duration of the Task Order” - please provide the anticipated number of ‘Remaining Events’ -the duration, constituent sampling requirements, quantities etc and proposal cost factors for the contractor that constitute the Government’s

‘Events’.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q69

Volume I Mission Capability, Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach Contracting

Factor 1 requires six projects from six different

DoD installations. Can offerors provide projects demonstrating relevant experience from other

Government installations besides DoD?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q70

Volume I Mission Capability, Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach Contracting

The instructions state "Each Offeror shall submit six projects for which they were the Prime

Contractor from six different DoD installations."

For purposes of this requirement, does the

"Offeror" include appropriately identified teaming partners?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q71 Live Task Order Technical

Will technical reports documenting previous activities at each SWMU be provided?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q72 Key Personnel Contracting

Section C.6.1.1.2 of the Basic PWS lists TO Key

Personnel (Project Manager and Senior

Scientist/Engineer) - please confirm that resumes for these positions are required in response to the

RFP Section L, Factor 1 requirements.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q73 Key Personnel Contracting

If resumes for the roles of project manager and senior scientist/engineer (Basic PWS Section

6.1.1.2), how many resumes for each position will be permitted?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q74 Key Personnel Contracting

Are teaming agreements and/or joint venture agreements to be included in the RFP response?

If so, in which volume or factor?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q75 Key Personnel Contracting

Suggest changing the wording of the second sentence, second paragraph from "Letter size and spacing requirements for, illustrations. . . " to

"Font size for illustrations, charts, graphs. . ." for clarity. (No other spacing requirements are given in the RFP)

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q76 Key Personnel Contracting

Would the Government accept Adobe Acrobat files (.pdf files) of each Volume on CDs/DVDs, with additional, separate MS Excel file of the price propose included for Volume 3, Factor 4?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q77 Key Personnel Contracting

Since the Army does not intend to issue another unrestricted ERMA contract, the role of Deputy

Program Manager (DPgM) may be of value in the instance of a mentor protégé relationship.

Designating the DPgM as a key personnel would allow for contract management mentorship (i.e.

large business with previous Army experience) while also allowing the protégé the contract leadership role. Would the Government consider identifying the DPgM as a key personnel as it was in the previous ERMA contracts?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q78 Vol.2 - Past Performance Contracting

Can recent, previously obtained PPQs be utilized in place of requesting new PPQs from clients?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q79 Additional Info Contracting

Will the government allow 30 days to review the

GFI on the White Sands Military Reservation

(WSMR) Sample Task before final questions are due from the bidders? WSMR is a complex installation and adequate time for review of the

GFI will only result in a higher quality submittal to the government.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q80 Task Order Procedures Contracting

Will the government consider Best Value as an evaluation of task orders in addition to LPTA?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q81 Instructions to Offerors Contracting

Will the government consider extending the delivery time on the due date to 3PM instead of

Noon to allow adequate time for delivery of hard copies?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q82 Key Personnel Contracting

Previously a Corporate H&S Officer was considered a key program level personnel while a Senior UXO Supervisor, CIH, and Risk Assessor were also considered key task order personnel. Would the Government consider adding these back in as key positions in addition to those already called out in the RFP? The nature of the Section C requirements does not indicate that these disciplines will not be necessary for Task Order execution (i.e. munitions work, field work including contraction activities, and risk assessments). Therefore, if these personnel are considered key, the government will be afforded an opportunity to evaluate these qualifications to determine technical acceptability of Task Order submittals.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q83 Key Personnel Contracting

Related to Q77 and Q82 above, if these personnel are not added as key personnel, will the government allow contractors to submit resumes for these additional roles for consideration and evaluation?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q84

Attachment 2, page 9, section

1.6.12, Key Personnel Technical

Regarding the phrase "…all three shall have experience working on RCRA Corrective Action efforts and managing projects within the State of

New Mexico with NMED Hazardous Waste

Bureau." This is highly restrictive to the selection of the most qualified personnel for the task order and will not be achievable by most Prime contractors (currently all key personnel have to be from the Prime). Request that the requirement be eliminated or allow the key personnel be from the overall team.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q85 Multiple locations Contracting

Does the term "offeror" refer to the prime or to the combined team?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q86

Attachment 1, page 11, Key personnel Contracting

Please confirm that ALL the key personnel for

BOTH the Basic Contract and for each task order must be an employee of the Prime as stipulated in

Attachment 1, page 12, Section C.6

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q87

Draft RFP, page 64, Section 5, Factor 1, paragraph 2 Contracting

This section states "Each Offeror shall submit 6 projects for which they are the prime Contractor from (6) different DoD installations, three (3) of which shall focus on IRP and three (3) shall focus on MMRP." Does Offeror refer to the prime contractor alone or the combined qualifications of the prime and its Team of subcontractors?

Request clarification as this has a substantial impact on teaming actions that are taking place at this time.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q88

Small Business Participation

Plan Contracting

The goals to be set forth in the Small business participation plan will impact teaming decisions.

In the last ERMA RFP, the goals were set forth in section M, which is not included in the Draft RFP.

Will the government provide us the goals now, before the final RFP is released, to ensure teaming discussions are inclusive of the anticipated goals?

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q89

Draft RFP, page 60, Section L, Instructions to Offerors, Site

Visit Contracting

Recommend extending the due date for questions until after the site visit, as more questions are likely to develop.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q27.

Q90

Draft RFP, page 62, Section

4(a) Limitations on

Subcontracting Contracting

Will this acquisition be released under the new

“Limitations of Subcontracting” released by the

SBA in 2016? The current draft RFP references the Nov 2011 FAR clause.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q91

Draft RFP, page 65 AND Draft

RFP, page 67 Contracting

“Project” is defined in two locations with conflicting text. The definition on page 65 defines projects as Task Orders with multiple sites at one

Installation/Facility. This is restrictive if a Task

Order under an IDIQ involves multiple installations. On page 67, however, the definition of a project allows for a single Task Order to include sites at multiple DoD installations/facilities. We strongly recommend that the language on page 67 be adopted in both locations.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q92

Draft RFP, page 69, Section

(d)(i) definition of “major subcontractor” Contracting

Please define "major subcontractors and consultants."

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q93

Draft RFP, page 64, Section 5, Volume I, Factor 1, Second paragraph AND Draft RFP, page 66, Factor 3, Past

Performance Contracting

The Draft RFP states that 6 projects (within the past 5 years; 3 IRP and 3 MMRP; from 6 different DoD installations) are required to be submitted to demonstrate Relevant Corporate

Experience in Volume I. In Volume II (Draft

RFP, page 66, Factor 3, Past Performance) the government requests at least 5 projects (within the past 7 years, two of which must be from the

Prime). Several questions arise from these sections: Reference Q93a-93d.

Q93a

(1) May the offeror use the same projects in both

Volume I and Volume II, if they meet the requirements for both;

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q93b

(2) May the offeror use different projects in

Volume I and Volume II;

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q93c

(3) For a project submitted under the Volume II requirement, does the work have to have been completed as a Prime or may the work have been completed as a subcontractor;

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q93d

(4) Please confirm that an Offeror is not required to have submit a project for its subcontractors, especially since many small business subcontractors would be unable to meeting the

$1M requirement.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Response Type

(Contracting or

Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference

(Government)

Updates to the Solicitation

(Government)

Q94

Attachment 2, page 9, section

1.6.12 Key Personnel Contracting

If an Offeror does not have the NM experience required for the Key Personnel in the Sample TO, does that preclude the Offeror from bidding on the Basic Contract? It would seem that the

Offeror would be unable to meet the requirement in the Basic IDIQ RFP to address the Sample TO effectively merely because they do not have NM experience. This seems unnecessarily restrictive for a Small Business procurement.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.

Q95

Attachment 2, page 9, section

1.6.12 Key Personnel Contracting

Must the Key Personnel for the Sample Task

Order be employees of the Prime Contractor?

This seems unduly restrictive for a task order proposal.

USG Response 16 Nov 2016: Reference response to Q2.