QUESTIONS_in_Response_to_AMENDMENT_0003_16_FEB_17-USG_RESPONSE_24_FEB_17_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 Designated Government Office for proposal shipment Contracting

Please advise if there should be a different address for offerors sending proposals via USPS Mail versus the address for sending proposals via couriers/physical address (Fed Ex, DHL, UPS)?

Currently the address information is the same for both.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: The address is the same for all deliveries.

Q2 USG Response to comments 16FEB2017, Question 22. Contracting

The USG answer to Q22 implies that NMGRT does not have to be paid by the Contractor. Please clarify that all contractors shall include applicable NMGRT in their final firm fixed price proposal.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Clause 52.229- 10 was removed as it does not apply to this Fixed Price Solicitation. Offeror shall include all applicable taxes in its Proposal for this Solicitation.

Q3 Page 36 of 49, Subfactor 6: Project Schedule Technical

Page 36 of 49, Subfactor 6: Project Schedule states: “The schedule must identify the critical path for each of the Live Task Order requirements .” Is this section requesting individual critical paths for each CLIN (e.g. 10 schedules/10 critical paths) or one integrated schedule comprising all CLINs with the single integrated critical path identified?

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Project schedule should be presented by CLIN.

Q4 Key Personnel Technical

RFP Attachment #1, Section C.6 - Personnel Expertise: "For this contract and all its TOs, the Key Personnel are defined below in Sections C6.1.1 and C.6.1.2." Please confirm that you meant to write, "Key Personnel...in Sections C.6.1.1.1 (Basic Contract Key Personnel) and C.6.1.1.2 (TO Key Personnel)" and that Offerors shall provide resumes of both the Basic Contract Key Personnel and TO Key Personnel.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0004, Basic PWS (Attachment #1) changes. Reference to C.6.1.1. and C.6.1.2 in Paragraph C.6.1 remains unchanged; however, Section C.6.1.1.2 has been renumbered accordingly. Basic PWS Attachment #1

Reference Amendment 0004 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q5 Pricing Contracting

In Amendment 3, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal (page 12) it states: "The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of information in response to the Live Task Order. The Offeror shall clearly explain the basis of the price for the Live Task Order." Please clarify what is meant by this request, since on that same page, the following text is presented: "The format for the price proposal shall be as follows:

- Live Task Order Price Proposal Tab 1 (cost table).

- Representations and Certifications and Financial Statements Tab 2."

Given this format, please confirm that there is no narrative discussion required in the price proposal.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0004, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, deleted the following: "The Offeror shall clearly explain the basis of the price for the Live Task Order."

Reference Amendment 0004 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q6 Evaluation Criteria Requirements, Etc. Technical

Per Amendent 3: "Offeror shall provide the above past performance information, to include projects where CPARS will be utilized. The Government will obtain copies of CPARS, if applicable." Amendment 3, Answers to Questions (Q4) states: "... the Offeror can include a copy of its CPARS; however, it must be submitted in accordance INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Factor 3: Past Performance requirements." Since no further instructions in the RFP related to CPARs is provided, please confirm th at no further action is required on the part of the Offeror, but inclusion of a completed CPARs for the convenience of the Government is acceptable.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Confirm.

Inclusion of a completed CPARS for the convenience of the Government is acceptable.

Q7 General Technical Would the Army consider allowing Offerors to use Arial Narrow 12-point font in addition to 12-point Arial and Times New Roman font?

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Arial Narrow will not be allowed. Reference Amendment 0004 for changes. Reference

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 6.

Limitation on Size of the Proposal, "or equivalent sized font" was deleted.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 6. Limitation on Size of the Proposal

Reference Amendment 0004 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q8 Amendment 3 Q4 Contracting

Per the answer to Q4 in Amendment 3, we are to provide copies of CPARS in accordance with INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Factor 3: Past Performance requirements. It is not clear if we are to include copies of CPARS in our proposal, or if we should email those to Contracting Office POCs. Please clarify.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Only Past Performance Questionnaires shall be emailed. Reference Q6 for CPARS instructions.

Q9 Amendment 3 Contracting Can the government please confirm that the New Mexico Gross Receipts tax should not be applied to the Live Task Order costs?

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q2.

Q10 Technical

In the event that earth work is required as part of remedial action, does WSMR have requirements for site restoration? Is re-contouring to match existing topography, with stabilization, considered sufficient restoration?

USG Response 24 FEB 2017:

Recontouring to match existing topography, with stabilization and compaction is considered sufficient restoration. WSMR does not have site specific requirements.

Q11 Technical

Is the Contractor reponsible for Change During Interim Status Fees (Table 7

- NMAC 20.4.2.210) to Implement approved CAC Petition with Controls

(CLIN 0009)?

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: The technical appreciation of what is in the documents provided is part of the technical assessment the Contractor is demonstrating (i.e. an understanding of the documents and understanding of the Live Task Order requirements).

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003/0004

USG RESPONSE 24 FEBRUARY 2017

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q12 General

We respectfully request a 10-day extension from the date we receive the February 22nd Q&A Responses. This time will be needed to fully incorporate any additional changes necessary to the proposal.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0004, due date was extended to 8 March 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Q13 WSMR-70, CLIN 0002 Technical

The USG Response to Q21 dated 16 Feb 2017 stated "Any relevant requirements in the NMED letter dated May 2014 are required [as part of the scope of work]." Comment 2 from the NMED letter references a Background Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Radian 1995) and 1) requests that relevance of this plan is explained, and 2) asks if the background investigation was performed. The letter also requests that the plan and report be submitted to NMED for approval. Please confirm whether submittal of these two documents is considered “relevant” to this Task Order and, if so, whether these two documents are available and will be provided to the winning bidder for submittal to NMED under this Task Order. In addition, please confirm whether a response to NMED comments on these two documents, if submitted, are included in this Task Order.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11.

Q14 WSMR-70, CLIN 0002 Technical

The USG Response to Q21 dated 16 Feb 2017 stated "Any relevant requirements in the NMED letter dated May 2014 are required [as part of the scope of work]." Comment 4 from the NMED letter references site background data (MEVATEC, 1998) and states that a background study has not been approved by NMED for the northern portion of WSMR. Please confirm if this document is available and will be provided to the winning bidder for submittal to NMED under this Task Order. In addition, please confirm whether a response to NMED comments on this document, if submitted, are included in this Task Order.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11.

Q15 WSMR-70, CLIN 0002 Technical

The USG Response to Q21 dated 16 Feb 2017 stated "Any relevant requirements in the NMED letter dated May 2014 are required [as part of the scope of work]." There are several instances of “replacement pages” for the RFI requested in the NMED letter. Please confirm whether revisions to the RFI document itself are included in this Task Order.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Revisions to the RFI document are not part of the Live Task Order. The RTCs and replacement pages submittal to NMED are on Disc 4.

Q16 Amendment 3 Q&A Technical

In regards to Post Closure care at WSMR-82 (SWMU-87), the 8 Feb 2017 Response to Q104 stated that “The contractor is NOT responsible for GWM at SWMU-87.” The 16 February 2017 answer to Q25 regarding Post Closure Care appears to contradict the before mentioned answer to Q104.

Please Clarify if the Contractor will be responsible for implementing Post Closure care for WSMR-81 and WSMR -82 (i.e. cap maintenance, GWM, methane monitoring, etc…)

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11.

Q17 Q14 USG Response dated February 16, 2017 Technical

Neither the WSMR RCRA permit or NMAC 20.4.1 Hazardous Waste Management Regulations provide a definition of CAC Petition implementation. In order to provide the USG with a proposal that is responsive to the LIVE TO contract requirements, we request that the USG describe steps that are required at WSMR to achieve: a) CAC implementation without controls; and b) CAC implementation with controls.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: The technical appreciation of what is in the documents provided and the technical requirement is part of the technical assessment the contractor is demonstrating.

Q18 Q21 USG Response dated February 16, 2017. Technical

Please confirm that only those tasked associated with implementation of the required groundwater monitoring program at WSMR-70, identified in the NMED's 5/13/2014 Approval with Modifications letter on the RFI Report, are considered relevant to implementation of CLIN 0002, and please confirm that providing responses to comments and replacement pages for the RFI Report are not part of this TO award.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11. Reference Disc 4.

Q19 Q25 USG response dated February 16, 2017 Technical

The USG's response to Q-104 dated February 8, 2017 states that the contractor is not responsible for GW monitoring at SWMU-87. The Annual Long Term Ground Monitoring Reports provided as GFI indicate that GW monitoring at WSMR-81 and WSMR-82 is conducted under the STP Ditches closure plan. Please clarify if the winning bidder will be responsible for conducting the methane and groundwater monitoring, landfill cap and fence inspections and repairs, and annual reporting required by the NMED SWB approved Post Closure Care Plan as part of this TO.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11. Reference Disc 4.

Q20 General Technical

The RFP states: "Proposals shall be organized into separate VOLUMES. A cover sheet shall be in each Volume, clearly marked as to Volume Number, Title, Copy Number, the Solicitation Number, the Offeror’s name and CAGE Code(s)." Please confirm that only the CAGE codes of the Prime Contractor need to be listed, and not those for team subs.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: CAGE Code shall be submitted for all Team/Team Member(s)/Teaming Partner(s), meaning the Offeror and all subcontractors.

Reference Definition of Offeror.

Q21

Amendment 3 - Deletion of Contract Clause 52.229-10 State of New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax Contracting

The Army stated in its response to Q22 (16 Jan 2017) that this clause was deleted because would not be performing a Cost-Reimbursible contract. We have other DoD contracts in NM that are FFP and we are required to pay the NM gross reciepts and compensating tax. If the Government's interpretion is incorrect and the awardee is required to pay the tax, we are assuming this is just cause for a change order. Please confirm.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q2.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003/0004

USG RESPONSE 24 FEBRUARY 2017

Reference

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q22 USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q4 Contracting

Please clarify the response to this question. In addition to providing a copy of the CPARS in Volume III of the proposal, does the Army want offerors to send a copy of the CPARS to veronica.a.romero.civ@mail.mil and joanna.b.cox.civ@mail.mil by the proposal due date? USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q8.

Q25

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q24 Both

The question was whether the Annual Report for WSMR-70 needed to be submitted to NMED in draft final form. The Government's response was to look at the requirements in the permit and the NM Code. The RCRA Permit requirements and NMED regulations are understood to require a Final submittal to NMED, however the PWS requires three iterations of documents: Draft, Draft-Final, and Final. As a result, we respectfully request that the Army reviews the regulatory requirements and makes the necessary changes to the PWS so that it is possible for an offeor to propose a technically acceptable approach and schedule that complies with the contractual requirements. Otherwise, the Army is knowingly establishing conflicting requirements that are do not allow for the presentation of a technically acceptable Live Task Order proposal, which makes any selected proposal susceptible to protest.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23.

Q26

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q12 Both

Attachment 6 states that CLIN0009 will be awarded “NLT 60 days following COR approval of the Final CAC Petition” and the completion schedule is “Within 12 months of approval of the Petition in CLIN 0009.” Per the NMAC NMED is allowed up to 270 days for review of CAC Petitions (after the administrative complete determination) in addition to additional time required for assessment and payment of fees, please clarify:

1) that CLIN 0009 will be awarded “NLT 60 days following Administrative complete determination of the CAC petition” or CLIN 0008 completion.

2) the 12 month timeframe does NOT begin until NMED approves the Petition. In accordance with NMAC 20.4.2.207, NMEC has 270 days after the administrative completion determination to review the CAC Petition.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23.

Q28

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q14, 25, and 26 Both

There was some indication in the response to the questions that the implmentation of the CAC Petition with controls would be performed until the end of the Live Task Order Period of Performance (POP). Please note, there is not a CLIN, other than the one year specified in CLIN 0009, for implementation of the O&M Plan resulting from a CAC Petition with controls. Therefore, these activities would not be conducted for the duration of the Live Task Order POP.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003/0004

USG RESPONSE 24 FEBRUARY 2017

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q23 Both

Based on the Army's confirmation that both the Nov 2017 award date and the February-March 2018 sampling event at WSMR-70 are valid (approximately 121 days from 17 Nov 2017 - 17 March 2017) AND given that the PWS requires draft, draft-final, and final versions of deliverables requiring regulatory approval (which when only counting Army review time is 59 days based on the durations provided in the PWS Section 5.1.3) AND given that the DoD-mandated UFQ-QAPP process requires regulatory review/approval AND given that NMED review time for a monitoring plan as specified in NMAC 20.4.2.208 is 120 days (which does not include the 75 days for the NMED request for and Army payment of review fees), it is not possible to comply with all these requirements. We understanding that NMED review durations are driven by regulatory requirements, however, the Army controls the PWS requirements and the award date. As a result, we respectfully request that the Army reviews the regulatory requirements and makes the necessary changes to the PWS so that it is possible for an offeor to propose a technically acceptable approach and schedule that complies with the contractual requirements. Otherwise, the Army is knowingly establishing conflicting requirements that are do not allow for the presentation of a technically acceptable Live Task Order proposal, which makes any selected proposal susceptible to protest.Q23

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q11. The Government is currently legally bound by NMED documentation to the dates specified (i.e. timelines/ schedules).

The Offeror is to derive a schedule for meeting the Live Task Order objectives, including identifying potential risks and mitigating the risks.

Under CLIN 0008, the Army requires the offeror respond to the NMED NODs and complete a CAC Petition for a number of sites within in 24 months (730 days). The NODs for WSMR-30, WSMR-32 and WSMR-73 require additional investigation before a CAC Petition can be submitted. To achieve the performance objective, offerors are required to prepare the following deliverables which must be approved by the Army and NMED: 1) a NOD investigation work plan; 2) a NOD investigation report; and 3) the CAC Petition. Given that the PWS requires draft, draft-final, and final versions of deliverables (which when only counting Army review times for the three deliverables is 177 days; 59 days per deliverable per PWS Section 5.1.3) AND given that the DoD-mandated UFQ-QAPP NOD investigation workplan, NOD Investigation Report, and CAC Petition processes requires regulatory review/approval AND given the NMED review times for a investigation plan, investigation report, and CAC Petition (270 days per report = 810 days) and the billing and payment timeframes (minimum 45 days per report = 135 days minimum) specified in NMAC 20.4.2.201 and 207-208 it is not possible to comply with all these PWS or regulatory requirements within the 24 month deadline AND this timeframe does not even include doing the work. We understanding that NMED review durations are driven by regulatory requirements, however, the Army controls the PWS requirements (e.g., number of versions of each report). As a result, we respectfully request that the Army reviews the regulatory requirements and makes the necessary changes to the PWS so that it is possible for an offeor to propose a technically acceptable approach and schedule that complies with the contractual requirements. This may include revising the PWS and CLIN schedule for not only CLIN 0008 but also CLIN 0009. Otherwise, the Army is knowingly establishing conflicting requirements that are do not allow for the presentation of a technically acceptable Live Task Order proposal, which makes any selected proposal susceptible to protest.

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q26 Both

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23. Q24

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23. Q27

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q14, 25, and 26 Both

These questions address CLIN 0009, Implementation of approved Corrective Action Completion Petition with controls which is required within 12 months. The Army's response continues to send us back to the permit and the NMAC. If we go back to those documents, the requirements for a CAC Petion with controls cannot be met within the 12 month timeframe based solely on the number of reports and review times specified in the PWS and NMAC. A CAC with controls requires the development of a O&M Plan and a periodic report. The Army required draft, draft final, and final versions of both those reports (59 days per report or 118 days). NMED requires 150 days for review of the O&M report (there is no review time required for a status report) plus a minimum of 45 days per report for processing fees (fees have to be paid for the status report even though NMED does not do a review) for a total of 90 days. These review times combined are just under 365 days, leaving no time to prepare the plans/reports, respond to Army and/or NMED comments, and implement the O&M Plan. Also please see Q6, if the awardee is required to prepare a final report on implementation within 12 months of CLIN008, we would have to add another 270 days into the timeframe. We respectfully request that the Army reviews the regulatory requirements and makes the necessary changes to the PWS so that it is possible for an offeor to propose a technically acceptable approach and schedule that complies with the contractual requirements. Otherwise, the Army is knowingly establishing conflicting requirements that are do not allow for the presentation of a technically acceptable Live Task Order proposal, which makes any selected proposal susceptible to protest.

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q29

USG Response 16 January 2017 Response to Q26 Both

Semi-annual groundwater monitoring of four wells at WSMR-18 (SWMU-

86) and WSMR-82 (SWMU-87) is being performed under the May 2016 closure plan for SWMU-82 and the results are included in the LTM Reports for SWMU-82. In addition, this monitoring is being performed under a separate contract. Please confirm that the Army is NOT removing the monitoring of these four wells from the SWMU-82 closure plan or the other contract and placing it into this Live Task Order under CLIN 0009.

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: The Government is not transferring the groundwater monitoring of four wells at WSMR-18 (SWMU-86) and WSMR-82 (SWMU-87) to this Live Task Order under

CLIN 0009.

Q31

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003/0004

USG RESPONSE 24 FEBRUARY 2017

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: The intent is that groundwater monitoring at WSMR corresponds to each calendar year, with the reporting requirement being an additional six months, that is January through June of the following year. For the first event, during planning of the contract action, the Government added two months to the period performance based on a projected November award. The intent is, regardless of contract award date, the Base CLIN for 0002 is groundwater sampling January 2018 through December 2018 with a reporting period of January 2019 through June 2019.

The revised (15 Feb 2017) Base CLIN 0002 for WSMR-70 shows the 12 monitoring and 6 months for reporting for an 18 month POP. The Original PWS Table 1 - shows the Base CLIN 0002 POP as 20 months. Please clarify which POP is correct?TechnicalPWS and CLIN Structure

Given the importantance of the Live Task Order in the evaluation criteria of the ERMA contrac,t it is imparative that the Government address the issues identified in the previous questions regarding the performance objectives in the PWS and CLIN schedule, the requirements of PWS, and the requirements of the WSMR RCRA permit and NM Administrative Code in order to avoid offerors from being found technically unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. These issues have been raised a number of times during the proposal development process and instead of addressing the issues, the Government's response has been to send the offerors back to the permit and the regulations. Since the NMED review times (and fee payment timelines) are regulatory requirements, it appears that the Government must go back and revise its PWS to eliminate versions of reports, reduce review times, revise and extend completions dates, and/or revise revise acceptance criteria to allow offerors to appropriately respond to the requirements of the Live Task Order and comply with the regulations/requirements of NM.BothQ30

USG Response 24 FEB 2017: Reference Q23.