QUESTIONS_in_to_Response_AMENDMENT_0002_9_FEB_17-USG_RESPONSE_16_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 Requirements (Attachment 1, Section C.8.10) Contracting

Section C.8.10.1 states that the Contractor shall provide a disclosure statement. Please confirm that this statement should be in the form of an OCI letter.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Yes. Offerors must either affirmatively state that they have no OCI issues or submit a mitigation plan.

Reference Amendment 0003, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 1. g.

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q2 Requirements (Attachment 1, Section C.8.10) Contracting

In which section/volume of the proposal should the COI disclosure statement be submitted? Note: with the site specific technical approach for 13 sites, and coporate H&S/QM data already in the 25 Page limit for Factor 2, we request that COI not be included in page count for Factor 2.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0003, INSTRUCTORS TO OFFERORS, 3. Proposal Instructions, added "g. Organizational Conflicts of Interest/Disclosure" and 6. Limitation on Size of the Proposal, Volume I Page Count EXCLUDES: "Organizational Conflicts of Interests/Disclosure."

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q3 Requirements (Attachment 1, Section C.8.10) Contracting

Please clarify that teaming partners who are not working on the seed project TO are not required to submit any type of COI disclosure statement.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Basic PWS, Attachment C.4, Section H-5

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF

INTEREST. (Attachment #1)

Q4 Past Performance Questionnaires Technical

Per Amendent 2, CPARS may be provided in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires. The revised RFP indicates that "The Government will obtain copies of CPARS, if applicable." Would it be acceptable for the Offeror to provide a copy of its CPARs as placeholders as part of its Volume II Past Performance submittal?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Yes, the Offeror can include a copy of its CPARS; however, it must be submitted in accordance INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Factor 3:

Past Performance requirements.

Q5 General Technical

The Proposal Submission Summary Table on page 40 of 49 of Amendment 2, shows that the page limit for Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach has increased from 25 to 28 pages. However, the narrative text on page 39 still reflects the page limit for this Factor as 25 pages. Please verify that the page limit is now 28 pages for this section.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Confirm. Page limit is 28 pages for Factor 1. Reference Amendment 0003 for correction.

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q6 General Contracting

Given that the US Army released a great deal of information for Offerers to absorb as part of its Amendment 2 documentation last Thursday (2/9/19), and that the new due date is right after a three-day holiday, may we respectfully request an extension until later that same week (week ending 2/24/17)?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0003, due date was extended to 1 March 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q7 Corporate Experience Contracting

Please confirm that combining multiple Task Orders issued under an IDIQ for work on a single site at a single installation will meet the definition of a project.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5.

Proposal Contents, Factor 1, "A project is defined as." Work must be performed on one specific Task Order or Contract.

Q8 Key Personnel Contracting Please confirm that only the QA Manager is required to have the qualifications listed under C.6.1.1.1.4 item (3).

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Basic PWS (Attachment #1), "Each of the Corporate Quality Managers shall have the following qualifications." Therefore, these apply to both the QC and QA Manager.

Paragraph has been moved to clarify further.

Reference Amendment 0003, Revised Basic PWS (Attachment #1).

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q9 Attachment #1 and Attachment #2 Technical

It appears from the PWS for the base contract and the Live Task Order that a UFP-QAPP is not required for the base contract or the Live Task Order. Please confirm.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: The Basic Contract does not require a UFP-QAPP. The Live Task Order will require preparation of all documents necessary to achieve the task order objectives, in accordance with the RCRA Permit.

Q10 Question 24 Technical

The response to questions issued by the Army indicates that an extension may be granted for bidders to fully review the additional information provided for the WSMR LTO; please provide an extension to allow adequate review time. USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Q6.

Q11 Requirements Contracting

In the Live TO RFP for WSMR, Acceptance Criteria for CLINs 0004, 0005, 0008, and 0009 includes NMED acceptance of the Class III Permit Modification. Please confirm that AEC’s definition of “through administrative complete” for CLINs 0004, 0005, 0007, 0008 requires the Contractor to create, submit and receive NMED acceptance/approval of the CAC petition for the associated SWMUs and that the Contractor should include CAC petitioning in our cost estimate and schedule. USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Correct.

Q12 Requirements Contracting

In the Live TO RFP for WSMR, Acceptance Criteria for CLINs 0004, 0005, 0008, and 0009 includes NMED acceptance of the Class III Permit Modification. Please confirm that the Contractor’s scope includes supporting the AEC with a Class III Permit modification and that this support should be included in our cost estimate and schedule.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: The Contractor is required to meet the cost and schedule per

NMAC 20.4.2.208, HAZARDOUS WASTE

PERMIT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

FEES.

Q13 Requirements Contracting

In the Live TO RFP for WSMR, is the contractor required to identify and provide costs for a location in which to hold public meetings required as part of this TO? Should the contractor include costs to attend or support these meetings, and will the contractor be required to provide the materials reviewed during the meeting?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Live Task Order PWS, Sections 5.4 and 5.5.

(Attachment #2)

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003

USG RESPONSE 16 FEBRUARY 2017

Reference

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q14 Requirements Contracting

Considering AEC’s response to Question 88, Attachment 2, Part 4, and NMED’s regulations, please clarify whether or not (A) “implementation of approved CAC Petition” in CLIN 0009 includes supporting NMED’s Class 3 Permit modification process, including Statement of Basis, public notice, public meeting, and public comments following NMED’s administrative approval of the CAC Petition for the various SWMUs. Or, (B) “implementation of approved CAC Petition” is limited to setting up and performing Post Closure monitoring programs at appropriate SWMUs. Or, (C) “implementation” includes both (A) and (B).

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Neither statement (A) or (B) is consistent with NMED RCRA requirements and the requirements of the Live Task Order. Do not interpret NMED interpretation of RCRA based on experience in other states.

Q15 Requirements Technical

For the Live TO, with respect to coordination with the WSMR Hazardous Waste Management Center (HWMC) and considering AEC’s response to Question 90, (A) is “physical processing through the Main Post” a documentation/inspection step, or a measure that requires staging and days or weeks to gain approval for offsite transport and disposal? (B) are there WSMR requirements outside of the NMED’s Permit that must be considered in transporting waste offsite? And (C) are there WSMR-approved transport companies that expedite Installation access, material handling, and transport processes?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: (A) - is a documentation/inspection step. (B) - no. (C ) -no.

Q16 Requirements Technical

For the Live TO, with respect to coordination with the WSMR Hazardous Waste Management Center (HWMC) and considering AEC’s response to Question 90, does “physical processing through the Main Post” incur costs or schedule to the Contractor?

If yes, please identify the costs and time that the Contractor should include in our proposal.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Q15.

Reference Q90 and Q157 of USG RESPONSE

8 FEBRUARY 2017.

Q17 Q&A - Q10 and Q204 Administrative

Q204 asks “How many resumes for each position will be permitted” with answer referencing Q10 which asked how many resumes for each position are required. Answer states “One resume per position is required” This however doesn’t answer the question as to if more are allowed. In an effort to show depth, multiple people are proposed for some of our key positions such as Project Managers, can resumes for multiple people be provided?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: One resume per position is allowed. Reference Amendment 0003, Basic PWS, Section C.6.1.1.2.1, Project Manager, changed to "The Contractor shall designate one... ." (Attachment #1) Documentation submitted in excess of requirements will be counted against the proposal page count.

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q18 General

We respectfully request a 2-week extension from the date we receive the February 14th Q&A Responses. This time will be needed to fully incorporate any additional changes necessary to the proposal. USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Q6.

Q19 Factor 1 - Page Limit Contracting

Please confirm that the page limit for Factor 1 has been increased to 28 pages as shown on page 40 of Amendment #2 (8.0 Proposal Submission Summary). Page 39 still says 25 pages are allotted for Factor 1. USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Q5.

Q20 Contracting

Please clarify the difference between a Project Management Plan (referenced in the PWS) and a Program Management Plan (in the

RFP).

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0003, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents Factor 2, Subfactor 5, changed to "Project" Management Plan.

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q21 WSMR-70 Technical

The PWS objective for CLIN 002 is only related to groundwater monitoring and the establishment of a Groundwater Monitoring program at WSMR-70. Therefore, are comments from the NMED in their Approval with Modifications letter dated May 2014 which are unrelated to the LTM Program required to be addressed as part of the scope of work?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Any relevant requirements in the NMED letter dated May 2014 are required.

Q22 General Contracting

How do we handle passing through New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax or can we expect to get a NTTC and not include taxes as part of our costs, for work that is physically done in the state such as sampling, drilling, excavating?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0003, Section I, FAR Clause 52.229-10 has been deleted. Upon further review, it was determined that this Clause does not apply to this Solicitation, as the Contractor will not be performing a cost-reimbursement contract.

Reference Amendment 0003 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017

Q23

Given the award date of Nov 2017, is the February-March 2018 sampling event at WSMR-70 in Attachment 2 still a valid timeframe? Given NMED’s review cycle the UFP-QAPP for that site will not be approved before March 2018.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Yes, the timeframe is valid. Contractor shall comply with RCRA Permit.

Q24

Is the Annual Report for WSMR-70 only to be provided in Draft and Final as specified in Attachment 2? Does it need to be submitted to NMED as Draft Final?

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Reference requirements of the RCRA Permit and NMED regulations.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003

USG RESPONSE 16 FEBRUARY 2017

Question Number Reference

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q25 Attachment #2, WSMR PWS, Pages 4 and 5, Table 1 Technical

The PWS Contract requirements for WSMR-81 and WSMR-82 include Completing a CACP for the base task and an option to “implement the CACP”. The NMED approval of the Closure and Post-Closure Care Plan dated November 9, 2009 includes among its conditions that WSMR shall monitor the landfills for methane and collect groundwater samples annually, monitor and repair erosion of the cover, and maintain fencing. The RFP or previous Q&A does not clearly state whether the post-closure care activities are considered to be part of the preparation or implementation of the CACP. Please confirm whether or not these activities are intended to be performed by the contractor as part of this task order.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Requirements are correct per the RCRA Permit.

Q26 Question 210 Technical

Based on the required field work and the NMED document review timelines, WSMR-30 and WSMR-73 cannot be completed in 24 months. Please consider revising the time allotted to fulfill this requirement.

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: Timelines for these sites are regulatorily driven.

Q27

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017/AMENDMENT 0001/0002/0003

USG RESPONSE 16 FEBRUARY 2017

USG Response 16 FEB 2017: The Army's goal is not to delay projects and ensure higher level visibility of the restoration decision process. This will be applicable to the decisions at WSMR, because of the structure and implementation of RCRA in New Mexico.

However, that does not constitute a guarantee that there will not be unforeseen delays in this new requirement. Prospective Offerors should weigh this information as part of their risk, mitigation, and cost strategy. Timelines for these sites are regulatorily driven.

Will there be any changes with the Army approval process pertaining to the decision-making documents under the restoration plan?