RFP_5_JAN_2017_QUESTIONS-USG_RESPONSE_8_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

I am a minority own [sic] business with NAICS 531210 code can I partner with engineering outside company to submit to this?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference RFP

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 4.

Definitions.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 4. Definitions

Q2 General Contracting We request the inclusion of the FAR 2.243-5 [sic] Changes and Changed Conditions.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: FAR 52.243-5 applies to Construction Contracts and will not be included.

Q3

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 8 FEB 2017: Not required.

However, reference FAR 52.215-20

(ALTERNATE IV).

Q4

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q3.

Q5

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q3.

Q6 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 8 FEB 2017: Yes. Reference Performance Work Statement (PWS), Attachment #1. Basic PWS, Attachment #1

Q7

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 8 FEB 2017:

RCRA permit is available online.

Q8 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 8 FEB 2017: The Offerors shall use the information provided and their expertise to determine the appropriate approach to achieve the stated Contract Requirements while complying with the terms and conditions of the Basic Contract and Live Task Order.

Q9 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 8 FEB 2017: The requirement, as outlined in the Live Task Order PWS, Attachment #2 and the DERP Manual, provides adequate information to determine the level of effort required.

Live Task Order PWS, Attachment #2

Q10 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 8 FEB 2017: Confirm. One resume per position is required.

Q11 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 8 FEB 2017: Confirm.

Q12 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Live Task Order PWS, Table 1, Attachment #2.

Q13 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Offerors shall use own discretion. However, anything discussed is notional and shall not be considered as binding.

Q14 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: State Regulators were not available/did not attend the Site Visit.

Q15 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: The Army expects all the Offerors to use the information provided and their technical expertise to determine the appropriate technical approach to achieve the stated Contract Requirements while complying with the terms and conditions of the Basic Contract and Live Task Order.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017

USG RESPONSE 8 FEBRUARY 2017

Attachment #2

Live Task Order PWS, Reference

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q16 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Disc-1 was distributed during the Site Visit. Reference Instructions posted on FBO.gov to request copies of Documents (Disc-1) and Site Visit Photos (Disc-2). Disc-1 and Disc-2

Q17 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q16.

Q18 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q15.

Q19 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q16.

Q20 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q16.

Q21 WSMR PWS Table 1 Contracts Requirements

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 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q15.

Q22 Live Task Order Technical Will technical reports documenting previous activities at each SWMU be provided? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q16.

Q23 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 8 FEB 2017: Reference RFP

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5.

Proposal Contents, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach. "All Offerors shall provide the resumes of the Basic Contract Key Personnel identified in Section C.6 of the Basic PWS."

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach

Q24 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 8 FEB 2017: Government will update the number of days if necessary to allow for sufficient time to review GFI.

Q25 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 8 FEB 2017: Small Business Participation Plan is not applicable to this acquisition.

Q26 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 8 FEB 2017: Clause 52.219- 14 was updated in the FAR, effective January 2017. Current clause is reflected in Section I of the RFP. Reference Amendment 0002. Section I

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017

USG RESPONSE 8 FEBRUARY 2017

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q27 Contracting

Is the Government accepting the use of projects from teaming members for past performance. The RFP...does not appear to definitively state the Army’s expectations in this regard. We have identified the following sentence in the RFP relating to Past Performance which subsequently has been redlined as deleted: “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” request that the Government provide much needed clarification regarding the use of projects from teaming members for past performance.

USG Response 8 Feb 2017: Reference INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents, Factor 3 Past Performance: “Past Performance data is required for the Offeror…. Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) projects that are Recent and Relevant as defined above.” 4. Definitions: e. Offeror is defined as “Team submitting the Proposal. Prime shall refer to the entity to which the Contract shall be awarded.” f.

Team/Team Member(s)/Teaming Partner is defined as “The Government will consider the Offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when evidence of a signed Teaming Arrangement or Letter of Intent is provided.”

Q28 Contracting

The projects to be used for Volume 1, Factor 1 are limited to MMRP and IRP (or similar CERCLA/RCRA activities) , but ORAP, which is included in Section C.1.1.2 of the Contract PWS is excluded from potential projects by the requirements on page 65 of 73 of the RFP.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Correct. ORAP is excluded from the Projects to be used for Factor 1.

Q29 Contracting

Request a 2-week extension for the following reasons:

(1) To allow adequate time to solicit competitive subcontractor bids; (2) To allow adequate time to deliver and have clients respond to PPQs; (3) the MLK, Jr. and Inauguration Day holidays fall within the current 30-day proposal preparation period; and (4) Because FedEx no longer guarantees overnight delivery, proposals will need to be mailed out on Friday February 3rd, which cuts into the abbreviated 30-day schedule.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Proposal due date has been extended through 22 February 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0001.

Reference Amendment 0001 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q30 Contracting

Instead of requesting a new PPQ from the client, may the Offeror provide previously completed PPQs in their proposal? It is our understanding that the standardized PPQ form was meant to be used multiple times in an effort to reduce the requirement to continuously go back to the client for a Past Performance references when new Proposals were pursued.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: PPQ requirement remains unchanged.

Attachment #5 shall be utilized.

Q31 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the CAC Petition (June 2013) and NMED’s Notice of Deficiency (NOD) letter for WSMR 33 and WSMR-60

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Previously provided via Disc-1 (Site Visit Documents).

Information/Instructions for all Disc requests were previously posted on FBO.gov. Disc-1

Q32 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the CAC Petition (June 2013) and NMED’s NOD letter for WSMR-30, WSMR-32, and WSMR-73. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q33 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide reports documenting site history, previous investigations, and current status for the SWMUs below:

1. SWMU 137 (Paint Shop Sump)

2. SWMU 153 (Former Vandal Burial Site)

3. SWMU 86 (Main Post Sanitary Landfill

4. SWMU 87 (Main Post Construction Landfill

5. SWMU 162 (Stallion Range Center Former FFTA) USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q34 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Dow Environmental, Inc. (Dow), 1996, Close Out Report, SWMU 80 - Dried Sludge Piles, SWMU 90 – Waste Accumulation Area, SWMU 140 - LC 37 Paint Dump, SWMU 153 -Vandal Site at Hazardous Test Area, SWMU 156 - Pesticide Shed at WSMR Golf Course, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Contract DACA56-93-D-0016, DEI Project No. 6015, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q35 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Dow Environmental, Inc. (Dow), 1997b, Close Out Report, SWMU 22 – Abandoned Spoil Piles Near the FFTA, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Provided via Disc-4.

Information/Instructions for all Disc requests were previously posted on FBO.gov. Disc-4

Q36 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

MEVATEC Corporation (MEVATEC), 2000a, Petition to Perform Class III Modifications to Remove Solid Waste Management Units 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 80, 132, 140, 150, and 156 from the White Sands Missile Range RCRA Part-B Permit, HSWA Module, Identification Number NM2750211235, Report No.

400A-10/98/001F. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017

USG RESPONSE 8 FEBRUARY 2017

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 4. Definitions and 5. Proposal Contents, Factor 3: Past Performance

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q37 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

MEVATEC Corporation (MEVATEC), 2000b.

Petition to Perform Class III Modifications to Remove Solid Waste Management Units 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 145, 147, and 148 from the White Sands Missile Range RCRA Part-B Permit, Identification Number NM2750211235, Report No.

400A10/00/002F. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Q38 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

BAE Systems, 2004, Main Post Phase III RFI Comprehensive Data Review, submitted to the U.S.

Army White Sands Missile Range Environment and Safety Directorate, February. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Q39 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

White Sands Technical Services, LLC, 2006, Phase III RFI Report, Main Post Multiple Sites SWMUs 8-17, 21, 22, 80, 140, and 156 (IRP Sites WSMRs 30-33, 36, 57, 60, 73, 74, 79, and 84), submitted to U.S.

Army White Sands Missile Range, Directorate of Public Works – Environment Division, White Sands, New Mexico. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q40 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), 2006, Letter, J.P. Bearzi, New Mexico Environment Department, Hazardous Waste Bureau, Permits Management Program, to T.A. Ladd, WSMR, Subject:

Notice of Deficiency (NOD), Phase III RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Report Main Post Multiple Sites (SWMUs 8-17, 21, 22, 80, 140, and 156), White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, EPA ID No.

M2750211235, HWB-WSMR- 06-003, December 8, 2006. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q41 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Arcadis 2011. Closure Report for Liquid Propellant Evaporation/Neutralization Pits SWMUs 92A/B through 100. April. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q42 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Unknown Author 2013. Revised Release Assessment Report SWMUs 107, 121, 122, 123, and 163.

October. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Q43 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), 2014.

Release Assessment Report Approval with Modifications (WSMR-13-003), February. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Q44 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Revised Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report, SWMUs 119 and 120, Stallion Range Center Landfill, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. 2014 or 2015.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Same document previously provided via Disc-

1. Disc-1 and Disc-4

Q45 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

Background Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Stallion Range Center Landfill prepared by Radian Corporation in Oct 1995. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q35.

Q46 Missing Documents Technical

Please provide the following historical report:

White Sands Annual Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Program Work Plan

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

There is no consolidated Work Plan for Groundwater Monitoring. Groundwater Monitoring requirements are under specific sites. Provided GW Monitoring Reports via Disc-4. Disc-4

Q47 Attachment #6, CLIN Structure Contracting

Site WSMR-79 was removed from the PWS (Table 1), but is still included in CLIN Structure Table, CLIN 0003 and CLIN 0006. Please clarify if contractor is to propose on this site.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

CLIN Structure has been revised. Reference REVISED Attachment #6 dated 23 January 2017. WSMR-79 has been removed.

Reference Amendment 0002.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017. Reference Amendment 0002. Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q48 RFP Contracting

The projects to be used for Volume 1, Factor 1 are limited to MMRP and IRP (or similar CERCLA/RCRA activities) , but ORAP, which is included in Section C.1.1.2 of the Contract PWS is excluded from potential projects by the requirements on page 64 of the RFP.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Reference Q28.

Q49 RFP Requirements Contracting

Given that the Safety and QM/QC sections required in the RFP include information regarding both Corporate and Site Specific Safety and QM/QC, in addition to a site specific technical information for 13 individual sites in the Live Task Order, there does not seem to be enough space to include all that is asked for in Factor 2

- Live Task Order Technical approach within 25 pages. Would the government consider allowing additional pages for Factor 2, specifically for Subfactors 4 and 5.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Page limitations will not be modified.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q50 RFP Requirements Contracting Can the contractor use a CPARs for the past performance contracts in place of a PPQ?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: CPARS may be used. Reference Amendment 0002 for Instructions/Changes.

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q51 Key Personnel Contracting

Please confirm that Task Order Key Personnel Resumes in Volume I, Factor 2, Subfactor 1 do not count toward the page count.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference RFP, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 6.

Limitation on Size of the Proposal, Volume I, Factor 1 and Factor 2. "Resumes will not count toward the page limitation, only one page per resume will be evaluated for each of the Key Personnel position."

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 6. Limitation on Size of the Proposal

Q52 Past Performance Contracting

Are requirements a – f under Factor 3: Past Performance (eg a. Contract Title, b. Contract Number, Customer, Contract Type, Contract Value, and Period of Performance, c. Prime (or Subcontractor's) Cage and DUNS number, etc) references to the information to be filled out on Attachment 4 Past Performance Questionnaire or is this additional information to be provided separately in the proposal?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Provide separately in the proposal.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content and EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD,

Factor 3: Past Performance

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q53 Past Performance Contracting

We have several Army, Navy, and Air Force clients that are not allowed to provide PPQs if a CPARS has been completed. The requirement to submit PPQs for these projects could limit an offeror’s ability to highlight performance on some of their most relevant projects, thereby limiting their ability to compete and meet the RFP requirements. Therefore, may a CPARS be submitted in lieu of a PPQ?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q30 and Q50.

Q54 Factor 1 Contracting

RFP Page 60, under 3. Proposal Instructions, paragraph d states:

“Offerors shall describe any teaming arrangements (i.e., teaming agreements, joint venture, partnership, etc.) proposed for performance of the Contract. Offerors shall indicate the portion of work to be performed by each team member and shall state the business size of each member.” However, there is no requirement under 5. Proposal Contents in Factor 1 to submit information on teaming, nor does Section M address how this information will be evaluated. Can the USACE please clarify the requirement to provide information regarding Teaming required to be provided as part of Factor 1 in 5. Proposal Contents as well as Section M?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0002, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents and

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD,

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents and EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD,

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q55 Factor 1 Contracting

Section M, under Factor 1 states: “When all components of Factor 1 (Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach) are considered equal, the Government will place higher value on experience completed in multiple EPA Regions and in multiple States using the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel.” Please confirm that this is referring to the Basic Contract Key Personnel.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Correct.

Q56 Factor 4 Contracting

Regarding Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, please confirm that no pricing back up is required and Tab 2 only consists of the completed CLIN Structure (Attachment #6).

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: A completed CLIN Structure shall be submitted.

Reference FAR 52.215-20 (ALTERNATE IV). Submission of certified cost or pricing data or information other than certified cost or pricing data is not required at this time.

Q57 Factor 4 Contracting

Section M says the Price Proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, including “The assessment will consider the traceability and completeness of the pricing information provided through the Live Task Order responses.” Please clarify how the government will assess traceability and completeness of the pricing information.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0002, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, (now) Tab 1.

Statement has been removed.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR AWARD, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, Tab

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q58 Factor 4 Contracting

Section L of the RFP does not require submittal of Labor Rates for the Base Contract or the Live Task Order.

However, Page 3 of the RFP in Section B under Objective it states: “Each Task Order issued against the Contract will be priced on a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) basis. FFP pricing will be based on the pre-negotiated fully-burdened labor rates.” Also in Section M under Tab 2: Live Task Order Price Proposal, the RFP states: “All loaded fully-burdened FFP hourly labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.” Please clarify if labor rates are required to be submitted with the proposal for either the Base Contract or the Live Task Order.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q57.

Also, reference Amendment 0002, Section B, Objective.

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q59 Proposal Instructions, Page 60;

paragraph d and Note Contracting

Please identify where Offerors are to describe teaming arrangements, portion of work to be performed by each team member, business size of each team member, and role of each team member. Also, is this information included in the page limitations? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q54.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q60 Page 61, Definitions, Subcontracting Contracting

Please identify which of the FAR clauses apply to this solicitation.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: FAR 52.219-14 is included in the RFP.

Q61 General Pricing Contracting

Under the prior ERMA contract the Government identified labor categories and required labor category rates for each year of the contract. Please confirm that the Army is allowing the Offeror to determine the labor categories needed to execute the Live Task Order and labor categories and category rates will not be included in the resultant contract.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The Offeror is allowed to determine the labor categories needed to execute the Live Task Order other than the Key Personnel. Reference RFP INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Proposal Content, Factor 2, Subfactor 2. The labor categories and category rates will not be included in the resultant contract.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, Proposal Content, Factor 2, Subfactor 2.

Q62 Live Task Order Price Proposal (pgs 67 AND 76) Contracting

Please confirm that Offerors are only required to submi only the CLIN Schedule (Attachment 6) and the Executive Summary for Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Confirm, CLIN Structure (Attachment #6) shall be submitted.

Reference Amendment 0002, Executive Summary requirement has been removed.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents and EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD,

Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q63 Factor 2, Tab 2, Total Evaluated Price calculations Contracting

I don't understand the first bullet. Each CLIN stands alone; there are no "quantities" specified in the CLIN schedule and there is not a CLIN for unit pricing (e.g., groundwater monitoring per year for four years).

Therefore, it appears that the total sum of price proposed for each CLINs will be the Total Evaluated Price. Please confirm. USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Confirm.

Q64 Attachment 6, CLIN 0010 Contracting

The completion date of all other optional CLINs is "X" months from CLIN award. The completion date specified for this CLIN is 12 months from approval of the Final CAC Petition. The planned award is NLT 60 days following COR approval of the Final CAC Petition.

Based on the specified completion date and award date, the Offeror has only 9 months to complete this CLIN. We request that the completion date for the CLIN be consistent with the other CLINs (i.e., within 12 months from award of the CLIN).

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Requirement is Regulatorily driven, not US Government driven.

Q65 Attachment 1, C.6, Personnel Expertise Contracting

Please confirm that the years of experience may be concurrent or overlap and are not sequential. For example, please confirm the Program Manager is not required to have a minimum 25 years experience managing programs and projects (ten years of program management, plus an additional five years of DoD program management, plus an additional ten years experience as a project manager). If the Program Manager managed programs and projects concurrently for ten years, including five years managing environmental remediation programs/programs, then that person has met the requirements of the RFP. Another example if the years of experience requirement for the Senior Scientist/Engineer. Please confirm this position is required to have a total of ten years of technical leadership, including five years providing technical leadership on environmental remediation projects/sites.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Experience may be concurrent.

Q66 Factor 23, Past Performance, pg 66 Contracting

We don't understand the disconnect between Factor 1 experience and Factor 3 past performance. Given the relative importance of Factor I, an Offerors could present a number of projects under Factor 1 that had a number of elements the Source Selection Board considers to be strengths and therefore achieve an Outstanding rating. However, the Army does not know if the Offeror was successful in performing those projects and met the customers expectations/objectives. It could be that if the Offeror had to present past performance for each of those projects they would get an Unacceptable in Factor 3 making them ineligible for award. We request the Army reconsider the requirements and require offerors to submit past performance information for each project provided in Factor 1.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Factor 1 and Factor 3 are two distinct Factors. Reference Amendment 0002, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content and

EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD,

Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach.

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content and EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q67 Proposal Due Date Contracting We request a propoal due date a minimum of two weeks after the Government responds to questions.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Proposal due date has been extended through 22 February 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0001.

Reference Amendment 0001 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q68 Attachment #6 CLIN Structure Contracting

The responses to the questions on the draft RFP indicated that Site WSMR-79 was being removed from the PWS. It is still in the CLIN Structure. As CLIN 0003 and Optional CLIN 0006. Please confirm WSMR- 79 is not part of the Live Task Order and provide an updated CLIN Structure.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

CLIN Structure has been revised. Reference REVISED Attachment #6 dated 23 January 2017. WSMR-79 has been removed.

Reference Amendment 0002.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017. Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q69 Live Task Order Schedule Contracting Please provide the proposed award date for Live Task Order.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Anticipated award date is 30 November 2017.

Q70 Past Performance, Volume II Contracting

May offerors submit existing PPQs or CPARs for projects that meet the requirements as opposed to requesting new PPQs from our clients.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q30 and Q50.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q71 Personnel Contracting

Pg 62 of 67 along with 63 of 67 (f-h, Note) states that the government will evaluate the offeror as all entities (team/team members/team partners) involved, as long as teaming agreement is included. Does this mean that Projects and Key Personnel can come from any of these entities as long as we include a signed teaming agreement?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content, Factor 1: Relevant Corporate Experience and Management Approach, "Each Offeror shall submit six (6) projects for which they were the Prime Contractor..."and "All Offerors shall provide the resumes of the Basic Contract Key Personnel identified in Section C.6 of the Basic PWS. These Key Personnel shall be held by employees of the Prime Contractor (the entity to which the Contract shall be awarded)..." Also, Reference Amendment 0002, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content and EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 2:

Technical Approach to the Live Task Order, Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan, changed to "proposal shall include the resumes of the Task Order Key Personnel as defined in Section 1.6.12 of the Live Task Order PWS. These Key Personnel shall be held by employees of the Prime Contractor Offeror...." In addition, reference Revised Basic PWS, C.6.1, changed to "Basic Contract ALL Key Personnel shall be the Prime Contractor’s employees."

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Content, Factor 1 and Factor 2, and EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 1 and Factor 2, Subfactor 2. Revised Basic PWS, C.6.1., Attachment #1.

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q72 Pricing Contracting

Is there a list of labor categories with corresponding education & experience requirements for which we are to propose labor rates? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q61.

Q73 Pricing Contracting Are any proposed labor rates to be fully burdened, including fee? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q61.

Q74 General Contracting

Is our understanding correct that the financial information (i.e. Attachment #7, adequate financial resources, present contract commitments, etc.) is not to be submitted with the proposal but that it may be requested after proposal submission?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, 5.

Proposal Contents, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, (now) Tab 2, "Do not include this with your initial proposal."

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, 5. Proposal Contents, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, Tab 2

Q75 Live Task Order Pricing Contracting

Section 1.1.1 of the live task order indicates that it is a Performance-Based Acquisition. Should the pricing include a Performance-Based Milestone Payment Plan or will that be negotiated after contract award?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Basic PWS, Section C.4.1.1. Attachment #1.

Q76 Live Task Order Technical

Section 1.1.1 of the live task order states "All the contamination associated with these sites shall be addressed including any that has migrated off the installation." Please clarify this statement. If unknown/additional contamination is discovered during the assessment phase of this project is it the government's intention deny a modification to this contract necessary to deal with the additional contamination?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The Government's intent is not to modify the Task Order. The Army expects all the Offerors to use the information provided and their technical expertise to determine the appropriate technical approach, risk and mitigating factors to achieve the stated requirements while complying with the terms and conditions of the Basic Contract and Live Task Order.

Q77 Live Task Order Technical

The Site Visit Questions and USG responses indicate the presence of Government Furnished Information (GFI); however, the RFP, PWS, and FBO solicitation do not provide a repository address for the GFI, and no CDs/DVDs containing this information were issued during the site walk. Please indicate where the GFI is available for review?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Information has been made available. Reference Q31 and Q35.

Q78 Live Task Order Technical

Table 1 and Section 5.11 of the live task order PWS reference groundwater monitoring, groundwater well abandonment, and groundwater well installations as needed to ensure that there are no data gaps. Given that this is a firm fixed price bid additional information concerning the potential number of wells to be sampled, constituents to be monitored, number of wells to be abandoned/installed is requested in order to provide pricing for these tasks.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The Army expects all the Offerors to use the information provided and their technical expertise to determine the appropriate technical approach to achieve the stated requirements while complying with the terms and conditions of the Basic Contract and Live Task Order.

Q79 General Contracting

Given the significant amount of technical material to be reviewed we request an extension for submittal of the proposal until February 22, 2017.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Proposal due date has been extended through 22 February 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0001.

Reference Amendment 0001 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017.

Q80 Live task Order Technical

WSMR’s Response to February 19, 2014 Approval with Modifications Release Assessment Report, NOD Comment 6 states that “The Permittee must submit a work plan to address TPH contamination at SWMUs 121, 122, and 123…by April 30, 2014.” WSMR NOD Responses 4 and 6 indicate that an investigation work plan will be submitted before the next PBA contract, which will include soil sampling for VOCs and SVOCs. Has the work plan been completed? Has any additional investigation been performed to constrain the limits of excavation beneath former Tank #3?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The workplan in question has not been prepared. Reference Table 1 of the Live Task Order PWS.

(Attachment #2)

Q81 Live task Order Technical

Response 68 for the site visit questions indicates there is an approved RFI; is a copy of this document available for review?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Phase II (1994) & III (2006) RFIs, MP Soil Background Study (2014) and 2015 NOD had been provided via Disc-1. Disc-1

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

RFP 5 JANUARY 2017

USG RESPONSE 8 FEBRUARY 2017

Live Task Order PWS, Attachment #2

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q82 Live Task Order Technical

The approval with Modifications dated 10/16/14 for SWMUs 86 and 87, NOD Comment 5, “if exceedance of nitrate continues, the Permittee must install additional groundwater monitoring wells downgradient from MPL-06.” Sample was from December 2012.

What is the current status? Also, NOD Comment 4 indicated that “Permittee must continue to monitor well MPL-03.” Again, this is due to a detection of nitrate in a duplicate sample that was above the standard. What have the results been for this well since the December 2012 event?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Information had been previously made available, via Disc-3 (in response to Site Visit Q/As). Also, reference Q35. Disc-3 and Disc-4

Q83 Live task Order Technical

Annual Groundwater Monitoring (February-March 2018), draft Annual Report 90 days of last sampling event), and final Annual Report 30 days after COR comments: WSMR-70 (SWMU-119, SWMU-120) Former Landfill and Stallion Range Center. Is a copy of the Approval with Modifications letter dated 13 May 2014 for the RFI Investigation Report for WSMR-70 dated January 2013 available, as well as a copy of this RFI Report, to review? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q31.

Q84 General Contracting

Due to the complexity of the submittal and the two Holidays (Martin Luther King Day and the Inauguration) we respectfully request a two-week extension of the proposal due date.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Proposal due date has been extended through 22 February 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0001.

Reference Amendment 0001 to the RFP dated 5 January 2017.

Q85 Factor 3: Past Performance Contracting

May we provide CPARS or previously completed PPQs that have been submitted in response to other recent and relevant procurements?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q30 and Q50.

Q86 Live Task Order PWS Technical

Army response to Q20 on the responsibilty to prepare and implement a background soil study at CCWS-71 was not clear. Is preparation of this work plan and its implementation the responsibility of the winning bidder?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Awardee will be responsible for preparing the Site Work Plan.

Q87 Attachment 1 PWS, Section C.4.1 and Attachment 6 CLIN 0001 Contracting

Section C.4.1 of the PWS indicates That the Contractor shall receive payment after Army approval of the final initial PMP. CLIN 0001 is for development of PMP and other General Project Plans but is listed as "Not Separately Priced". Will the Government allow for PMP payment as indicated in the PWS?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0002, Basic PWS, Paragraph C4.1.1., has been revised and reads as follows: "Payment milestone plan shall not include a separate line item for the PMP."

Reference Attachment #1.

REVISED Basic PWS, Paragraph C.4.1.1 dated 30 January 2017

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q88 Attachment 2, Part 4 Contractor Furnished Items and Services Technical

The last bullet lists Contractor provided items for all meetings. Is a court reporter required for all meetings?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Only those meetings that legally require a court reporter.

Q89 Section M, Factor 4, Tab 2 Contracting

The live TO assessment will consider traceability and completeness of pricing information per Section M.

What specific pricing information is the Government requesting to perform this assessment? Are labor categories/burdened rates/hours along with unit rates and quantities for subs and ODCs sufficient? Do prices require detailed backup (e.g. accounting rate documentation, quotes, parametric cost data, fee calculation, etc.)?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Offeror shall complete WSMR CLIN Structure Attachment #6. Additional information is not required at this time. Reference Amendment 0002, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, (now) Tab 1.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR AWARD, Factor 4: Live Task Order Price Proposal, Tab

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q90 Attachment #2, Part 4 Technical

Can waste generated at WSMR-67 Stallion Asphalt Tanks that has been characterized and manifested through the Haz Waste Management Center (HWMC) be shipped direct from Stallion Range to the end disposal facility or will HWMC require physical processing of loads at the Main Post prior to shipping to the end disposal facility?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: After completing all profiling and pre-shipment manifesting of wastes generated, the HWMC will require physical processing of loads to the Main Post.

Q91 Attachment #6, CLIN 0003 Contracting

Please note that CLIN 0003 RFI description in Attachment #6 still includes a reference to WSMR-79.

This site was removed from the PWS. We assume the reference to WSMR-79 should be removed. Is this assumption correct?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

CLIN Structure has been revised. Reference REVISED Attachment #6 dated 23 January 2017. WSMR-79 has been removed.

Reference Amendment 0002.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017. Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q92 Attachment #6, CLIN 0006 Contracting

Please note that CLIN 0006 description in Attachment #6 is for a CAC Petition at WSMR-79. This site was removed from the PWS. We assume this CLIN should be removed and subsequent CLINs renumbered. Is this assumption correct?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

CLIN Structure has been revised. Reference REVISED Attachment #6 dated 23 January 2017. WSMR-79 has been removed.

Reference Amendment 0002.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017. Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q93 Section L, Factor 2, Subfactor 6:

Project Schedule Contracting

Will the Government provide an assumed Live TO award date for scheduling purposes?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Anticipated award date is 30 November 2017.

W9124J-17-R-0006 ERMA IDIQ FY18

Response Type (Contracting or Technical) Question Government Response

Solicitation Reference (Government)

Updates to the Solicitation (Government)

Q94 WSMR 33 Technical

Past and Current Use. In the Radian Report (1997) SWMU 14. Building 1776 Sump - remove contents, sample. The sump was left intact and in operation. Was this area/sump utilized for battery storage activities or other activities that may be of enviromental concern after the sump was cleaned? If so, what activiteis. Is the area/sump being used currenty?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The building is currently being used for battery recharging and the sump is also still in use and is pumped occasionally. The SWMU areas in question are north and south of the building.

Q95 Section H Contracting

In Section H, c., 1), it appears that Task Orders will be awarded solely based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer. This conflicts with Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017, enacted on 23 December 2016, which legislates significant limitations on LPTA procurements, specifically as they apply to “knowledge-based professional services” such as those in the scope of this contract. FAR rule making is required within 120 days of the enactment of the Act. In order to maintain compliance with the law, will the Army be modifying Section H, c., 1) and its current practice of primarily using only LPTA award procedures?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Amendment 0002, RFP Section H, TASK ORDER PROCEDURES, c., 1), changed to "represents Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer. "…using the selection method most appropriate in the best value continuum for the specific Task Order."

Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017

Q96 Contracting Contracting

Six (6) conditions must be met to allow use of LPTA, under section 813 (b) of the 2017 NDAA. One of the conditions requires that “Department of Defense has determined that the lowest price reflects full life-cycle costs, including for operations and support.” For use of LPTA under this contract vehicle, how will the Army conduct the full lifecycle cost analyses? USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Reference Q95.

Q97 Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order Technical

WSMR-79 was removed from the SOW, but is still included in Attachment #6 - CLIN Structure (CLIN 0003 and Optional CLIN 0006). Will the Army issue a revised CLIN Structure?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

CLIN Structure has been revised. Reference REVISED Attachment #6 dated 23 January 2017. WSMR-79 has been removed.

Reference Amendment 0002.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017.

REVISED Attachment #6 CLIN Structure dated 23 January 2017. Reference Amendment 0002 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q98 Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order Technical

Contractor respectfully requests a two-week extension to the proposal submittal date to allow time to incorporate changes to the technical approach based on the Army's response to questions submitted 1/18/17.

USG Response 8 FEB 2017:

Proposal due date has been extended through 22 February 2017, 3:00 PM (CST).

Reference Amendment 0001.

Reference Amendment 0001 to the RFP dated 5 Jan 2017.

Q99 Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order Technical

The current RCRA Permit for WSMR (NM 2750211235) was effective January 8, 2010 and will expire on January 8, 2020. Permit modifications will be required as part of the scope of work in the form of CAC Petitions for various sites. Will the winning contractor also be responsible for preparing the RCRA Permit for renewal?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: Permit renewal is not part of the Live Task Order requirement;

however, contractor may need to provide information to the Government to allow the permit renewal.

Q100 Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order Technical

For Site WSMR-60 (SWMU 12/13), NMED requested additional information regarding speciated chromium.

Has additional sampling been conducted for speciated chromium at WSMR-60? If not, have any additional communications between the NMED and WSMR been completed on this issue following the NMED NOD dated February 5, 2015?

USG Response 8 FEB 2017: The additional sampling has not been performed.

Q101 Factor 2: Technical Approach to Live Task Order Technical

Is there a…