QA_Second Round_W9124J-20-R-EE15_ECCS MAIDIQ_31Dec20.pdf

Questions & Answers (Q&A)

(Second Round)

RFP W9124J‐20‐R‐EE15 (ECCS MAIDIQ)

Note: The RFP paragraphs, sections and page numbers referenced in this Q&A is from the RFP

Amendment 2 CONFORMED Copy.

1. In reference to the Q&A posted for W9124J‐20‐R‐EE15 ECCS MAIDIQ, specifically Question 12 (below), the

Government indicates that the individual permits (15DP2517 and 15DP2531) are provided as

"...Attachment 5(q) and Attachment 5(r)..." Those attachments, however, pertain to the Fort Irwin project. We are not finding the individual permits in the posted files and referenced in the Government response. Can those be reposted?

Answer: The two documents referenced Attachment 5(q) a memorandum of understanding and

Attachment 5(r) Biological opinion are equivalent to a permit in the natural resources realm.

Attachment 5(q) is an agreement between agencies and describes the processes and Attachment 5(r)

Biological opinion describes the agreed upon criteria.

2. Given the volume of the 28 documents shared for Solicitation NumberW9124J20REE15 on 24 December

2020 and the two holidays within the 2‐week window provided for the new submittal date, would the

Government consider extending the due date to 15 January 2021, to ensure contractors have an adequate opportunity to consider all changes to the Solicitation, address Q&A, and incorporate this information into their submittals appropriately?

Answer: Yes, the Government will extend proposal due date to 15 January 2021. RFP block 8, page 1 has been revised.

3. Can you please update the January 8 deadline to one that accurately reflects the ultimate deadline for this solicitation? You have announced another round of questions, which are due next week, which means a proposal deadline of January 8 is not accurate. The proposal deadline would have to be at least two weeks after the government ultimately releases the final Q&As.

Answer: Yes, the Government will extend proposal due date to 15 January 2021. RFP block 8, page 1 has

4. Can we respectfully request an additional week extension of the proposal due date to January 15th? This amendment and solicitation/PWS changes were posted the evening before a holiday and also factors in a week where lots of people are already out of the office on holiday leave on both the client and contractor end of things. The additional information provided in the amendment that will require review and additional information we need to track down and provide in the proposal will be extremely difficult to do during a time period when so many people on both sides are not available. In order for the government to receive the best proposals possible, please consider an additional week extension due to the timing of the amendment posting, the holiday season, and the amount of additional information to review and address.

Answer: Yes, the Government will extend proposal due date to 15 January 2021. RFP block 8, page 1 has

5. (GENERAL QUESTIONS / Not citing specific page/paragraph). There are two versions of the IDIQ PWS released under Amendment 1, published on December 24, 2020. Please confirm that the IDIQ PWS dated

November 25, 2020 (Version 5) is not relevant.

Answer: Confirmed. The IDIQ PWS dated November 25, 2020 (Version 5) is not relevant (We apologize beta.SAM.gov did not allow the deletion of previously posted documents). Please utilize the updated

IDIQ PWS dated 20 December 2020 (Version 6).

6. (PWS Live Task Order, Section 1.2, Background). As part of the INRMP or EA, does the government anticipate wildlife and habitat surveys, wetlands delineations, or historic surveys or investigations would be conducted?

Answer: New wildlife and habitat surveys, as well as wetland delineation surveys are not included as an effort in the completion of the INRMP. However, existing documents for these items must be incorporated into the document. Historical surveys and/or investigations completed through Ft. Irwin must be evaluated and incorporated into the new INRMP.

7. (PWS Live Task Order, Section 1.2, Background). Has the 2020‐2025 INRMP that was included in the RFP package been accepted by the government?

Answer: The question is a bit unclear, however, this contract effort has been approved by the government (Army). This includes the base contract and seed task order award on that contract. The seed task order in part includes the award of an INRMP for Fort Irwin. The INRMP will go through the proper approval chain upon completion and acceptance from customer (Ft. Irwin).

8. (PWS Live Task Order, Section 1.2, Background). If the 2020‐2025 INRMP included with the RFP has been accepted by the government, is the contractor expected to update that document?

Answer: Yes, the seed award is for the completion of the INRMP for Fort Irwin. Please look at

Attachment 2, Performance requirements summary and deliverables summary for all expected deliverables.

9. (PWS Live Task Order, Section 1.2, Background). If the 2020‐2015 INRMP has NOT been accepted, can the government provide the most recent, approved document?

Answer: The 20‐25 Draft from the installation is not accepted, hence the task award. There are older versions can become available at time of award to the awarded contractor. We will put in a request through legal on document handling as it is unknown for release to public.

10. (PWS Live Task Order, Section 1.2, Background). Have there been any significant mission changes since the last approved INRMP document?

Answer: No, the Fort Irwin area still a land training area. Master planning (DPW) will need to be involved for identifying if training boundaries or wildlife boundaries have moved.

11. (Conformed RFP, Section 8, Volume I Content). Can offerors provide more than one resume for a key personnel requirement (for example, may we provide more than one senior scientist resume)?

Answer: Yes. Resumes shall be provided for all five (5) key personnel (Program Manager, Quality Control

Manager, Project Manager, Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist). The Program

Manager and Quality Control Manager may be dual hatted (same person may perform both roles) thus will require two separate resumes (one resume for each role/position). The other three (3) key personnel positions (Project Manager, Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist) can be dual or triple hatted (same person can perform the other two or three roles/positions) thus will require a resume for each role/position.

The five key personnel positions (Program Manager, Quality Control Manager, Project Manager (PgM), Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist) are the minimum required at both the

IDIQ and the LTO level. However, it is up to offerors to determine and propose the appropriate labor mix, which includes the number of key and non‐key personnel, needed to fulfill the requirements of the

IDIQ and LTO. Therefore, the answer is yes, offerors may propose more than one person to fulfill a single positon and submit multiple resumes for one Key Personnel position in order to cover the project experience requirements. For example, offerors may submit 4 resumes for 4 different individuals for the

Senior Scientist/Engineer position in order to cover the project experience requirements for a total of 8

Key Personnel Resumes for the 5 positions. Likewise, if offerors dual hat or triple hat positions they must submit a resume for each position. For example, five personnel resumes are submitted even if there are only two or three people filling all five positions.

12. (Conformed RFP, Section 8, Volume I Content). Please confirm that resumes shall not exceed three (3) pages PER RESUME.

Answer: Confirmed. Resumes shall not exceed 3 pages.

13. (Conformed RFP, Section 9, Factor 3, Volume II Past Performance Please confirm that offerors may submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 6) for those projects that do not have a CPARS evaluation.

Answer: Confirmed. Offerors may submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 6) for those projects that do not have a CPARS evaluation.

14. (Conformed RFP, Section 9, Factor 3, Volume II Past Performance). Can offerors submit previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires instead of a CPARS report, and instead of having the customer complete a new questionnaire (Attachment 6)?

Answer: A CPAR shall be provided if one has been completed for the project/contract. If no CPAR has been completed then the offeror may submit previous past performance questionnaires instead of having the customer complete a new questionnaire (Attachment 6).

15. (Conformed RFP, Section 10, VOLUME III: Factor 4 ‐ Price Proposal, Section b, Live Task Order Price

Proposal). Can offerors propose additional labor categories for non‐key personnel when developing pricing for the LTO? Or does the government want pricing limited to only the five labor categories listed in the

IDIQ PWS?

Answer: The Government is requesting the fully burden labor rates for the five labor categories listed in the IDIQ PWS which are the same five key personnel for the Live Task Order. However, the offeror may submit additional labor categories for non‐key personnel if it is necessary for the pricing narrative to clearly explain the basis of the proposed price for the Live Task Order.

16. In regards to the Key Personnel resumes that have been removed from the page count in Amendment 001.

Are individual Key Personnel resumes limited to 3 pages per environmental professional, or is the 3 page limit for all of the Key Personnel resumes combined?

Answer: Individual key personnel resumes are limited to 3 pages per each role/position.

17. Also in regards to Key Personnel resumes, we understand the government wants to see a resume for each of the 5 Key Personnel positions. However, can the offeror submit multiple resumes for one Key Personnel position in order to cover the project experience requirements in Section L? For example, can we submit 4 resumes for 4 different individuals for the Senior Scientist/Engineer position in order to cover the project experience requirements for a total of 8 Key Personnel Resumes for the 5 positions?

Answer: Yes. Resumes shall be provided for all five (5) key personnel (Program Manager, Quality Control

Manager, Project Manager, Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist). The Program

Manager and Quality Control Manager may be dual hatted (same person may perform both roles) thus will require two separate resumes (one resume for each role/position). The other three (3) key personnel positions (Project Manager, Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist) can be dual or triple hatted (same person can perform the other two or three roles/positions) thus will require a resume for each role/position.

The five key personnel positions (Program Manager, Quality Control Manager, Project Manager (PgM), Senior Scientist/Engineer/Specialist, and Regulatory Specialist) are the minimum required at both the

IDIQ and the LTO level. However, it is up to offerors to determine and propose the appropriate labor mix, which includes the number of key and non‐key personnel, needed to fulfill the requirements of the

IDIQ and LTO. Therefore, the answer is yes, offerors may propose more than one person to fulfill a single positon and submit multiple resumes for one Key Personnel position in order to cover the project experience requirements. For example, offerors may submit 4 resumes for 4 different individuals for the

Senior Scientist/Engineer position in order to cover the project experience requirements for a total of 8

Key Personnel Resumes for the 5 positions. Likewise, if offerors dual hat or triple hat positions they must submit a resume for each position. For example, five personnel resumes are submitted even if there are only two or three people filling all five positions.

18. (RFP, Page 1, Block 8). Given the holidays and short turn‐around time from issuance of the response to

Questions and Answers and RFP amendment 1 to the current due date (8 January 2021), will the government consider an extension for the solicitation response due date?

Answer: Yes, the Government will extend proposal due date to 15 January 2021. RFP block 8, page 1 has

19. (RFP, Page 53, Item 7, Factor 2: Technical Approach to the Live Task Order, Subfactor 6, Schedule). Given the LTO components are at separate installations and distinct, unrelated work, can two schedules be provided (i.e., one for the INRMP and associated EA and one for the stormwater assessment and option for the plan/permit updates)?

Answer: Yes, two schedules can be provided.

20. (Volume III: Factor 4 – Price Proposal, a. IDIQ Cap Labor Rates Price Proposal, Attachment 3 Pricing

Schedule). “Should Overhead (OH) be included in Fringe or provided as part of G&A?”

Answer: Overhead (OH) should be included under Fringe. Attachment 3 – IDIQ Cap Labor Rates Pricing

Schedule has been revised.

21. (Volume II: Factor 3 – Past Performance, Attachment 6). “Would the Government allow for a recent, previously filled/populated PPQ to be submitted? Considering that many Government representatives are currently out of office” been completed for the project/contract, the answer is yes, a previously completed PPQ may be submitted instead of Attachment 6. RFP para. 9, page 56 has been revised.

22. Amendment 0001 has now required the offeror provide a copy of CPARS or a PPQ for our past performance projects. Due to the timing of the amendment release and the holidays, it is unlikely that our customers will see/receive our request for PPQs until the week the proposal is due at the absolute earliest.

Since we were a primary subcontractor on more than one of our projects we intend to submit, we do not have CPARS available for our performance. Can we receive a minimum of a one‐week extension on the proposal due date in order to make sure that we can get our PPQs completed by our customers and submitted with our proposal as this is a new requirement from the amendment?

Answer: Yes, the Government will extend proposal due date to 15 January 2021. However, if no CPAR has been completed then the offeror may submit previous questionnaires instead of having the customer complete a new questionnaire (Attachment 6).

23. In reference to the Seed task schedule, internal government review times are provided, but regulatory review times are not specified. Please provide the expected regulatory review times for deliverables.

Answer: Timeline for external agency review has been estimated within the Live Task Order’s delivery schedule and may be prone to more or less time, which will be determined by each installation after award of the Live Task Order.

24. Are safety plans as required by task order to follow US Army Corps guidance (EM 385‐1‐1)?

Answer: Yes, the EM 385‐1‐1 is the standard for field activities. A safety plan should be in place when field work is being conducted.

25. The Army’s response to Question 10 provided two new references: “Attachment 5(p) ‐ APG SWM BMPs” and “Attachment 5(l) ‐ Adelphi Laboratory Center BMPs”. However, the post‐construction BMP inventory contained within these new references do not total to 430 BMPs as noted in “Attachment+2+‐

+PWS+Live+Task+Order_Seed+Project_+Final_20+DEC+2020”. Please clarify.

Answer: Short answer, 430 was an estimate of existing BMPs. The total looked at will be about 100 additional ones that have not been fully constructed or are planned for construction. Numbers from attachments are listed below.

APG SWM BMP:

Progress – 63

Planned ‐ 35

Historical (filter) ‐ 421

Adelphi BMP:

17 total listed

26. The Army’s response to Question 60 referred to the following SWPPPs for details regarding post‐ construction BMPs: “Attachment 5(i) ‐ APG Marinas SWP3_Final”, “Attachment 5(j) ‐ APG SWP3_Final”, “Attachment 5(m) ‐ APG‐EA WWTP SWP3_Final”, and “Attachment 5(k) – Tanks Pipes P2 Plan”. However, these SWPPPs address industrial stormwater BMPs. Please clarify whether the BMPs contained within these referenced SWPPPs are to be included in the inventory of 430 post‐construction BMPs to be inspected according to Section 5.5.1.5 of “Attachment+2+‐

+PWS+Live+Task+Order_Seed+Project_+Final_20+DEC+2020”.

Answer: Yes, offerors should focus on the BMPs already provided.

27. W9124J‐20‐R‐EE15‐0001_RFP+Amend+1_CONFORMED+COPY_ECCS_MAIDIQ_23DEC2020, page 56 of 63, Item 9. Volume II: Factor 3‐ Past Performance, bullet b, last paragraph. Would the government consider projects that are 70% complete of greater versus 80% be considered?

Answer: Yes, projects that are 70% complete are acceptable. RFP para. 9, page 56 has been revised.

28. Attachment+6+‐+Past+Performance+Questionaire_PPQ; Would the government allow the submittal of the

NAVFAC/USACE PPQ (Form PPQ‐0) to be used instead of the provided PPQ form? Given the timing of this solicitation, previously completed PPQs would be easier to access versus contacting clients during the holiday.

been completed for the project/contract, the answer is yes, a previously completed PPQ may be submitted instead of Attachment 6.

29. For Attachment 3 CAP Labor Rates Price Schedule in the column at the end for IDIQ Cap Labor Rates

(Fully Burden Labor Rates, the offerer assumes that since the header specifies a rate (e.g. $/hr) that the column should be populated with the sum of the Direct Hourly Labor Rate W/Fringe + the G&A hourly rate + the Profit hourly rate. Is it the governments intent to evaluate offerers cost reasonableness based on a sum of the CAP rates or the CAP full time equivalent costs? If it is CAP cost, should there be an additional column provided where the offerer can calculate the CAP hourly rate times the FTE hours?

Otherwise, why are labor hours included at all in this table if they are not used in the cost evaluations?

Answer: The Government will evaluate the sum of the IDIQ CAP Full Time Equivalent Prices (Fully

Burdened rates X 1920). Please see revised Attachment 3 ‐ IDIQ CAP Labor Rates Pricing Schedule.

30. Attachment+3+‐+ECCS+Base+IDIQ+Cap+Labor+Rates+Pricing+Schedule: In tabs for Years 1 – 5 are we only to include fully burdened rates for the labor categories shown? Or, are we to calculate a price using fully burdened rates and the 1920 hours shown in column C?

Answer: The Government will evaluate the sum of the IDIQ CAP Full Time Equivalent Prices (Fully

Burdened rates X 1920). Please see revised Attachment 3, IDIQ CAP Labor Rates Pricing Schedule

31. Attachment+3+‐+ECCS+Base+IDIQ+Cap+Labor+Rates+Pricing+Schedule: Are we expected to include any additional labor categories that may be required to perform the work as described in the PWS in addition to the key personnel shown in the tables?

Answer: In reference to the IDIQ pricing, Attachment 3, offerors shall only include the labor categories listed on Attachment 3. Do not include any additional labor categories in the Attachment 3, IDIQ pricing.

In reference to the Live Task Order, offerors may want to include additional labor categories for non‐key personnel in their pricing narrative in order to clearly explain the basis of the proposed price for the Live

Task Order.

32. Attachment+4+‐+Pricing+Schedule_Live+Task+Order_Seed+Project_REV+1: This table includes a Monthly

Price and Total FFP Price. Will we be required to invoice straight line monthly costs (1/12 of the CLIN value) each month? Or will we invoice a % complete based on progress made during the reporting month?

Answer: The offeror/contractor will be required to invoice after the work for each CLIN has been completed throughout the performance year. Attachment 4 – Pricing Schedule, Live Task Order (Seed

Project) has been revised.