Attachment 8b Amendment 0005 W9124J22R0005 Questions Responses 14 Aug 2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 137 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Environmental Remediation (ERMA24 IDIQ RFP)
- Solicitation number
- W9124J-22-R-0005
View the file
Other files
Show all 48
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Comments
| W9124J22R0005 Solicitation Questions | ||||
| ERMA24 IDIQ | ||||
| # | Document Name/Page/Paragraph | Contractor Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | TWUSAE | Followup to RFI #501 | Please provide a report or information describing the settlement survey performed at FTIR-02/FTIR-04 in October 2019 so bidders can accurately estimate the cost. Assuming it may be desribed in the Annual 2019 Landfill Inspection Report for FTIR-02/FTIR-04, this report is not available on Envirostor and has not been provided as GFI to date. | A Copy of the Settlement Survey will be provided. Title of Survey Document: 2020-04-09_FTIR-02-04_Draft Settlement Survey Report |
| 2 | Kemron | Response to Question 358 and 463 versus Response to Questions 67 and 252 | The response to Questions 358 and 463 indicates performance bonds will be required for each TO including the Seed Task at Ft Irwin, which does not include remedial actions or construction. However, the response to Questions 67 and 252 indicate the requirement for performance bonding will be identified at the Task Order level. Please resolve the discrepancies between the two sets of response regarding when performance bonds will be required under ERMA 24. If performance bonding is required for the Ft Irwin Seed Task, please revise Attachment 5a to indicate which CLINs required performance bonds and provide information regarding how the performance bond will be released since none of the CLINs entail construction activities. | This responses supersedes responses to 67, 252, 358 and 463. Performance and Payment Bonds (non-construction) will be determined at the task order level. Performance and Payment Bonds are NOT required for the current sample Task Orders for Fort Irwin and Fort Carson. |
| 3 | Kemron | Responses to Question 21 and 29. | Questions 21 and 29 request that a project be defined as multiple task orders at a single site or installation for the same work. The answer refers to Question 12, which discusses a project at multiple installations. Please confirm that multiple task orders for a single installation and follow-up work scope may be used to define a project. | N/C : See response to Q12 |
| 4 | Kemron | Response to Question 84 | Response to Question 84 did not address the portion of the question regarding how annual updates to the PMP should be completed when the POP is 5 months. | The POP will remain 5 months to include review time. It is anticipated that the review time will not take the stated review time. |
| 5 | Kemron | Response Question 86 | The information on the general regulatory review times of 90 to 120 days (or 3 to 4 months) is appreciated. However, the POP for CLIN 0001 in the revised Attachment 5a is 5 months which is not adequate to include regulatory review. Please increase the POP for CLIN 0001 to 9 months in order to accommodate Army and regulatory review of the UFP-QAPP and SSWPs/SSWPA. | See response to question # 4. |
| 6 | Kemron | Response to Question 157 | Section 5.1.1 of the PWS has been updated to clarify “Draft Final” documents will be prepared. However, the terminology is still “Final Draft” in Appendix B. Please update Appendix B to remove any ambiguity. | Review submittals are produced for draft, final-draft, and final. There is no difference in the defination of a final-draft and a draft-final. No update required for Appendix B. |
| 7 | Kemron | Response to Question 159 | The PWS has been clarified as indicated in the response except the UFP QAPP is still listed as 14 days in Table 5-1. Please revise Table 5-1 to remove any ambiguity. | Table 5-1 has been corrected. |
| 8 | Kemron | Response to Question 472 | The response to Question 472 does not address the question regarding preparing separate PFAS RI Reports for the On-Installation and Off-Installation AOPIs. | Separate reports shall be prepared for each project as described in sections 5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.3, and 5.1.2.4 of the PWS. |
| 9 | Kemron | Response to Question 514 versus Response to Question 499 | The response that the “government does not have access to submersible well pumps for contractor use” contradicts the response to Question 499 which indicates “37 of the wells around these sites have dedicated bladder pumps”. Please clarify how many wells at Ft Irwin have dedicate bladder pumps that the Contractor can use during sampling. | As stated in response 499, submersible well pumps are in 37 wells. As stated in response 514, the government is not aware of availability or access to control units for these pumps. |
| 10 | Kemron | Response to Question 541 | The response to Question 541 indicates that a digitized map of the wells present at FTIR-20 in 1993 will be provided. However, this document has not been provided as GFI. | Map for FTIR-20 shall be provided. |
| 11 | Kemron | Response to Question 512 | Please confirm a single RI Report will be prepared for FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 based on the Revised Draft Supplemental RI/FS (dated 2020) and the new information developed during the PFAS investigation. | The RI for FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 shall be completed in conformance with section 5.1.2.4 of the PWS and section 5.3 of Table 5.1 of the PWS. |
| 12 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #1, Addendum to 52.212-1, Section 5, Preparation Instructions, Proposal Preparation Instructions/Table 2 – Page Limits | The page count allocated for Factors 1 and 2 for the SB and UB suites should not be equal. The UB Sample Task Order for Fort Carson has nearly three times the number of CLINS and more than double the number of individual sites than the SB Sample Task at Ft Irwin. The current page limitation of 30 pages is not sufficient for UB Suite contractors (per RFP Instructions Section 5.c) to “clearly and concisely include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in each offeror’s proposal” the sample task at Ft Carson. Please increase the page count for the UB Sample Task to 40 pages to allow Offerors a page limit commensurate with the number of CLINS, scale, and scope of the Ft Carson Sample Task. | See Revised RFP Section L, Table 2: Proposal Organization and Structure, Page Limits hich has been updated to reflect the following: UBSuite: 35 Pages. The SB Suite page limit remains at 30 pages. |
| 13 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #79, RFP/page 62-63/5c. Proposal Page Limitation | Please exclude the staffing plan matrix and organizational chart from the page limit in Factor 1, Subfactor 2, and the management approach organizational chart in Factor 2 from the page limit for both business suites. These compulsory elements are typically excluded from the page count for other Government IDIQ solicitations of similar purpose and scope. Including these elements in the page count severely impacts all offerors ability to prepare a technical approach that clearly and concisely includes sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the technical approach for the sample tasks. These items could also be assigned a separate page count if needed. | The only exclusions from the page count are those documents specified in RFP, section 5.d (page 63). |
| 14 | Weston Solutions | Amendment 0004 RFP, page 29 of 39, Section L, 10. VOLUME IV: Factor 5 – Price, b, (1) Sample Task Order Price Proposals (No Discounts), Tab 2 Price Breakout | The requirement states “For evaluation purposes, Offerors shall apply the proposed escalation rates for performance years 6 through 10 to the average annual price from the Base Plus Option Periods”. Please clarify if the “proposed escalation rates for performance years 6 through 10” to be applied to the average annual price are the Attachment 4 IDIQ Labor Rates Excel file, Escalation Rates Years 6-10 tab, IDIQ Key Personnel Labor Escalation Rates? | Yes. |
| 15 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #22, PWS (Fort Carson). Section 1.4 CLIN 007 | The response to this RFI only references 5.12.1 and regulatory guidance. Does the Government have any specific expectations for remediation of soil and groundwater at the site? The objective of No Further Action is open-ended. Can the Government provide any assumptions or bounds to limit the risk for this CLIN? | Contractors will use professional judgement and discretion in bidding on this CLIN. It is assumed the offeror shall make appropriate assumptions when submitting proposal. |
| 16 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #73, GFI for CLIN 15, SWMU 171 Building 221 | Can the Government please confirm that all GFI for Building 221 has been provided? | Yes, unless there is something specific needed? The contractor will need to specify. |
| 17 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #77, RFP/page 70/10b.(1) Tab 2: Price Breakout | The answer to this question is unclear. Is a specific Basis of Estimate (BOE) document required in addition to the Pricing Volume? A BOE is not specifically requested in the RFP instructions to offerors. Note that the Pricing Volume will include the estimate with pricing by CLIN and provide all personnel (key and non-key personnel) labor hours and rates by CLIN where the Government can clearly identify the use of the offeror’s maximum cap labor rates for the key personnel. | Excel worksheets have been updated. IAW ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND |
COMMERCIAL SERVICES Paragraph 10 Volume IV: Factor 5 Price, "Tab 2: Price Breakout - Offerors shall break out their pricing by CLIN and provide all personnel (key and non-key personnel) labor hours and rates by CLIN where the Government can clearly identify the use of the offeror’s maximum cap labor rates for the key personnel. In addition to labor, offerors shall provide all other cost (equipment, material, travel, subcontract costs or any other ODCs) that make up the total CLIN price."
| 18 | Weston Solutions | Amendment 0004 RFP, Attachment+6a_Price_Schedude_UB+Suite+Carson+STO | Amendment 0004 Word document includes CLINs 0004 and 0005. These items are shown as removed from Attachments 6a and 6b. | Attachment 6a and 6b are excel documents which replaced the original word documents for pricing. CLIN 0004 and 0005 are removed. | |
| 19 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #590, Attach +3_PWS / Pg 25 / Section 5.12.1 | Can the Government provide any assumptions or suggestions to bound the risks to offerors for CLIN 007 In the event NFA is not achieved following DLA remedial activities, will the additional remedial activities be performed by DLA? | Contractors will use professional judgement and discretion in bidding on this CLIN. It is assumed the offeror shall make appropriate assumptions when submitting proposal. | |
| 20 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #261 Ft Carson Site walk questions. | Location 16/53 Stop #8. Are the 3 degreasers deactivated? Discussion at the site walk indicated that they were cleaned out. Can the Government please confirm that the degreasers have been cleaned out? Are the degreasers still active? How many linear feet of pipe are impacted? Are there any assumptions that can be provided to minimize risks to offerors? | To the best of our knowledge at this time, they are no longer used, as they are referred to as "former degreasers." The government does not know if they have been cleaned out and unsure where that assumption came from. The government is unsure on the pipe linear feet and relavance to site 16/53 contract requirements. The degreaser was removed in 1992. See SWMU 16/53 Work Plan in the previously provided GFI. | |
| 21 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #247, Fort Carson PWS (Attachment 3), Section 5.12 and 5.12.1 (CLIN 0006/0007, PCMS Fuel Point) | What is the current anticipated date for DLA to remove USTs and construct a new fuel point? Is there any update to this schedule from the Government since the RFI Response? Please provide assumptions that can minimize risks offerors that allow for an achievable schedule. | It is unknown at this time. Contractors will use professional judgement and discretion in bidding on this CLIN. It is assumed the offeror shall make appropriate assumptions when submitting proposal. | |
| 22 | Weston Solutions | RFI Response #231, General question related to Attach 3, UB Suite PWS | The Government confirmed that contractors should not include any of these efforts for an APP/SSHP in CLIN 0001. Can the Government please provide directions as to where the effort for APP/SSHP should be placed? Is there a CLIN for programmatic documents to cover all of the remediation services? | The APP/SSHP efforts shall be included in the CLINs which require their need | |
| 23 | ECC | Proposal Preparation Instructions, Item f Cross-Reference matrix | Item f. states “offerors shall provide a cross-reference index that links the major components of Volumes I, Ii, Ii, IV and V to facilitate review and evaluation of the proposal.” Since each volume is self-contained, there is no link between the major components of the volumes. Also, item c. states we are only allowed cross-references within the same volume. Please clarify and specify the contents of the Cross-Reference Matrix and/or delete the contradiction in item c. that states we can only cross-reference in the same volume. | Paragraph f instructions have been removed from the RFP. | |
| 24 | ECC | RFI #77 Response | As a follow-up to initial Q&A No. 77, given the Ft. Irwin and Ft. Carson seed projects are performance-based, and pricing is typically requested by the MICC on a lump-sum price/CLIN basis only (with the exception of a labor hours breakdown as part of the non-cost factor), please confirm that the Government still requires an ODC breakdown by equipment, materials, subcontracts and travel, etc., and that this data is to be provided with the pricing volume. If confirmed, should the ODC breakdown be provided at a summary level only (i.e., just the overall $ value of each applicable non-labor category)? | See Response to Question #17. | |
| 25 | ECC | RFI #67 and RFI #358 Responses | Payment/Performance Bonds – In reference to payment and performance bonds requirement for task orders, responses to question #s 67, 125, 252 and 680 mention the payment/performance bond will be identified at the task order level, Q&As #358 and 463 response mention performance bonds are required for each TO. Please confirm that payment/performance bonds will be identified at the task order level consistent with responses to question #s 67, 125, 252 and 680. | See response to Question #2. | |
| 26 | BryceHGLJV | Reference Comment Number 62. | Comment 62 clarified that UXO construction support may be required for work outside FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 boundary, if that work is conducted within a designated MMRP site boundary. Can the boundaries of the designated MMRP areas be provided? | The MMRP site surrounds FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 along all sides except to the noth boundary. A map shall be provided. | |
| 27 | BryceHGLJV | Reference Comment Number 506. | Comment 506 clarified that Five Year Reviews shall continue for FTIR-02 and FTIR-04. Is the awardee the responsible party for producing these additional five-year reivews? | No, the contractor shall not complete the review, only support for five year reviews is required IAW PWS 5.1.1 (n). Five Year Review (FYR) and/or Periodic Reviews (PRs): The Contractor shall support the FYR [CERCLA Section 121 (c)] (next due in 2025) and PR requirements by providing requested data/ information about the sites (in this task order) and participate in kick off meetings (remote) and interviews. All requests for Contractor support shall be initiated by the COR. | |
| 28 | EA Engineering | RFP Section L, 6, b, (3) | Will AEC exclude the Exceptions/Other Assumptions from the Volume 1 page limitation? | All page count exclusions are listed in RFP, Section 5 d. (page 63) | |
| 29 | EA Engineering | RFP Section L, 8, b, (11) | What information is required for the Small Business Participation Past Performance if the Offeror for the submitted projects is itself a Small Business? | All Offerors shall follow the RFP Instructions outlined in Section , 8,b,(11) | |
| 30 | EA Engineering | RFP Section L, 10 & Attachment 8b, Q&A #77 | The RTOP does not include any requirement for cost backup other than labor hours and labor rates at the TO level. However, in the Q&As, there is an answer that suggests detailed backup to include labor, equipment, material, travel and subcontract costs should be provided by CLIN. Would the government like only the cost backup required by the RTOP, or the cost backup suggested by the answers to questions? | See response to Question #17. | |
| 31 | Parsons | Attachment 3, UB Suite PWS, Part 5. Attachment 1, Base IDIQ PWS, Sections 1.23, 1.24, and 5.7.1.4. | Please provide required document review periods for Government and stakeholder reviews (number of calendar days to review each document version). | See 5.1.3.1 of the Fort Carson PWS for government and stakeholder review times. | |
| 32 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.b.(3). | We request that the requirement to provide UEI or CAGE Codes be waived for commercial past performance projects. As standard practice, these codes are not used in the commercial sector. | See revised Section 8.b.(3). For commercial customers a UEI or CAGE is not required however, a Point of Contact (POC) shall be provided. | |
| 33 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81. | Will the Government allow a project definition to include a single task order on an IDIQ contract that covers multiple installations? | See project definitons as detailed in Section L, 8(c) | |
| 34 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81. | Will the Government allow a project definition to include an IDIQ contract if the contract covers only one single installation? | See Section L,8,(c) iii | |
| 35 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, Section 8.Volume II: Factor 3 Past Performance; a.(1). Page 65 of 81. | Will the Government allow a project definition to include multiple task orders on an IDIQ contract if all task orders are for a single installation? | See Section L,8,(c) i-iii | |
| 36 | Parsons | PWS (Fort Carson). Section 1.4 CLIN 007 | In addition to OPS closure documentation, what work does the governmen expect the contractor to complete a PCMS Fuel Point under CLIN 0007? Will the contractor be expected to perform remediation of any petroleum-contaminated soil and groundwater at PCMS Fuel Point under CLIN 0007? | Contractors will use professional judgement and discretion in bidding on this CLIN. It is assumed the offeror shall make appropriate assumptions when submitting proposal. | |
| 37 | Parsons | Attach_3_PWS UB Suite_Carson STO_V4 | Please provide additional guidance on the following questions related to laboratory data validation and submission requirements: | ||
| • | What type of data validation is required (i.e. Stage of validation) for analytical laboratory data and is 100% of the analytical laboratory data required to be validated (with exception of waste characterization)? | ||||
| • | For the analytical laboratory data validation, what specific data validation guidance should be followed (i.e. General Data Validation Guidelines, EDQW, November 2019 and the applicable method modules)? | ||||
| • | What type of Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format is required to be provided by the laboratory? | ||||
| This is a very general question and the answer depends. |
-In general, preliminary data used for initial decision making can forgo more strict data validation requirements, as long as the final data utilized for risk calculations and decision making is validated at the most appropriate level for each applicable situation.
-Contractor will comply with PWS 1.1.2. & 1.1.3.
-Raw data reports are typically required as submittals and appendices in the reports. Reports shall have summary tables and narratives explaining data results.
| 38 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 13 of 81, Section 3.b. | This section states that wage determination (WD) will be identified within the RTOP for TOs that are subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS). Please clarify if there is SCLS associated with the sample TO. If this is the case, please provide it. | Please refer to Attachments 12a and 12b which were provided under Amendment W9124J-22-R-0005 0004 |
| 39 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 62 of 81, Table 2. | Volume I - Technical Capability. 25 pages will not be adequate to address both Factor 1 and Factor 2. We request that the page count be increased from 25 to 50. | See response to question #12. |
| 40 | Parsons | RFP, dated 18-Apr-2023, page 62 of 81, Section 5.c. | Please consider excluding exhibits from the page count. | All page count exclusions are listed in RFP, Section 5 d. (page 63) |
| 41 | CDM Smith | RFP Amendment 0004, Form 1449, page 62 of 81, Table 2 | Given the number of CLINs for Fort Carson is nearly three times more than that of Fort Irwin, we request an additional allowance of 5 additional pages for Volume 1 for the Fort Carson seed task in order to present techically acceptable approaches to meeting performance objectives. | See response to question #12. |
| 42 | CDM Smith | PWS Attachment 6a/b, RFP Amendment 0004 | The Government's response to previous Question #246 indicated the contract would be awarded in time to complete Q3 2023 LTM monitoring and reporting for CLIN 0002 at SWMU 89 - however, Amendment 0004 PWS Attachment 6a/b indicates the POP for CLIN 0002 is 1/1/2024 - 6/30-2025. Please confirm CLIN 0002 shall include 6 quarters of LTM monitoring and reporting, beginning Q1 2024 through Q2 2025 as stated in PWS Attachment 6a/b. | The answer to question #246 is "No - see amended PWS and CLIN Structure." |
| 43 | CDM Smith | PWS Attachment 6a/b, RFP Amendment 0004 | The POP for the sample Task Order in 6a and 6b, inclusive of any exercised options is 01 November 2023 - 31 October 2028. The POP for CLINs 4002, 4003, 4006, 4008, 4009, 3018, 3019, 3022, 3024, and 3025 extend beyond the 31 October 2028 end date and into year 6 of the task order. Because of this, costs from Year 6 are being included in the Base Plus Option Periods (Total Value) that is divided by 5 to get a 1 year average when there is more than 5 years in the total value. The 1 year average that is the base for application of the proposed escalation rate for year 6 to calculate the value for year 6 already includes costs from year 6 and we are double counting year 6 costs. Please confirm that we should still divide by 5 to get a 1 year average and include year 6 costs from the Total Value in our Year 6 - 10 base for application of escalation. | Yes, still divide by 5. The escalation calculations for years 6 through 10 is for evaluation purposes only. |
| 44 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses and Attachments 5a/b, Price Schedule/CLIN Structure | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to Questions #86 and #154 indicate document review times will be: 30 days for Government review, 90-120 days for Regulatory Agency review. Based on this response, the current Period of Performance for CLIN 0001 (123 days) does not allow sufficient time for a minimum of 2 rounds of Government and Regulatory review for planning documents as stated in the PWS (i.e., review of Draft-Final and Final versions), which requires 180 days (30 + 60 for Draft Final; 30 + 60 for Final). This also does not consider time required for drafting the documents, government review of Draft, or response to comment periods. | See response to question # 4. |
| 45 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses and Attachment 2, PWS | Fort Irwin: Please provide a map showing the MMRP site boundaries mentioned in the Government's response to Question #62. | A map will be provided. |
| 46 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses and Attachment 2, PWS | Fort Irwin: Please confirm that drilling within the FTIR-01 landfill cells is acceptable. It is noted the Government responded to Question #83 that "No records for UXO at the landfill have been identified." | Contractor shall have to determine that through expertise. |
| 47 | CAPE | RFP, Attachment 2, PWS | Fort Irwin: Please confirm if Lahontan Regional Water Board and California Department of Toxic Substances Control will review project documents as stakeholders. | California EPA enlists reviewers of their own choice for each site. |
| 48 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses and Attachment 2, PWS | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to Question #278 indicated dig permits shall be valid for 30 days. Please confirm that dig permits may be renewed while work is ongoing if intrusive work associated with a dig permit will take longer than 30 days. | Fort Irwin dig permit renewal shall be assessed and updated as needed if site work lasts longer than 30 days. |
| 49 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses and Attachments 5a/b, Price Schedule/CLIN Structure | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to previous Question #302 indicated CLINs 0007 - 0011 shall include sampling and that the CLIN structure would be updated appropriately. However, the CLIN structure has not been updated and currently does not mention sampling for Optional CLINs 0007 - 0011. Please confirm Optional CLINs 0007 - 0011 shall include sampling and update the RFP documents accordingly. | See revised Attachments 5a/b. CLINs 0007-0011 have been updated. |
| 50 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | The Government's response to Question #326 indicates waste generated under a different EPA ID than Fort Irwin shall need a person with that ID authorization. Please confirm if waste generated on Army-leased property at Barstow Airport is to be included under FTIR's EPA ID. Or if applicable, please clarify what other locations/sites will require alternate EPA ID and authorizing person. | All site work shall be completed as required by the lease agreement and consultation with the leasor. The government has not yet made that consult. |
| 51 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to Question #507 indicates RCRA compliance requirements for the permitted landfill FTIR-01 shall not continue under this contract. Please clarify or confirm if LTM sampling of soil gas and groundwater at FTIR-01 is ongoing in any capacity, i.e., under a different contract, or if LTM sampling at FTIR-01 will cease entirely and requires no further data reporting. | Under CERCLA, the decision to conduct LTM cannot be assessed until the RI/FS process is completed. |
| 52 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | Fort Irwin: If LTM sampling at FTIR-01 is ongoing in any capacity, please clarify or confirm if the LTM sample results for FTIR-01 shall be included in the FTIR-02-04 Annual Report under CLINs 0006/1006 etc. as has been done for previous years, or if moving forward, the scope of the Annual Report will be modified from previous years and will not include any LTM sample results. | Monitoring reports for FTIR-02/04 shall include information detailed in section 5.1.2.5 of the PWS and generally shall not include information from other sites. |
| 53 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to Question #445 indicates biological and cultural clearance are part of the dig permit process. Please confirm if clearance is required for intrusive work in currently developed/paved areas, or is clearance only required for intrusive work in undisturbed areas? | Fort Irwin dig permits are required for any land disturbing activities at Fort Irwin. |
| 54 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | Please confirm that per the Government's response to Question #33, Volume IV is to only include the Excel files for Attachments 4 and 5a/b or 6a/b only, and should not include a cross-reference index per Addendum to 52.212-1 Section 5 Paragraph f, or a cover page. | See response to question #23 |
| 55 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses; Section L Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 5, Paragraph f and Section 6, Paragraph a | Base: Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 5, Paragraph f requires that Offerors provide a cross-reference index that links the major components of Volumes I, II, III, IV and V to facilitate review and evaluation of the proposal. Section 6, Paragraph a states that Volume I/Technical Volume must not be cross referenced with Volume IV/Pricing Volume. If we are not to provide a cross-reference index in Volume IV per the response to Question #33, please clarify in which volume we should provide a cross-reference index of all volumes. | See response to question #23 |
| 56 | CAPE | Attachment 8b Q&A Matrix Responses | Fort Irwin: The Government's response to Question #507 indicates that "RCRA Subtitle D compliance requirements for the Fort Irwin permitted landfill shall not continue under this contract." Please confirm that replacement of multiple existing LTM Monitoring wells at FTIR-01, as requested by the Lahontan Water Board on comments for the Supplemental RI/FS (i.e., due to submerged screen intervals), is therefore not part of this base contract and would instead be included as one of the Optional CLINs, if applicable. | LTM activities for FTIR-01/CCFTIR-01 are not part of this contract. |
| 57 | TetraTek | Amendment 0004 RFP/ 5. Proposal Preparation Instructions / c. Proposal Pag Limitation /Page 21 |
| Factor 1 - Technical Approach to Sample Task Order/ Subfactor 2: Execution of Field Work / b. / Page 23 | Will the government allow 11x17 pages to count as a single page for the required staffing plan with a matrix identifying the number of personnel, labor hours in each labor category by CLIN and the organizational chart? Including this matrix on a single 11x17 page instead of multiple 8.5x11 pages will increase the ease of evaluation for the government and allow offerors to utlize a single page of the limited page count for the section. | RFP, Section 5 c.speficially states "any page larger than 8 ½” x 11” will be counted as two pages". Page(s) 11x17 will be counted as two (2) pages. | |||
| 58 | TetraTek | 8. Volume II; Factor 3 - Past Performance / b. Past Performance / 3. CAGE and UEI Numbers / Page 24 | Will the government allow a Cage code or UEI # to be included with each project write-up instead of UEI and Cage code? Projects completed for commercials clients don't require a SAM registration and therefore don't require a cage code. | See response to Question # 32. | |
| 59 | TetraTek | Attachment 8b Amendment 0004 W9124J22R0005 QA Matrix Responses (Question #67) |
RFP W9124J22R0005 Conformed Copy Through 24 Jul 2023 (Page 25, 52.228-16)
Attachment 3 Amendment 0004 W9124J22R0005 PWS UB Suite Carson 24July2023 Revised
| In the response to questions, the subject response indicates "The requirement for Non-construction Payment/performance bond will be identified at the task order level." However, for the Fort Carson PWS, bonding is not referenced within the document. Can the Government please clarify bonding requirements, if any, for the Fort Carson PWS? | See response to Question #2. | |||
| 60 | TetraTek | Attachment 3 Amendment 0004 W9124J22R0005 PWS UB Suite Carson 24July2023 Revised | Please confirm the PWS provided for Fort Carson UR Sample Task is the final PWS associated with Amendment 4. Currently the PWS still retains a “Draft” watermark and the date in the file name and in the document heading vary. | |
| Draft Watermark has been removed | ||||
| 61 | TK&K | Factor 3 - Past Performance | For a teaming situation, can each team member provide a maximum of 8 projects or is it a combined maximum of 8 projects for the team? | See revised RFP section 8 (a) (2). Offerors shall submit a maximum of eight (8) projects total (Prime and Subcontractors, JV and Teaming Partners) that are recent and relevant as defined above. |
| 62 | AECOM | PWS, Page 7, CLIN 0018 | Fort Carson PWS, Page 7, CLIN 0018: The second optional CLIN states “Optional CLIN for up to 12 months total”. What work does this option cover if it is not an 18 month duration? For example, is it for LTM, but not for reporting? | See Carson PWS section 5.16. |
| 63 | AECOM | PWS. Page 7, CLIN 0018 | Should bidders assume that vegetation monitoring will continue at Landfill 1 and 7 in 2025 even though the 2021 Draft Final CMI PCMMR for the CLA suggests that vegetation monitoring would only continue for another 3 years at LF 1 (through 2024) and 1 year at LF 7 (through 2022)? | LF 7 no longer requires vegetation monitoring, and L 1 is assumed to continue vegetation monitoring through 2024 at this point; pending regulatory approval to discontinue. |
| 64 | AECOM | PWS. Pages 3 and 4, CLINs 0002 and 0003 | Should it be assumed that since monitoring at SWMUs 89 and 109 is to begin in 2024 that the contractor would be responsible for Q4 2023 reporting and that the government will supply the necessary data/information? | Incumbent contractor shall complete sampling for CY2023 Q4. |
| 65 | AECOM | PWS, CLIN 0016 | Didn’t see a separate deliverable for CLIN 0016, but the PWS indicates Army approval with Regulator concurrence is required – since the PWS indicates this should happen in conjunction with CLIN 0015, should it be assumed that any deliverable report or memorandum capturing the work performed for CLIN 0016 would be included under the CLIN 0015 deliverables, or should we include a separate report or memorandum for CLIN 0016? | |
| Work performed under CLIN 0016 shall be captured under CLIN 0015 reporting | ||||
| 66 | AECOM | PWS, CLIN 0003 | For CLIN 0003, there is mention in the PWS of a 3-year monitoring period and a Remedy Completion Report requirement at the end of this period similarly to CLIN 0002, but unlike CLIN 0002, there is no indication of when that 3-year monitoring period will begin (or if it has already begun). Is there any information available regarding whether this monitoring period has already started, or if not, when it will start? | PWS Para 5.11 defines when the 3 year period will start for CLIN 0003. The GFI asssociated with CLIN 0003 has been made available. |
| 67 | AECOM | PWS, Page 9, CLIN 0026 | For CLIN 0026, site background documents indicate that temporary injection wells were used to construct the biobarriers. Are the injection wells still present and usable? | Yes, they are still present and usable. |
| 68 | TWUSAE | Attachment+2+Amendment+0004+W9124J22R0005+PWS+SB+Suite+Irwin+STO+24July2023+v5/page 25/Section 5.1.3.3 versus Attachment+5a+Amendment+0004+W9124J22R0005+PriceScheudleSBSuiteIrwinSTO+v2/CLIN 0009 (Option) | Section 5.1.3.3 of the SB Fort Irwin PWS indicates that one deep monitoring well with mobilization is to be priced while CLIN 0009 (Option) in the Price Schedule (Attachment 8a and 8b) indicates that three deep monitoring wells with mobilization and sampling are to be priced. Please clarify whether it is one well or three wells that are to be priced out for the subject option. | The PWS Section 5.1.3.3 is updated to reflect three wells. |
| 69 |
page &P of &N
Attachments
Comments
| W9124J22R0005 Solicitation Questions | |||||||
| # | Contractor | Page | Section | Paragraph | Comment/Rationale | Document Revised | Responses |
| 1 | 120 of 120 | Attachments | N/A | Attachment D - Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet is titled Attachment C in the document. Please clarify. | Atch D Specific Relevant Contract Sheet | See corrected Attachment D | |
| 2 | 110-111; 79; Item 4 page `07 | Ordering Guide 5.16; 1.2 | all; paragraph 2; 5.12 | The Ordering guide show under Instructor Service Includes: Medical Coding/Patient Administration, Occupational/Physical Therapist, and DL(Blended Learning) Facilitators but these categories are not listed on the RFP pages 110 and 111, 5.16 Technical Instructor/writer. |
We might want to ask if these will require additional personnel, or these services are to be provided by the instructors listed on the RFP pages 110 and 111, 5.16 Technical Instructor/writer.
On page 79, Section 1.2, the second paragraph of the RFP talks about the instructor delivery in specialized areas of expertise, and it mentioned Flight paramedics and medical coding but is not listed under the Technical Instructor/writer description.
Please clarify. Also, on Item 4. Of the Ordering Guide, Classroom Delivery Includes: They listed Tactical Combat SMEs and this SME is not listed on the RFP page 107 5.12 Subject Matter Expert. Please clarify. Base PWS Section 1.2 and 5.16 were updated.
Ordering guide was updated
See Revision to Base PWS Section 1.2 and 5.16 and Ordering Guide. Instructor specialty requirements are identified at the task-order level and depend on the educational competencies being taught. Current specialties providing instructor services are Physician Assistants, Critical Care Nurses, Paramedic (specialties such as critical careTa, flight, tactical, etc.), Combat Medics, Occupational Therapists
Tactical Combat Medic SMEs are Physician Assistants. Some requirements may identify a Tactical Combat Medic SME that is a Paramedic specialty.
| 3 | 80 | 1.6.2 | 1 | Individual task orders may require personnel to work flex hours. Please clarify. | Task Orders for course delivery may have variation in schedules. For example, first week of training may require 3 hours podium on day 1 and 6 hours podium on day 2. Time should be flexible to accommodate course execution without requiring extended hours. | |
| 4 | 104 | 5.2.6 | 1 | Are submissions required to be 508 compliant, or do the instructors need to tech 508 compliance? Please clarify. | Product deliverables are required to be 508 compliant for specific learning management systems. Developers/designers working products must understand and be able to complete tasks required for 508 complaince. (i.e. meta tags/captions, etc.) | |
| 5 | 84 | C. Proposal Preparation Instructions | 3.(a) TAB D | Will the government accept the contractor Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors directly filled out from the RFP to include in this TAB? | Yes, Representation and Certifications shall also match those in SAM.GOV. | |
| 6 | 84 | C. Proposal Preparation Instructions | 3.(a) TAB D | Is it the government's intent to include the questions from 52.222-22 and place them under section 52.212-3 on page 29 to be answered by the contractor? If so, will this be sufficient to comply with 52.222-22? If not, will 52.222-22 be included in a revised RFP form the government or will a separate form need to be generated by the contractor? | Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 Tab D | TAB D has been revised to only include FAR 52.212-3, which incorporates language in FAR 52.222-22. |
| 7 | 56 | 52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Representation (SEP 2021) | (8)(II) (End of Clause) | Is it the government's intent to allow the contractor to sign and date and insert authorized signer's name and title in this section? If not, then where can the contractor provide this information? | Yes, the contractor shall sign and date authorized signer's name and address per the FAR 52.219-28 Provision Instructions with this provision. | |
| 8 | 64 | Addendum to 52.212-1 | A.2. | What documentation will the contractor receive from the government after electronically submitting their proposal prior to the closing date and time confirming successful delivery of their proposal to the POCs listed in the RFP? | The Government will acknowledge receipt of proposal through email back to vendor and or acknowledgement of receipt through the DoD SAFE website. | |
| 9 | 64 | Addendum to 52.212-1 | A.2. | Will the government accept a Microsoft Outlook delivery email receipt from the contractor as sufficient documentation confirming timely government receipt of the contractors proposal if date and time on the receipt shows that it was delivered prior to the closing date and time? | Yes | |
| 10 | 67 | 1.6.7 Special Qualifications | 1.6.7.4.1 | Is it the government’s intent in the PWS to refer to Table 4-1 in TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-3 since Table 4.1 does not exist in the Pamphlet? | Base PWS | See corrected Base PWS Para 1.6.7.4.1 corrected to 350-70-3, Section 4-4 Civilian and Contractor Instructor and Developer Requirements |
| 11 | 67 | 1.6.7 Special Qualifications | 1.6.7.4.1 | Which part(s) of the AR 600 Series requires the CAC-T, ATSC, or ATSC-approved equivalent course? | Base PWS | See revised Base PWS Para 1.6.7.4.1. Removed AR 600 series from PWS. No parts of AR 600 series. |
| 12 | 80 | 1.6.2 | 1 | Please clarify hours - as stated 0600-1700 | Hours listed are core operation hours. Any variations of the core operation hours of the organization will be identified at the task order level. | |
| 13 | 75; 95 | e; 1.7 | Please clarify and define "staffing on 1st day of performance" vs. "the contractor shall have personnel on board during the 30-day phase in/phase out period.” | Staffing on 1st day of performance is for Contract Manager and Onsite leads. 30-day phase in/phase out includes transitioning any incumbents and processing of new candidates/personnel for Current Task Orders. | ||
| 14 | 107 | PWS | 5.12 | As states : "5.12. SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT: The contractor shall provide knowledge and expertise in a specific subject, industry or technical area (Medical and Non-Medical). To support these activities, the contractor shall perform assigned tasks as specified at the task order level. Areas of expertise tasks include but are not limited to: |
- Medical Personnel (Physician Assistants, Nurses, Paramedics, Medics)
- Veterinarians
- Instructional Design/Virtual Instruction
- Analysts
- Technical Instructors"
| For recruiting/hiring, retention, and maintenance of individual accreditation/certification costs, are there any particular skillsets or certifications needed to conduct any of the acronym task orders (IPAP, TCMC, DOTD_LTD_CORE, DOTD_LTD_SUPPL, DOTD_ITD) of the pricing matrix? | Skillsets, certifications, or experience required within each subject matter area is identified at the task order level. | |||||
| 15 | 79 | Objectives | 1.3 | As states : "Task orders requiring short-term, task-based services and project-based requirements will be based on individual PWSs." |
a. For recruiting and retention purposes, what is considered short-term duration?
b. Will the government plan to provide advance notice for task order execution, or does the government anticipate all personnel to start upon award of the contract award? Base PWS See Revised BASE PWS Para 5.17 (a) Short-term duration projects will be executed based on short-term need. For example, voice over talent or actor requirements for video-based training.
Due to low frequency of occurrence, short-term task requirements will be negotiated as needed.
16 79, 102, 104 1.6.12, 5.6, 5.8.1 For pricing purposes
a. How much travel is anticipated?
b. Are there any overseas travel anticipated, that requires a passport? (a) Travel requirements are identified at the task order level. If travel is required it accounts for less than 5% of the time.
(b) No overseas travel anticipated
| 17 | 69, 74, 85 | Staffing Plan/ Key Personnel/ Qualifications and Experience | ||
| PWS | ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1, C.3.b., EVALUATION-COMMERICAL ITEM 3.b.i., PWS 1.6.10 | The government requests resumes and signed contingent offer letters of employment for all proposed key personnel; The government requests a skill mix personnel experience or qualifications and their personnel availability) to include resumes, certifications, and signed contingent offer letters of employment |
for all key personnel proposed.
In PWS 1.6.10, the government asks for a designed Contract Program Manager, and onsite POC/Onsite Lead.
For clarification, besides the Contract Program Manager and Onsite POC/Onsite Lead, does the government require resumes, certifications and signed offer letters of employment from anyone else in this solicitation? If the POC/onsite lead is per task order, how are offerors supposed to submit these resumes in the proposal?
Base PWS 1.6.10.
See Revision to Base PWS 1.6.10. Key Personnel and revision to ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1, C.3.b. Subfactor 2i and ii.
18 7 Part 1 1.6.12 The PWS states that the contractor shall designate a contract program manager and an onsite poc/lead for task orders. These labor categories are not listed in Atch A for pricing in the TEP. Will the government add these positions? If not, please advise as to how to handle including the cost for such positions. Government will not add this labor category to Attachment A. Contract Program Manager should be designated at the corporate level (external to the task order).
On-site lead requirements will be identified at the task order level. See Revised Base PWS 1.6.10.
| 19 | 111 | Part 5 | 5.17 | Please confirm that these labor categories listed in this section will be priced at the task order level as needed? | All labor categories required for current and future task orders will be priced at the base contract level. Should a change be needed in the future, this will be done through a base contract modification. | |
| 20 | Atch A | TEP tab | The numbering for 5.15 and 5.16 are out of order, please confirm the hours are correct for each regardless of placement. | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Numbering Order corrected in Attachment A. Hours are based on historical Hours. Hours in the TEP Tab are for evaluation purposes only. | |
| 21 | Atch D | The file named "W9124J22R0003 Atch D Specific Relevant Contract Format" is titled Attachment C when it is opened. Please confirm that Attachment D is "Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet" and Attachment C is "Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form." | See Response to Question 1. | |||
| 22 | 66 | C | 2(a) | RFP states that "Offerors shall submit a sanitized electronic copy of their proposal via email. Sanitized copy means that the entire volume content (except cover page) should be sanitized from company's title, logo, and/or any identifying markings." Does this mean that Prime, subcontractors, or combined teaming partner references shall not be referenced in any/all volumes? How will you differentiate between Prime and Subcontractor past performances if contractors name is not identified? Does the government request a sanitized copy of all five (5) volumes? | Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 | Requirement for a Sanitized Copy has been removed See revised Language in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 C.2(a). |
| 23 | 70 | C | 3(c)(5) | RFP states "Summary Page: describe the role of the offeror, and of each subcontractor, teaming partner that will perform a significant portion of the requirement." |
1. How can this information be sanitized IAW Section C2(a) instructions?
| See Response to Question #22. | |||||||
| 24 | 69 | B | B | b. Subfactor 2 Staffing Plan/Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience - "Responses must demonstrate understanding of personnel required to execute PWS 1.6.11 and 1.6.19" We are unable to locate 1.6.19. Can the government please clarify? | Base PWS | See revised BASE PWS. Replaced 1.6.11 and 1.6.19 with 1.6.10. and Part 5 of the Base PWS | |
| 25 | 69 | B | a.Subfactor 1(ii) | Volume II Subfactor I- Technical Capability "Provide sample of courses (asynchronous, synchronous, resident/classroom) and tool, systems used to create/develop training products." What format would the government like vendors to share these samples? | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Volume II Subfactor I- Technical Capability | See revised language in Volume II Subfactor 1.ii bullet 3. | |
| 26 | 85 | PWS | 1.6.10 | Key Personnel: Is the Onsite Lead and the Contract Program Manager the same position? Are there specific qualifications for the Onsite Lead? Do both positions require on site location, or just the Onsite Lead? | See Response to Question #17 | ||
| 27 | 99 | Part 5 | 5.1 | Since the government is requesting pricing for individual Task Orders 1 through 5, will the government please identify specific labor category on-site requirements by Task Order for each Task Order the government is requesting pricing for in the W9124J22R000_Atch_A_Pricing_Matrix_3.24.2022 pricing matrix template? | Specific labor categories are identified in each of the tabs of the pricing matrix and corresponding Task Order PWS. |
| 28 | Attach A Pricing Matrix | TEP | Row 11 & 15 | These are two different historical labor categories referencing the same PWS Ref. Would the government please clarify, thank you? | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Attachment A Corrected duplicate PWS references |
| 29 | Attach A Pricing Matrix | TEP | Row 27-29 | Is pricing requested for Multimedia Developer/Video Producer IV, PWS Ref 5.8? | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Attachment A Corrected added missing Labor Category |
| 30 | Attach A Pricing Matrix | TEP | Row 42-45 | Is pricing requested for Consultant Non-Medical Subject Matter Expert III and IV as well as Consultant Medical- Subject Matter Expert I and II, PWS Ref 5.12? | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Attachment A Corrected added missing Labor Category |
| 31 | Attach A Pricing Matrix | TEP | Row 46-49 | Are the titles for this Historical Labor Category different for levels I-III, with IV including the word Training, PWS Ref 5.13? | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | All labor categories include a level IV. Added missing LC to Attachment A, Corrected LC description Systems Training Analyst in alignment with to 5.13 |
| 32 | Attach A Pricing Matrix | TEP | Row 58-61 | Are the titles for this Historical Labor Category different for levels I-III, with IV not including the word Support, PWS Ref 5.15? | Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Attachment A, corrected to Training Specialist for all levels in alignment with 5.15 LC titles. |
| 33 | 85 of 120 | PWS 1.6 General Information | 1.6.10 | This paragraph states "The Contractor shall designate a Contract Program Manager/ and an Onsite POC/Onsite Lead for all task orders." This paragraph further identifies a Contract Program Manager/Onsite Leads" and a "Program Manager/Site Lead". Will the Government please clarify if this is three separated positions with similar names or which position identification is correct? | See Response to Question #17 | |
| 34 | 106 of 120 | PWS | 5.1 | This paragraph identifies a Project Manager. Is this Project Manager the same position as the category identified in PWS paragraph 1.6.10 on page 85 of 120? | No, Labor categories listed in Section 5.0 (5.10 Project Manager) are specifically for the task order professional service requirement. | |
| 35 | 3-5 of RFP | RFP & Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Schedule B | CLINs 0001 through 0004 in RFP don't match the CLINs listed in the 'CLIN Pricing' tab of the "Attachment A Pricing Matrix" (CLINs 0001-0003). Will the Government please clarify which of the CLIN structures listed above are correct and update the applicable document? | RFP CLINs and Pricing Matrix | CLINs in RFP renumbered to match Pricing Matrix. |
| 36 | 10 | RFP & Attachment A Pricing Matrix | Schedule B | CLIN 4002 (ODC) in RFP states NTE Ceiling of $4,800.00 - The 'CLIN Pricing' tab in the "Attachment A Pricing Matrix, states $10,000.00. Will the Government please clarify which of the NTE Ceiling values listed above are correct and update the applicable document? | RFP CLINS | RFP CLIN 4002 Pricing updated to match Pricing Matrix. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .