09r0011-0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY SERVICES CONTRACT FOR MUNITIONS & EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN (MEC) RESPONSE ACTIONS, FORMER WAIKOLOA MANEUVER AREA (WMA) AND HONOLULU DISTRICT (POH) AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR), U.S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, HONOLULU DISTRICT

a. This amendment #0006 includes the follow ing changes: 1) revises "EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD" section; 2) revises "QUESTIONS/RESPONSES" section; and 3) revises "PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS" section.

(See continued pages for a summary of changes)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Mar-2009

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9128A-09-R-0011

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

17-Feb-2009

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Mar-2009

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USAED, HONOLULU

BLDG S230

FT. SHAFTER HI 96858-5440

W9128A 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128A-09-R-0011

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

b. The following section have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked, using the non-cost/price (technical) factors listed below in section A. There shall be no trade offs. Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305; however, there shall be no comparative assessment of Offerors’ past performance.

A. Evaluation Factors The award decision will be made after the Government’s evaluation of the following factors:

Factor 1: Previous Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Key Personnel Factor 4: Price

B. Basis of Award

The Government will make award to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. The basis of award is the low price for the first task order requirement. The Government intends to make award without entering discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Any proposal which does not meet the minimum requirement of acceptability (or neutral for past performance) for any one or more of the Technical (non-priced) Factors will be considered unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

C. Definitions

The evaluator shall select one of the adjectival ratings below for the non-price factors that most clearly matches the assessment of the proposal's merit based on the established evaluation criteria. All offers shall be assigned one of the below adjective ratings.

ACCEPTABLE (A): The proposal meets the stated requirements. The response is considered complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is good probability of success and little risk that this offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements.

NEUTRAL (N): The offeror has no record of relevant past performance. This rating applies to Past Performance only.

UNACCEPTABLE (U): The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements. What was submitted lacks essential information or is conflicting and unproductive.

RELEVANT PROJECT: A remediation and disposal of Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) contract or task order including ALL of the following requirements: 1) Offeror performing or performed as the prime contractor 2) currently active or completed within the last five (5) years from proposal due date: 3) Contract amount of at least $3,000,000.00; 4) at least 50% of labor effort was or is being performed by the offeror; 4) the offeror demonstrated the ability to treat, demilitarize, and dispose of Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive

Hazard (MPPEH) in accordance with applicable local, state and federal rules and regulations; and 5) the offeror demonstrated the ability to deal with unique archaeological and cultural resources at project sites, D. Specific Evaluation Criteria

FACTOR 1: PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES

Basis of Evaluation for Factor 1, Previous Experiences:

Acceptable: The offeror submitted as required, at least one relevant project.

Unacceptable: The offeror did not submit as required, one relevant project.

Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 1, Previous Experiences Offerors shall identify one but not more than three (3) relevant project(s) as defined above. For each relevant project, the offeror shall provide a short description of the project’s scope and contract amount; a discussion on the archaeological and cultural resource issues and /or concerns at the project sites, and subsequent dealings with state and local agencies; and description of the process used to treat, demilitarize, and dispose of MPPEH. The offeror shall limit the discussion of each presented relevant project to not more than two (2), 8 ½ x 11, pages per relevant project. The font size used shall not be smaller than 11.

The offeror’s adherence to prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly enforced by the evaluators.

Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, information on the third page of a relevant project will not be evaluated, which may cause the offeror’s Factor 1 proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Basis of Evaluation for Factor 2, Past Performance

Offeror received at least a “Satisfactory” overall rating for all relevant project(s) submitted. The Government’s past performance evaluation process will involve contacting the offerors’ provided customers and requesting information from references and other customers to validate and/or supplement information provided as part of the evaluation. The Government shall consider information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.

Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

Offeror’s which do not show relevant past performance, or where no known past performance is found, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this Factor. The rating provided in this determination will be “Neutral.”

Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 2, Past Performance:

Offerors shall provide a point of contact and an alternate point of contact as a reference for all the relevant projects listed in Factor 1, Previous Experience that will be able to answer questions in areas such as overall performance; safety record and degree of commitment to safety; compliance with local, regional and national environmental regulations; timeliness, adherence to schedule, and schedule compliance; and overall customer satisfaction.

IMPORTANT: It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide both accurate points of contact and alternate points of contact for each identified project, and current telephone numbers and email adresses. Failure of references to be able to respond to past performance inquiries may preclude the evaluator’s ability to assign a past performance rating.

For the presented contract, if problems were encountered during the project, the offeror may provide an explanation of problems encountered and the corrective action taken, if any.

FACTOR 3: Key Personnel

Basis of Evaluation for Factor 3, Key Personnel:

Evaluators will evaluate key MEC response actions personnel directly responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of this contract. The evaluators will base their determinations on the description of experience and qualification of personnel provided on respective key personnel resumes. Failure to meet minimum qualifications for any one Key Personnel will result in an unacceptable rating

The following positions are considered Key Personnel: 1) Principal Investigator/Program Manager; 2) Field Operations Manager/Senior Program Manager; 3) Quality Control (QC) Manager; 4) UXO QC Specialist;

5) Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS); 6) Safety Manager/Certified Industrial Hygienist; 7) UXO Safety Officer (UXOSO); and 8) Geographical Information System Manager.

1. Principal Investigator/Program Manager.

Minimum one (1), must be employee of prime contractor.

Responsibilities and duties include: (1) overall management of this contract; (2) ensuring compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Local, DoD especially Army/Army Corps of Engineers, and DDESB regulations, guidance, and policy, as well as the contract terms and conditions; (3) monitoring and controlling project costs and quality control; (4) assigning personnel consistent with contract requirements.

Minimum qualifications include the following: masters and/or bachelors degree in engineering or physical science; at least ten (10) years of experience managing large contracts and/or concurrent projects at multiple locations, five (5) years of which as a senior manager working on environmental assessment, remediation, and other related activities associated with environmental activities.

2. Field Operations Manager/Senior Project Manager Minimum one (1), must be employee of prime contractor.

Responsibilities include directing day-to-day operations in the field, assembling clearance teams and directing work associated with range clearance and ordnance remediation procedures, environmental, and compliance projects. Ensuring that elements of project plans can be implemented within schedule and within budget, recommending and justifying change orders, developing or modifying a method for tracking resources, coordinating work accomplished by subcontractors, monitoring and controlling costs, and complying with normal safety procedures, as well as regulatory requirements.

Minimum qualifications include the following: graduate of the U.S Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Indian Head, MD, and/or U.S. Army Bomb Disposal School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD or equivalent; a minimum of fifteen years (15) in EOD/UXO experiences with a minimum of five (5) years of which as field operations manager working on, clearance and disposal of MEC

3. Quality Control (QC) Manager Minimum one (1), must be employee of prime contractor.

Responsibilities include developing the QC program for the contract and tailoring to fit the requirements of each task order.

Minimum qualifications include the following: minimum five (5) years experience as a QC Manager in environmental quality control procedures for MEC clearance and disposal, or a minimum of eight (8) years of MEC experience with a certification by American Society for Quality as a Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), or Certified Quality Manager (CQMgr), or Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE).

4. UXO Quality Control Specialist Minimum one (1), must be employee of prime contractor

Responsibilities include developing, maintaining, and enforcing the QC program during field activities.

Minimum qualifications include the following: graduate of the U.S Naval EOD, Indian Head, MD, and/or U.S.

Army Bomb Disposal School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD or equivalent; certification or in training to obtain certification by American Society for Quality as a Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), or Certified Quality Manager (CQMgr), or Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE); eight (8) years experience in UXO field;

knowledge of munitions and explosive safety QC requirements and documented experience in projects similar to the task orders expected for this IDIQ contract; experienced in evaluation of the functions required of UXO Technicians I, II, III and SUXOS.

5. Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS) Minimum (2) two, at least one (1) must be employee of prime contractor.

Responsibilities include supervising all UXO related site work. Duties include scheduling and coordinating UXO operations, routine performance inspections, and submitting reports and schedules to the field project manager.

Minimum qualifications include the following: graduate of the U.S Naval EOD, Indian Head, MD, and/or U.S.

Army Bomb Disposal School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD or equivalent; 10 years of UXO experience of which five (5) years would be in the supervision of personnel working with unexploded ordnance; experienced in handling multi-team tasking for UXO remediation or range clearance operations; must be able to fully perform all of the functions enumerated for UXO Sweep Personnel and UXO Technicians I, II, and III. In addition, the SUXOS has the ability to perform the following functions is a requirement for the SUXOS: planning, coordinating, and supervising all contractor on-site OE activities; preparing standing operating procedures (SOPs) for MEC operations, ensuring compliance with DOD directives as well as local, state, and Federal statutes and codes; and certification of Ammunition, Explosives, and Dangerous Articles (AEDA) and/or range scrap as ready for turn-in or disposal in accordance with current policies. The SUXOS must also be fully capable of supervising multiple project teams which may be performing OE and OE-related activities: e.g., vegetation removal; land surveying; reconnaissance and classification of MEC, pyrotechnic items, and military explosives and demolition materials; locating surface and subsurface MEC; destroying UXO and MEC by burning or detonation; and/or transporting and storing MEC and demolition material.

6. Safety Manager/Certified Industrial Hygienist It is not necessary for the qualified individual for this position to be an employee of the prime contractor.

Responsibilities include implementing and overseeing the Contractor's corporate health and safety program and plans.

Minimum qualifications include the following: undergraduate degree in physical science, life science or engineering from an accredited college or university; five (5) years professional experience as a full-time industrial hygienist; documented experience in air monitoring technologies and in the development of personal protective equipment programs for working in potentially hazardous atmospheres; knowledge of applicable federal, state and local, and DoD, Army/Army Corps of Engineers occupational health and safety regulations and munitions; and certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.

7. UXO Safety Officer (UXOSO) Minimum one (1), must be employee prime contractor.

Responsibilities include ensuring that elements of the approved site health and safety plan are implemented and enforced on-site.

Minimum qualifications include the following: graduate of the U.S Naval EOD, Indian Head, MD, and/or U.S.

Army Bomb Disposal School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD or equivalent; eight (8) years working experience at MEC clearance and/or processing/recycling of range residue and munitions response sites where UXO was present (must be qualified UXO Tech III); must have experience in all phases of munitions response actions or range clearance activities, as appropriate for the contracted operation, and applicable safety standards; specialized training in UXO/explosive safety and personal and respiratory protective equipment, program implementation, proper use of demilitarization techniques, air monitoring instruments, air sampling methods, and interpretation of results; certified in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by a recognized organization such as the American Red Cross.

8. Geographical Information System (GIS) Manager Minimum one (1), must be employee of prime contractor.

Responsibilities include maintaining the spatial data that have been generated and assembled into a GIS to assist in the planning and performance of MEC removal actions at the Honolulu District (POH) Area of Responsibility (AOR); and directing the input data to the existing system as they become available. The existing system consists of base data layers for the property area, the property boundaries, detailed road and water networks, and ordnance removal locations.

Minimum qualifications include minimum 3 years of direct experience managing computerized GIS using ESRI (i.e., ArcGIS, Oracle database, etc.).

Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 3, Key Personnel:

All information is to be submitted on resumes. The Offeror shall submit academic qualifications and experience of key personnel staff possessing their respective qualification requirements. Each resume shall not exceed three pages and shall not include a font size of less than 11. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, information on the fourth page of a resume will not be evaluated, which may cause the offeror’s Factor 3 proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

A signed letter of intent from each of the proposed key personnel, stating that he or she intends to work on this contract if the offeror receives the award shall be submitted with their respective resumes. The Government will not evaluate submissions if a letter of intent is not included in the proposal, which will result in an unacceptable rating for this factor.

FACTOR 4: PRICE

Basis of Evaluation for Factor 4, Price:

. The basis of award is provided in paragraph B (Basis of Award) above. Price analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

- comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

- comparison of proposed prices with available historical information

- comparison of proposed prices with the Government Cost Estimate

Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Unrealistically low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal subject to the requirements of FAR 15.305 and

FAR 15.306.

Proposed hourly discipline and overhead rates for the IDIQ contract will be evaluated to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, and free of clerical or mathematical error.

Price proposals for the first task order will be evaluated to determine fair and reasonableness. It is also analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed and; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements.; and is consistent with the Offeror’s narrative of its plan on how the first task order will be executed. Responses that the offeror understands, or will comply with the specifications, paraphrasing the specifications; and general or overly broad responses such as ‘standard procedures will be employed’ or ‘well known techniques will be used” etc,. will not be sufficient to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

The Contracting Officer will evaluate the price proposals for unbalanced pricing. The Contracting Officer will reject an offer if he/she determines that the lack of price balancing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed IDIQ price rates to determine fair and reasonableness.

The Government will then evaluate the proposed task order price to determine fair and reasonableness, which will determine the lowest price.

Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 4

Offeror’s shall submit their proposed IDIQ price rates by completing the “Pricing Schedule” section provided in the Request for Proposal. Offeror shall include a breakdown of proposed overhead rates.

Offerors shall submit a lump sum price for the first task order with a detailed price breakdown including;

labor, other direct cost (i.e., equipment/materials), overhead and profit. Offeror shall provide the basis for all costs exceeding $2,500.00. Offerors shall submit a lump sum price for the first task order including a detailed price breakdown. Supporting price proposals from the Offeror’s Subcontractors (if any) shall also be submitted.

Offerors shall include a narrative of its plan on how the task order will be executed to enable the Government to determine if the task order price proposal is fair and reasonable.

--- END EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD SECTION ---

c. The following section have been modified:

QUESTIONS / RESPONSES

Q = QUESTIONS RECEIVED

R = GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

Q1: Reference the first task order requirement; Is it possible to download a copy of the Phase III EECA for Waikoloa Maneuver Area?

R1: Phase I, II and III of the EE/CA reports are available at the following website:

ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/poh/New%20Folder/

Q2: Reference the first task order requirement; Do you have a Most Probable Munition (MPM) for Sector 15?

R2: Information regarding MPM for Sector 15 is included in Phase III EA/CA report available through above ftp site.

Q3: Reference Page 39, a RELEVANT PROJECT is defined as, “A remediation and disposal of Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) contract or task order including ALL...”. Can an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract be used?

R3: No, an IDIQ contract may not be used as a relevant contract. The contract shall be a single stand alone contract.

Q4: In the call out boxes, figures and tables are we subject to the 11 pt. font size or can we use a more appropriate size for the items such as 8pt. font?

R4: The offeror may use a reduced font size for tables and figures. However, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that his/her proposal submittal is reasonably readable (i.e., requiring the use of magnifying glasess is not reasonable). Illegible material will not be reviewed.

Q5: Can we use 11 x 17 to produce maps, large charts and Microsoft Project Schedules? And if so, will they count as two pages?

R5: The narrative portion of the relevant project is limited to two (8½ x 11) pages. Maps, figures, charts, etc.

printed on an 11 x 17 size paper will be counted as one (1) page and not counted toward the two page maximum narrative portion. Note that the total submittal for Volume I shall not exceed 100 pages as per “SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS” Section of this RFP.

Q6: Reference paragraph 4.4 of the first task order Scope of Work (SOW), the Tax Map Key (TMK) indicated is for a nine (9) acre parcel within the Northwest section of Sector 15. What’s the balance of the acreage in relation to the listed TMK.

R6: The first task order SOW is revised with this amendment to include the correct TMK numbers. Please refer to the SOW revised 4 March 2009.

Q7: Reference Section 8.1 and 8.2 of the IDIQ SOW, does GIS data need to be included with the Draft and Final reports or just the Final reports?

R7: GIS data need to be in both Draft and Final reports. The Contractor shall incorporate the Government’s review comments on the draft to finalize the report.

Q8: Reference Section 2.4 of the IDIQ SOW. Per this section, the UXO activities are limited to a 40-hour work week. Please clarify if the 40 hour work week is only associated with UXO field activities or can a 50 hour work week be accomplished with no more than 40 hours of UXO related activities being conducted in a single work week?

R8: The 40-hour work week limitation is in relation to 40 hours of UXO related activities in a single work week.

The Contractor may work beyond the 40 hours/week as long as it is not UXO related activities.

Q9: Reference Section 4.2.1 of the first task order SOW. Per this section, to the maximum extent possible, the Contractor shall review and utilize the existing information listed in the previous approved Master Work Plan to develop the new Project Work Plan. When will the Master Work Plan be uploaded onto an ftp site for the Offerors to download and review?

R9: The previously accepted Master Work Plan will not be made available to potential Offerors. The previously POH-accepted Master Work Plan and/or Project Work Plan will be provided to the selected Contractor after contract award. Section 4.2.1 of the Scope of Work was included to indicate that there would be no need for the Contractor to start from scratch when preparing the PWP.

Q10: Reference Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of the IDIQ SOW. Per these sections, the MPPEH should be handled in accordance with Chapter 14, EM 1110-1-4009 and Errata Sheet No. 2. There is also new guidance DOD Instruction (DoDI 4140.62, November 25, 2008), which has new requirements for MPPEH. Will the new guidance also be included in the SOW?

R10: For the most part the DoDI 4140.62. Nov 25, 2008, Enclosure 3, paragraph 2; is very consistent with EM 1110-1-4009. It will not be cited in this SOW; however, the Contractor may use it as reference and/or guiding document.

Q11: Reference Section 4.6.1 of the IDIQ SOW. Per this section, there are two existing GPO areas to support the MEC activities in Task 4 of this SOW. When will the GPO Letter Reports be made available to all Offerors?

R11: The GPO letter reports will be made available to the selected Contractor after contract award. Section 4.6.1 was included to indicate that there is no requirement for the Contractor to assist the Government in establishing GPO area for this Task Order.

Q12: Reference Section 5 "Period of Contract Schedule" of the first task order SOW. Please clarify if all 450 acres within Sector 15 needs to have the removal action completed by October 30, 2009? With a start date of August 25, 2009 this only allows 50 workdays to compete the removal action, which equates to clearing approximately 10 acres per workday.

R12: That is correct. Historically, on an average, the previous two contractors working at Waikoloa were able to clear this many acres well within this time frame. For informational purposes, this was done with four seven-man teams in the field.

Q13: Reference Section 8 "Government Furnished" of the first task order SOW. Per this section, the pertinent EE/CA information and the DDESB approved Explosive Safety Plan and Explosive Safety Submission will be furnished. Please clarify when and how these documents will be available to all Offerors.

R13: Refer to “R1” (Response to Question one) above for Phase I, II, and II of the EE/CA reports.

Under this IDIQ, DDESB-approved Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) plans will be provided to the selected Contractor after the award of each task order. The Explosive Siting Plan (ESP) shall be task order specific, is usually included as part of the Project Work Plan, and in accordance with DID MR-005-04. See Section 4.2.1. of the first task order SOW.

Q14: Please define the margin requirements for all proposal volumes.

R14: There are no margin requirements; however, it is preferred that the margins be no less than 0.5 inch, and no more than 1 inch.

Q15: Do you require a technical approach for the sample task or just pricing for the sample task, as there are several references to a technical approach in the RFP (e.g., page 64 references technical capability)? If a technical approach section is required, would you please indicate within which Section (Factor) of the Volume I, Technical Proposal, you would like the offeror to include their written response to the Technical Approach?

R15: To clarify, the task is not a “sample task”, it is the first task order requirement being issued under this IDIQ contract. Only pricing for the first task order is required. A detailed price breakdown including; labor, other direct cost (i.e., equipment/materials) overhead and profit is required with the basis for all costs exceeding $2,500.00.A narrative of the Offerors plan on how the first task order will be executed is required to be listed since it will be used to 1) evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements listed in the first task order scope of work, and 2) ensure that the price proposal is consistent with the narrative. The narrative for the for the first task order, which could include the Offeror’s assumptions, will ONLY be reviewed after the Offeror was deemed technically acceptable from Volume I, Technical Proposal. Therefore, the narrative should be submitted in “VOLUME II, COMPLETED SF-1449 AND PRICE PROPOSAL”. The “PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS” and “EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD” sections are revised with this Amendment #0005.

Q16: Reference “Proposal Submittal Instructions” Section, paragraph b (1). This section requests the offeror to provide “…a summary of studies or documents conducted for other clients and the amount of each study….” as part of the technical proposal. Will you please clarify what information you’d like to see in relation to “studies or documents” for MEC response actions. Also, will you please indicate under which Evaluation Factor POH will evaluate this information?

R16: The summary of studies or documents may include information such as the type of study done (i.e Soil studies, CWM studies, etc.) or documents prepared (i.e. ESS, ESP, Work Plan, Safety Plans, etc). This information may be included as part of the resumes of the key personnel to establish experiences and qualifications.

Q17: Reference “Proposal Submittal Instructions” Section, paragraph b (1). This section requests the offeror to provide “…a fee schedule of those personnel to be used such as labor rates….” in the technical proposal. Is it your intent that the offeror submit this as part of the technical proposal versus the cost proposal? If so, do you expect the offeror to provide actual labor rates and fees or can you clarify the specific information you require? Also, if required as part of the technical proposal, will you please indicate under which Evaluation Factor POH will evaluate this information?

R17: The fee schedule is not required in the technical proposal. The “Proposal Submittal Instructions” section is revised with this amendment to delete the requirement.

Q18: Reference “Proposal Submittal Instructions” Section, paragraph b (1). This section requests the offeror to provide “…a General Management Plan (GMP) describing how various projects would be managed, to include an indication of when and in what capacity any subcontractors would be used.” Will you please indicate under which Evaluation Factor POH will evaluate this information?

R18: The GMP will be evaluated under “Key Personnel”, and would include information about key personnel performing as the prime.

Q19: Reference”Evaluation Factors for Award” Paragraph C. Definitions. In reference to achieving an acceptable rating, please clarify and further define what criteria will be used to determine if the offeror has a “good probability of success and little risk.”

R19: An acceptable Technical Proposal is sufficient to infer that there would be a good probability of success and little risk. Therefore, no other criteria will be used for that determination.

Q20: Reference “Evaluation Factors for Award” paragraph D. Specific Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1: Previous Experiences. Please explain the benefit of submitting more than one project when the basis of the evaluation for Factor 1 states that an acceptable rating can be achieved by submitting “at least one relevant project”? How will projects #2-3 be used in the evaluation process if one project allows us to achieve an acceptable rating (which is the highest rating possible)?

R20: The requirement is for one (1) relevant project, and there is no extra benefit in submitting more than one relevant project. However, historically, potential Offerors requested that there would be allowance to submit more than what is required in the event the Government determines that a specific project submitted is not relevant.

Q21: Reference “Evaluation Factors for Award” paragraph D. Specific Evaluation Criteria, Factor 3: Key Personnel,. 3. Quality Control (QC) Manager. Please clarify how the requirements for the Quality Control (QC) Manager were developed. The minimum qualification stated in this section is not required for other USACE MEC-focused contracts similar in scope and complexity. RFP requirements from other recent USACE RFPs require the following qualifications: “Corporate Quality Manager. The Contractor shall designate a Corporate Quality Manager with documented training and with at least 3 years experience in directly related work, and who can address overall quality management, quality control/assurance, quality auditing, or process improvement. The Quality Manager assures overall quality of contract deliverables and general contract compliance”. We respectfully request POH revise the minimum qualifications to meet the industry standard for Corporate Quality Control Manager as indicated above and/or include the USACE Construction Quality Management for Contractors training as alternate to CQA, CQMgr, CMQ/OE, Six Sigma certification.

R21: Due to the large scale and complexity of this contract, the Quality Control Manager should meet quality industry standards. It is expected that multiple simultaneous tasks in various locations will occur under this contract, and quality control is a major part of the process. The American Society for Quality is an internationally recognized accrediting body. The requirement for ASQ credentials have been part of the requirements for many USACE, NAVFAC, and other government contracts. The “Evaluation Factors for Award” section is revised with this amendment to revise the minimum qualification requirements for the Quality Control Manager.

Q22: Reference “Evaluation Factors for Award”, pargraph D. Specific Evaluation Criteria, Factor 3 Key Personnel,

4. UXO Quality Control Specialist. Please clarify how the requirements for the UXO Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS) were developed. The minimum qualification stated in this section is not required for other USACE contracts similar in scope and complexity. Other recent USACE RFPs required the following qualifications:

"UXO Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS). This individual shall meet the qualifications, and perform the functions, as described in Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Technical Paper 18, Qualifications for Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Technicians and Personnel.

The minimum requirements stated in DDESB TP-18 are:

Training Required

1. Graduate of Military EOD School of the United states or

2. Graduate of a military EOD school of Canada, Great Britain, Germany, or Australia or

3. Graduate of a formal Training course of instruction or EOD assistant courses.

Experience:

8 years

Special Requirements:

UXOQCS must have experience in all phases of munitions response actions or range clearance activities, as appropriate for the contracted operation, and the transportation, handling and storage of munitions and commercial explosives. This individual may develop/implement the QCPP.”

We respectfully request POH to revise the minimum qualifications to meet the industry standard for UXO Quality Control Specialist as required by DDESB TP-18.

R22: Due to the large scale and complexity of this contract, the Quality Control Specialist should meet quality industry standards. It is expected that multiple simultaneous tasks in various locations will occur under this contract, and quality control is a major part of the process. The American Society for Quality is an internationally recognized accrediting body. The requirement for ASQ credentials have been part of the requirements for many

USACE, NAVFAC, and other government contracts. The “Evaluation Factors for Award” section is revised with this amendment to revise the minimum qualification requirements for the Quality Control Specialist.

Q23: Reference “Evaluation Factors for Award” Section, paragraph D. Specific Evaluation Criteria, Factor 3 Key Personnel, 8. GIS Manager. Instructions indicate GIS Manager qualifications to be a "minimum of 3 years of direct experience managing computerized GIS within a Microstation GIS environment." However, paragraph 4.3.3 a.of the IDIQ scope of work, on page 26 of the solicitation, states "Deliverables in MicroStation, MapInfo, GeoMedia, AutoCAD, or another geospatial software format will not be accepted." Must the GIS Manager be required to have Microstation experience despite GIS project files in that format being unacceptable to POH per the solicitation IDIQ scope of work, or can the minimum years of experience be satisfied with ESRI (i.e., ArcGIS) software which is the accepted format?

R23: The “Evaluation Factors for Award” section is revised with this amendment to revise the minimum qualification requirements for the GIS Manager.

Q24: Will Offerors have access to contract reports from the 2002 and 2008 clearance contracts mentioned in the IDIQ SOW to include MEC, MPPEH, cultural properties, and natrual resources reports?

R24: Contract DACA87-03-D-0014 with American Technologies, Inc. was awarded in 2002 and completed in 2007.

There were a total of thirteen (13) task orders awarded under this IDIQ contract. The most recent final reports for task orders 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011 and ZH01 are provided via this link ftp://ftp.usace.army.mil/pub/poh/WMA-MEC%20removal%20final%20reports/

Reports for task orders 0001 through 0007 are not available. Field work for the current contract W9128A-08-C- 0012 with Dawson Environet JV, LLC is on-going, therefore there is no final report for this contract.

--- END QUESTIONS / RESPONSES SECTION ---

d. The following section have been modified:

SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS:

a. Entire proposal package including the price proposal and technical (non-price) proposal shall be received no later than the specified proposal due date and time (Hawaiian Standard Time). Offerror’s shall submit an original and four copies. Proposals may be handcarried; delivered by a Courier; or mailed to Ms. Maria Buckner at the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Attn: CECT-POH-S (M. Buckner) Building 230, Room 103 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440

Note that Fort Shafter military installation base is secured and requires check-in at the front gate with current vehicle registration, safety check and a licensed driver. In addition, Building 230 is a secured building which requires visitors to use phones located outside the main entrances on the first floor to contact someone in the building to be escorted in. For proposals being handcarried or delivered by a Courier, the following individuals may be contacted by order of priority:

Maria Buckner, 438-8583 Linda Oshiro, 438-8572

Jyun Yamamoto, 438-9548

Offeror shall allow sufficient time for security entrances when delivering its proposal.

b. Proposals shall be submitted in two separate envelopes.

(1) The first envelope shall be marked “VOLUME I, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W9128A- 09-R-0011”. The entire technical proposal package shall not exceed 100 pages with font size not less than 11. The proposal shall contain specific information of evidence of previous experience on similar projects with specified roles and responsibilities as the prime contractor, a summary of studies or documents conducted for other clients and the amount of each study and a general management plan (GMP) describing how various projects would be managed, to include an indication of when and in what capacity any subcontractors would be used. To determine whether the company is qualified, the proposal shall contain the specific role and responsibility of the primary contractor for each project listed and a summary that demonstrates their technical qualification. The offeror must be able to demonstrate experience in order to be deemed technically qualified. As a minimum, the proposal shall list the primary role and responsibility of the prime contractor along with technical information addressing the non-price technical evaluation factors identified in the “EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR AWARD”, Section of this RFP.

(2) The second envelope shall be marked “VOLUME II, COMPLETED SF-1449 AND PRICE

PROPOSAL”.

(a) Offeror shall complete the “PRICE PROPOSAL” section of the RFP including its proposed labor and overhead rates as instructed in the “CONTRACT PERIOD, CONTRACT PERIOD;

SCHEDULE; OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT”, Section of this RFP. Offeror shall also include any prices of proposed subcontractors as well as their overhead prices. Overhead rates shall be submitted along with an explanation of what are associated with the rates such as use of computers, rent, benefits, etc.

(b) Offeror shall submit a lump sum price including the price breakdown for the first task order requirement including the Scope of Work entitled, “Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Removal Action & Supporting Functions, Former Waikoloa Maneuver Area, Waimea, Big Island, Hawaii”, dated 12 February 2009, revised 4 March 2009. A detailed price breakdown including; labor, other direct cost (i.e., equipment/materials), overhead and profit is required with the basis of all costs exceeding $2,500.00.

(c) Offeror shall submit a narrative of its plan on how the first task order will be executed.

(cd) Offeror shall complete and sign the SF-1449 including FAR contract provision 52.212-3

OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2008)

ALTERNATE I (APR 2002).

--- END SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS SECTION ---

e. All other terms and conditions including the proposal due date/time of 20 March 2009, 2:00 p.m. HST remains unchanged.

(End of Summary of Changes)