URAttachment1.docx

ERS/LTRA – Unrestricted

W912DQ-12-R-3003

Responses to Contractor Questions

1. Section C.4 (Key Personnel), second paragraph and L.3.2.2 (Resumes of Key Management Personnel), third paragraph: The first sentence in each paragraph excludes Project Managers from the list of positions that may be filled by subcontractors or consultants. The second sentence states that "Additional Project Managers can be from teaming relationships." Would USACE please clarify if Project Managers are or are not allowed to be used on this contract if they are not employed by the prime contractor?

RESPONSE: Project management is primarily the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. However, additional Project Managers from approved team members can be proposed.

2. Section L.3.2.2.12 (Multi-Disciplined Technical Staff): If a proposer elects to provide resumes for additional key personnel positions, what criteria will USACE use to evaluate such resumes?

RESPONSE: Resumes from these positions are not requested and if received will not be evaluated.

3. Per Section M, 5.4 Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, g., “The goals for this procurement are as follows: Small Business: 50.0% of the total contract value...”

It is assumed that this percentage is “of total contract value” for DOD; however, the SB goal for a Contractor would be 50.0% of their Total Subcontracted Amount. Please verify that this is correct.

RESPONSE: Revised Small Business goal of 20% of total contract value. See revised Section M, paragraph 5.4 in amendment 1.

4. The evaluation criteria for the Small Business Plan (5.4. Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, Subparagraph g, Page 237 of 240) states the goals as a percent of total contract value as follows:

1. Small Business (SB)-50%

1. Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)-17%

1. Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)-18%

1. Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business-10%

1. Service Disable Veteran Owned Small Business SDVOSB-4% The subparagraph also includes a note: “(Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects 18% of the contract value for Woman Owned Small Business would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal).”

The total of SDB, WOSB, HUBZone and SDVOSB goals, based on the above breakout, is 49% of the total contract value. This would mean that if an offeror commits to a SB goal of 50% that only 1% of the contract value would be committed to SBs that do not also qualify as an SDB, WOSB, HUBZone or SDVOSB. Is this the intent of these goals?

RESPONSE: See revised Section M, paragraph 5.4 Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, Subparagraph g in amendment 1.

5. The evaluation criteria for the Small Business Plan (5.4. Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, Subparagraph g, Page 237 of 240) states overall SB goal as 50% of total contract value. Meeting or exceeding this goal would mean that the prime contractor would perform 50% of the total contract value. Previous ERS MATOC solicitations that expressed the goals as a percent of total contract value at a much lower level (for example, the June 2012 USACE MEGA South Pacific Division Unrestricted ERS MATOC Solicitation SB goal is 25% of total contract value). Is this the USACE’s intent to set the SB goals as a percent of total contract value?

RESPONSE: Revised Small Business goal of 20% of total contract value. See revised section in Section M, paragraph 5.4 in the amendment 1.

6. Would the USACE consider as a project multiple task orders at the same site, all relevant to this scope of work? The government often allots funding through multiple task order awards for work at the same site.

RESPONSE: Yes. See revised text in Section L, paragraph 3.2.1 of amendment 1.

7. Previous ERS solicitations issued under MEGA within the districts of the Northwestern Division, such as W912DQ-11-R-3011, W912DQ-11-R-3001, and W91238-12-R0033, gave firms 45 days to prepare responses to the RFP. For this solicitation, however, the Government has given industry only 33 days to respond. We respectfully request that Government provide industry with the same 45 days period as was previously allotted to small business concerns so as to prepare an appropriate response to this solicitation.

RESPONSE: The due date for proposals will remain 24 October 2012.

8. Page 237 states that the total subcontracting goal for this procurement is "50% of total contract value." Please clarify if this means "total subcontracted value" or "total contract value" or “total awarded value” -- e.g., does the Government intend to see a flow down to Small Business interests of half ($60M) of the total $120M established for this solicitation? If so, then such goals appear to be incongruous with USACE’s overall goals as they were represented to industry over the past year.

RESPONSE: Revised Small Business goal of 20% of total contract value. See revised Section M, paragraph 5.4 in the amendment 1.

9. The Small Business participation goals outlined on page 237 appear to be incongruous with USACE’s overall subcontracting goals, as well as the DoD’s Office of Small Business Programs, and the goals presented to industry over this past year. For example, the stated SB goals are 36.7%; SDB goals are 5%; WOSB goals are 5%; HZ goals are 3%; and SDVOSB goals are 3%. As we have built teams based on these public goals, we respectfully request clarification regarding this change.

RESPONSE: See revised Section M, paragraph 5.4 Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan, Subparagraph g in amendment 1.

10. As has been publicly presented by USACE with regard to MEGA, industry is supposed to be allowed to use previously submitted PPQs for projects used to demonstrate Previous Experience. Similarly, previous ERS solicitations have allowed respondents to use and submit PPQs that were completed within the past year. Section 3.3.2 (page 215) notes that the respondents should not “reference … previously submitted PPQs” and that the Government may use previously submitted “PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.” The RFP, however, is unclear as to if the respondent may include those PPQs that have been completed for projects that are being evaluated. Please clarify if the use of previously prepared PPQs is authorized for this solicitation.

RESPONSE: Yes, a PPQ previously prepared may be submitted for this procurement.

11. Page 204 states that an “email address” should be on the proposal cover, title page, and table of contents. Please clarify this statement, as an email address on a proposal cover and table of contents does not seem warranted when no names of persons authorized to negotiate or bind a responding company are being mentioned on said pages. Such data does seem warranted for the title page and the individuals to be named in accordance with Section 2.4.1.(c).

RESPONSE: Provide the requested information as required in the RFP.

12. What is the last date questions will be accepted?

RESPONSE: See Section L, paragraph 1.7.

13. In reference to Section L, 3.3.2 Past Performance Questionnaire, will the Government accept previously submitted PPQs and CCASS ratings in lieu of new PPQs?

RESPONSE: Yes

14. The RFP refers to Quality Assurance and Quality Control throughout in a manner that implies QA is the overarching program to assure quality. In our experience, USACE has used the term "QA" to mean USACE checks and balances on contractor QC actions. We request a clarification of the term QA as used throughout this RFP.

RESPONSE: Except where discussed as part of the UFP-QAPP, QA is part of the process to insure quality on every project. QA is typically performed by USACE. When QA is discussed in the UFP-QAPP sections of the solicitation, guidance specific to the UFP-QAPP should be referred to for a definition of QA.

15. When I went through the proposal, I found a discrepancy in the instruction for the PPQ process:

Past Performance Questionnaires – Page 169 provides the format and a sample cover letter that offerors are to send to their clients to complete. The letter instructs the references to send the completed questionnaires directly to USACE. Page 215,Paragraph 3.3.2 says that completed PPQ’s are to be included as an attachment to the proposal; it further gives instructions that are to be followed only if the offeror’s client requests to send the completed PPQ directly to USACE.

Is USACE expecting to see completed PPQ’s as part of the offeror’s submission?

RESPONSE: PPQ’s can be submitted directly to USACE or included in the proposal. If PPQs are submitted directly to USACE, they must be received no later than the proposal due time and date.

16. One of the tasks contained in the sample project scope of work (Section J, Attachment 3 of the RFP) involves the preparation of a draft and final version of the annual remedial MNA progress report. Will this report solely cover activities and sampling performed during our 12-month period of operation (July 2012 to July 13)? If so, the report will need to be prepared after period of operation is completed, which will extend the period of performance beyond the 12-month operating period. We would like to know whether this is USACE’s expectation or if the report must be finalized by the end of the 12-month operating period. If the latter, please specify the reporting period that should be assumed for the report.

RESPONSE: The O&M of the plant will take place within the specified time period. Other reporting activities may take place outside of this period. The contractor shall explain any/all activities occurring outside of the O&M period within their assumptions.

17. Section L of the RFP and on the PPQ (page 171 of the RFP) instructs the offeror that “completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal as an attachment to Volume I.” However in the sample cover letter for our references directs that questionnaires be sent by FAX directly to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, ATTN: Kris Ann Huber at (816) 389-2030 or e-mail to Kris.A.Huber@usace.army.mil <mailto:Kris.A.Huber@usace.army.mil> . The instructions and the end of the PPQ instructs the preparer to return by e-mail to Kris.A.Huber@usace.army.mil <mailto:Kris.A.Huber@usace.army.mil> and is silent on FAX. Please clarify how the PPQs are to be submitted?

RESPONSE: The sample cover letter is only a sample and can be revised as necessary by the contractor. Section L and the instructions on the PPQ should be followed. PPQ’s can be submitted with the proposal or directly to Kris Ann Huber via e-mail. If PPQs are submitted directly to USACE, they must be received no later than the proposal due time and date.

18. RFP Page 237, Section 5.4, Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan – Paragraph (g) provides small business goals for all socioeconomic categories except Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB). Please provide the small business goal for VOSB.

RESPONSE: In regards to Small Business Participation Plans, there is no longer a goal for Veteran Owned Small Business. This will be removed in amendment 1.

19. Section J, Attachment 3, ERS/LTRA Sample Project Scope of Work – The sample problem states the scope of work includes operating the plant for 12 months, but also states plant O&M will “occur July 2012 thru July 2013,” which is 13 months. Will the plant be operated for 12 or 13 months?

RESPONSE: The O&M of the plant will take place within the specified time period. Other reporting activities may take place outside of this period. The contractor shall explain any/all activities occurring outside of the O&M period within their assumptions.

20. RFP Pages 68-69, Section G, Contract Administration Data, Paragraph 10, Contract/Task Order Close-out – The RFP states “The cost that will be incurred as a result of all close out processes and procedures will be submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal and will be addressed as part of the G&A expenses.”

• Is it intended that all close out costs be part of the offeror’s G&A (indirect) cost? If this is the intent, please provide direction regarding the allocability requirements of FAR 31.201-4(a) regarding costs incurred specifically for the contract as opposed to indirect costs which are not specifically incurred for any final cost objective.

RESPONSE: Close out costs are to be billed as overhead costs and not represented as a specific item on the contract or task order.

• Should the reference sentence read “General Conditions” instead of “G&A”?

RESPONSE: No, G&A is correct.

21. RFP Page 176, Section J, Attachment 3, Paragraph 7, Cost – The RFP states “Utilities = $3,000 per month (no additional Prime Contractor mark-ups to be applied)”

• Does this item include cost “mark-ups” such as G&A, or is the intent to exclude fee on this item?

RESPONSE: No additional Prime Contractor mark-ups are to be applied to this total, including G&A and fee.

• If this item is intended to exclude G&A which may be applied to these costs in accordance with the offeror’s disclosed accounting practices, how will the cost of such G&A be recovered by the offeror?

RESPONSE: This is intended to be a pass through cost with no mark-ups applied.

22. Reference: 3.5 Volume I, Factor IV – Small Business Participation Plan; ii “For Large Business, include ACO rating and SF 295 Information.”

ACO ratings are not available through Small Business Administration audits and the SF 295 Information has been replaced with a Summary Subcontract Report (eSSR). Please confirm that for Large Business, proposers should provide a Summary Subcontract Report (eSSR) in lieu of the ACO rating and SF 295 Information.

RESPONSE: Correct. See revised section in amendment 1.

23. Paragraph 3.3.2 states “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.” Please clarify if this means that we cannot include a recently completed PPQ in our proposal (e.g., from responses to the recent small business set aside RFPs) in lieu of requesting a new PPQ from a client or is the intent that we cannot quote a PPQ in our proposal. If we can use recent PPQs, which are in the same format as required in this RFP, we will preclude another round of requests for PPQs from our clients. These clients include Kansas City District and other USACE staff.

RESPONSE: Contractors can resubmit PPQs submitted with previous proposals. USACE will not go through our files looking for them if they are only referenced in the proposal.

24. We request an extension to the October 24 due date to allow additional time to incorporate the PPQs into our proposal. An extension to two weeks beyond the date of the anticipated responses to questions will allow us to send out and receive back PPQs and to incorporate other changes that may arise from the responses to questions into our proposal.

RESPONSE: The due date for proposals will remain 24 October 2012.

25. In paragraph 3.5, the table breaks out percentages for Large, Small, Small Non-Disadvantaged, Small Disadvantaged, Woman Owned Small Business, HUB Zone Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Business, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. The paragraph also contains “NOTE: The sum of the dollar values and percentages of Small Non-Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for Total Small.”

From the structure of the table, we assume that “Small Disadvantaged” in the table means a certified 8(a) firm, but the note implies that “Small Disadvantaged” is a rollup of Woman Owned Small Business, HUB Zone Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Business, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and, we assume, a certified 8(a) category.

Please clarify if “Small Disadvantaged” in the table means a certified 8(a) firm, or if that category is missing and “Small Disadvantaged” means a rollup of all special category small businesses.

RESPONSE: See revised section in amendment 1.