SB Question for finalizing solicitation 29 nov 2010.docx

Solicitation W912DR-10-R-0098, dated 02 December 2010

RFP

p. 2, 1. “All question and comments. . . . to Kathryn.E.Brown-Tarbalouti@uscg.army.mil. . .” Please note, the email listed here is incorrect (@uscg. . . instead of @usace. . .).

Amended to correct the address:

Kathryn.E.Brown-Tarbalouti@usace.army.mil

SECTION B

SECTIONC

Pg. 7 of 88, Section C.1.2.1. Engineering Support, second paragraph “Professional qualifications in these primary disciplines may be required.” – Item 12 “Certified Waste Broker.” Please advise if this category “Certified Waste Broker” is that of a Regulatory Specialist, or that of a Transportation and Disposal Coordinator for waste generated in a foreign country; if not then please describe what qualifications are needed for this category.

The RFP has been amended to remove this bulleted item.

Section C.1. Contract Procurement Objective and Overview states “contracts awarded under this solicitation will be Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts for Environmental Services in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District (USACE) and its customers located primarily in the USACE North Atlantic Region boundaries but possibly OCONUS as well.” In which OCONUS locations is the work on this contract expected to be performed?

Currently there are no expectations. If this requirement is needed, it will be on an individual task order basis.

SECTION F

Chart 1A has been deleted in its entirety.

Attachment G, Chart 2 has been replaced with Attachment G-1, Chart 2.

SECTION G

SECTION H

SECTION I

Attachment A-1 will replace Attachment A.

Offerors are to list on Attachment A-1 any anticipated job titles that have not been recognize by the Government for the life of the contract.

There may be specialty job titles that are only unique to a particular task order and those must be identified on a task order basis.

SECTION J – Attachment B

Contractor = Offeror or Subcontracting being Evaluated Owner’s Name = Owner(Agency/Business) of the Contract

Name can be any of the following: KO, COR, COTR or PM

SECTION J – Attachment D

SECTION J – Attachment H

SECTION L

Pg. 73 of 88, Section L.3.2.1 Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience/Project Listing, (a) Subfactor 1 – Corporate Experience, second sentence. “Breadth of experience reflects the offeror’s experience in performing all of the tasks required under Section C.1, Statement of Work…” Pg. 81 of 88, Section M.1.1(a) Corporate Experience/Project Listing, (i) Sub‐factor 1 – Corporate Experience – Breadth, first sentence. “The Government will evaluate this submission to determine if the Offeror has experience in performing all of the services required under Section C, Statement of Work.” Please advise if Offerors when writing to address Breadth should consider all items under Section C as stated in the Section M evaluation criteria, or if Offerors should address only items under Section C.1 as stated in the Section L instructions.

All items under Section C, Statement of Work.

Pg. 73 of 88, Section L.3.2.1 Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience/Project Listing, (b) Subfactor 2 – Project Listing, fifth paragraph. “The Contracting Officers or the Contracting Officers project manager (for government contracts) contained in this list are the customers who will provide the past performance data which, as specified in Section M, will form a critical component of the past performance evaluation.” The 11th bulleted item lists the name, address, phone, fax and email of the Contracting Officer’s Representative, and the 12th bulleted item listed the name, address, phone, fax and email of the Contracting Officer’s Project Manager. Please advise if the government is looking for the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Project Manager, or the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Project Manager to provide the past performance data. Note: For many government projects, the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the Contracting Officer’s Project Manager is the same person. Should the Past Performance Questionnaire be sent to only one reference (CO, COR, or COPM) per project?

The PPQ can be sent to any of the following: Contracting Officer (KO), Contracting Officer’s Representative, or Technical Project Manager.

Pg. 74 of 88, Section L.3.2.4 Technical Factor 4: Technical Capabilities and Safety states, “The technical discussion should demonstrate expertise in the entire spectrum of activities needed to satisfy all requirements in Section C SOW.” Section M.1.1(d) Technical Factor 4 – Technical Capabilities and Safety states, “Safety and Quality Control/Quality Management are of equal importance and more important than Comprehensive Understanding and Continuous Improvement, which are of equal importance.” Please advise if only Subfactors (i) – (iv) are the items being evaluated for Technical Factor 4, as there is no mention of evaluating the technical discussion of expertise in the entire spectrum of activities needed to satisfy all requirements in the SOW within Section M.

Only Subfactors (i) – (iv) are being evaluated in Technical Factor 4.

Pg. 75 of 88, Section L.3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance. “The offeror shall submit 5 past performance questionnaires and all other identified major subcontractors may provide past performance information for up to five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Section J, Attachment B, with preference given towards projects cited in the project listing (Factor 3.2.1.b.).”

A. Please advise if only the offeror has to submit PPQs, and not all other major subcontractors as well.

B. Please advise what is the difference between the Past Performance Questionnaires and the past performance information that may be provided by major subcontractors.

C. Please advise if each major subcontractor is allowed to provide past performance information for up to 5 projects regardless if it is cited in the project listing (Section L, 3.2.1.b., Factor 1/Subfactor 2).

D. Please advise if the same stipulations for projects in the Project Listing are required for projects in Past Performance (i.e., at least 80% complete within the last three years).

E. Please advise if a narrative or other information in addition to the PPQs is desired to address evaluation criteria for Technical Factor 5—listed in on Pg. 82 of 88, Section M.1.1(e)(i‐iv), and if so, whether the narrative will be outside of the page count, as the RFP currently indicates that Technical Factor 5 does not count towards the overall page count.

F. If no additional Past Performance information or narrative is allowed to be provided under Technical Factor 5, please confirm that the Offeror is to submit only PPQs via their clients and will have no pages contained within the Technical Factor 5 tab of their proposal.

G. Pg. 82 of 88, Section M.1.1(e) Technical Factor 5 – Past Performance Evaluation Criteria items (i‐iv). The government states that it “places a high value on these items.” Please advise how these items will be evaluated since they do not appear on the Past Performance Questionnaires. Will the Offeror be allowed to provide past performance information that demonstrates its performance in these areas (items i‐v)?

A. Only the offeror has to submit PPQs. Others MAY. However is others then the Prime/JV PPQ is submitted, please indicate what prime/JV the subcontractor will be working for.

B. They are the same, read it as “subcontractors MAY also provide PPQs, but are not required to.”

C. This is acceptable but not required.

D. Same stipulations apply.

E. No narrative necessary, PPQ is the only requirement.

F. The PPQs shall be submitted via their clients, however the prime/JV shall provide a tab for Technical Factor 5.

G. PPQs here are the only submission necessary from the offeror. Anything else, the Government will evaluate through methods described in Section L 3.2.5.

In Section L; Section 3.2.4 Technical Factor 4: Technical Capabilities and Safety; (c) Sub-factor 3 - Comprehensive Understanding of Environmental Services and Remedial Activities it states: ”Ability to technically integrate large and complex efforts across a process and program, including digital data collection, analysis, storage and management”. Does the “Digital Data” refer specifically to Geophysical digital data or does it include data digitally stored such as electronic data deliverables from laboratories?

This requirement includes data digitally stored as well.

3.2.6 Technical Factor 6: Key Personnel Resources.

Offerors shall identify the names and titles of proposed key personnel and their organizational relationships, along with locations. Resumes of key personnel must be provided. In keeping with the performance-based nature of this contract, each offeror should determine and justify which personnel are considered key personnel in line with his/her proposed technical and management approach to this contract.

As this contract will be used for a number of different types of tasks and remedies, what type of information is required for the justification for personnel which are considered key personnel?

This section has been amended to remove the words “and justify”.

4.1 Volume I – Technical. The total number of pages shall not exceed 90 pages (excluding the past performance evaluations, letters of intent and teaming agreements, if applicable). Sections shall be prepared at the discretion of the offeror, but shall be within the overall page limitation. A breakdown of specific limits is as follows:

If less pages are submitted in one section could the offeror use those pages in a section not required by the RFP. If so will the entire 90 pages be reviewed?

No, The section page limitations are set.

If the pages exceed the page limitation as specified they will be remove and not reviewed.

TAB 8: Identification of Uncompensated Overtime must be prepared and submitted by all Offerors and all team members in accordance with FAR 52.237-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, which had been included in full text elsewhere in Section L. The Cost/Price Proposal cost information must include the identification of any hours against which an uncompensated overtime rate is applied for prime and subcontractors. Also submit the Offeror’s policy addressing uncompensated overtime, to include accounting practices for establishing hourly labor rates relative to uncompensated overtime, under this Tab.

In the SB solicitation, this is the only Tab for Volume II that requires information from the Offerors and all team members. Is this an error? If not, do any of the other tabs require additional information from all team members?

This tab has been deleted in its entirety.

On page 73 of 88, in paragraph 3.2.1 (b) (paragraph titled “Sub-factor 2 - Project Listing”, under paragraph 3.2.1 “Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience/Project Listing”, in section 3.2 “Contents of Volume I”) the RfP states that the Project Listing should identify projects on which the offeror or a major subcontractor:

“have performed a substantial, critical effort or at least 80% complete at the time of the proposal or have been completed within the past three years.”

Please clarify this part of the RFP text. The use of “or” in the phrase “or have been completed within the past three years” can be read to imply that the criterion of a project being completed in the last three years is an option rather than a requirement. Are we to assume that relevant projects, on which we have performed a substantial effort but have been completed more than three years ago, will be accepted in our proposal?

No, substantial critical efforts or at least 80% complete refers to projects that are ongoing.

Section L, 3.2.3 (c) states “Any operational or scope limitations, or cost thresholds utilized by your organization in the selection of subcontracted vehicles shall be defined in the proposal.” In using the term “selection of subcontracted vehicles,” is the government asking the offeror how it will determine which type of subcontract (FFP, CR, other) to issue to subcontractors?

Please define the terms “operational or scope limitations” and “cost thresholds.”

Yes, The Government would like to know how you plan to procure a subcontractor.

Operational or scope limitation and cost thresholds terms relate to the offeror’s limitation (if any) to self complete tasks based on scope and budget capabilities.

Pg. 75 of 88, Section L.3.2.4 Technical Factor 4, (c) Sub‐Factor 3 ‐ Comprehensive Understanding of Environmental Services and Remedial Activities states, “Ability to technically integrate large and complex efforts across a process and program ….” Please advise if a process is meant to be a regulatory process [RCRA/CERCLA]. If not, then please advise what type of process. Please advise if program is meant to be a series of large, complex sites under a base‐wide installation [Installation Restoration Program (IRP)/Environmental Restoration Program (ERP)]. If not, then please advise what type of program.

These are good examples of process and program, respectively, however, this Sub Factor is open to interpretation and the Offerors can use their best professional judgment when answering.