The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PROJECT: MAES Small Disadvantage Business Set-Aside - Solicitation W912DR-10-R-0107
RESPONSE TO Contractor submitted comments June 2010
| DOCUMENT: |
| SDVOSB RFP MAES Contract |
| NAME: |
| Baltimore District Corps of Engineers |
General
RFP
| 1 |
| 1 |
| The Unrestricted and Small Business MAES RFPs were issued as draft. The Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) is not marked draft. Is it the intent of USACE that only the SDB RFP be issued as final at this time? |
| Yes. This is the final RFP. |
| 2 |
| 128 |
| Due to the fact that we require clarification on these issues and that the 8(a) submittal is due two days following a Federal Holiday, would you please consider a 2-week extension? |
| Extended to 23 July 2010 |
| 3 |
| 386 |
| Page 2 of 105, #5. This section states “Profit is not allowable on travel costs.” This statement contradicts #8 of page 7 of 105. Please clarify. |
| Check with Jeff |
| 4 |
| 585 |
| Form 33, page 1 states ‘Sealed offers in original and 3 copies” |
Section L 2.0, page 87 states “The number of copies shall be submitted as set forth below.
Volume I - Technical Original + 4 copies Volume II- Cost/Price Original + 2 copies Volume III- Subcontracting Plan Original + 1 copy”
Please confirm number of copies required.
The RFP has been amended, see Form 33.
| 5 |
| 675 |
| Do you want any spreadsheets submitted to be Excel 2000 or 2003? It states each way depending where you look in the RFP. |
| The RFP has been amended to reflect Microsoft Excel 2003. |
SECTION B
| 6 |
| 100 |
| What is the correct size of the contract? Page 3 of the RFP lists it as $49,700,000.00 however page 7 of the RFP lists it as $100,000,000.00. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. |
| 7 |
| 160 |
| Is the Maximum Order $100M or $49.7M? |
| See response to question 100. |
| 7 |
| 24 |
| Section B, page 4: The table on page 4 includes profit; however, page 68, last paragraph says that no profit or fee is to be applied to the prime contractor’s rates. Which is correct? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 and Section J, Attachment E, page 24 of Amendment 4. |
| 8 |
| 25 |
| Section B, page 4 asks for only the proposed multiplier on Other Direct Costs (ODC). Section B, page 6, paragraph 7 says that ODCs are not to be pre-priced. Section B, page 7, paragraph 10 asks for fully burdened unit prices for ODCs. Page 69, third paragraph asks for pre-priced ODCs. Are we to include fully burdened ODCs which can be pre-priced and just the multiplier for ODCs, which cannot be pre-priced? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 and Section J, Attachment E, page 24 of Amendment 4. |
| 9 |
| 26 |
| Section B, page 5 asks for rates for Direct Field Office Labor. Field rates are not included in Tables 1A and 1B. Are we to include them? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. |
| 10 |
| 358 |
| The instructions provided in Schedule B (page 5 of 105) indicate that a subcontractor can provide separate rates for Home Office and Field Office labor. Chart 1b (Attachment F) only includes the rates for Home Office Labor. Should a separate chart 1b be submitted for Field Office labor? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2, and Section J, Attachment F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 11 |
| 359 |
| The instructions provided in Schedule B (page 4 of 105) show a single set of rates for the offeror but the instructions provided for subcontractor rates (page 5 of 105) show separate rates for Home Office and Field Office labor. Is the Offeror limited to a single set of rates for both Home Office and Field Office or should separate rates be provided? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2, and Section J, Attachment F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 12 |
| 360 |
| The instructions provided in Schedule B (page 5 of 105) indicate that a subcontractor can provide separate rates for Home Office and Field Office labor. Chart 2 (Attachment G) does not differentiate between Home Office and Field Office rates. How are these rates to be reconciled when developing the composite rate in Chart 2? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2, and Section J, Attachment F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 13 |
| 387 |
| Page 4 of 105 – Pricing Schedule. |
a. Can you clarify the headings requested for the prime on Section B (Direct Cost, Other Direct Cost, Profit and Total Cost)? Are these headings to match what is used on Chart 1A? May we revise these headings to match what is on Chart 1A?
b. Additionally, elsewhere in the proposal it indicates that the prime contractors profit is to be negotiated on each task order. If that is the case, should the Profit column be eliminated?
c. Also, what is intended to be provided in the Other Direct Cost column? Should this instead be the total Indirect Rate costs associated with the prime contractor’s labor?
a- The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4.
b- The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4.
c- The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4.
| 14 |
| 388 |
| Page 6 of 105 – Item 5. This section states that we are to include fully burdened unit prices for all anticipated other direct costs (ODCs). Page 6, Number 7 states that ODCs are to be negotiated as required on each task order and are not to be included on the Pricing Schedule. Please verify that ODCs are not to list ODCs, but that we are to list markup to be applied to ODCs on the Pricing Schedule. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. Check with Jeff – is the answer yes to both questions? |
| 15 |
| 389 |
| Page 6 of 105 – Item 5. This section states that “Fully Burdened” for Subcontractor rates means the direct cost plus indirect costs and markups including subcontractor’s profit. Item 5 also states that Prime and Subcontractors are to account for all of their cost in the unit prices entered into the Pricing Schedule, including labor overhead, other overhead costs, G&A, the Prime’s markup to subcontractors fully burdened rates, etc. Please clarify if the “fully burdened” labor rates entered in the Pricing Schedule for subcontractors are to include the Offeror’s G&A. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. |
| 16 |
| 390 |
| Page 7 of 105 – Item 12. This section indicates we are not to submit escalation rates to direct costs and indirect costs on the pricing schedule, yet this information is requested on Page 5 of the pricing schedule. We assume that we are to include this information on the pricing schedule. Is that the correct assumption? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. |
| 17 |
| 391 |
| Page 7 of 105 – Item 13. This section indicates that the fully burdened rates on the pricing schedule should match the fully burdened rates used to develop the cost/price proposal. May we revise the headings requested for the prime on Section B (Direct Cost, Other Direct Cost, Profit and Total Cost) so that they match Chart 1A? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 of Amendment 4. Section B information should be calculated using Charts 1A, 1B and 2. |
| 18 |
| 392 |
| Page 7 of 105 – Please confirm that the maximum value of this contract is $100,000,000 as shown in CLIN 0001. |
| See response to Question 100. |
| 19 |
| 393 |
| Page 8 of 105 – Please confirm that this particular MAES contract could possibly be used worldwide as stated in the first paragraph is section C.1. If so, can you be more specific as to possible OCONUS locations? |
| The specific location will be determined on a task order basis. |
| 20 |
| 171 |
| Section B to Section J requests Labor and ODC composite build up using both the prime and subs labor and ODC rates (charts 1A and 1B). (We only mark up subs with profit). |
QA: If the chart 1A build-up amount for the prime (without profit) for a labor category is higher than that for the sub (with sub profit) in chart 1B, should the composite rate for Chart 2 be the higher prime rate?
QB: If the chart 1B build-up amount for the sub (with sub profit) for a labor category is higher than that for the prime (without profit) in chart 1A, should the composite rate for chart 2 be the higher sub rate?
QC: The sub for some categories will do a much smaller amount of work. Should Chart 2 attempt to provide some kind of weighted average?
The RFP has been amended; see Section B, page 2 and Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
a- Yes.
b- Yes.
c. Yes.
| 21 |
| 158 |
| Are labor rates required for all subcontractors or only subcontractors expected to perform 10% or more of the total contract value? |
| Jeff? |
| 22 |
| 159 |
| Primes are requested to provide only direct labor rate, but the subconsultants are requested to provide both home office and field office rates? Is there intent for the prime to provide these two different rate categories also? |
| Jeff? |
| 23 |
| 674 |
| The RFP states to add the “prime’s markup to subcontractor’s fully burdened rates (indirect costs only, not to include any profit or fee going to the prime) and any other multipliers consistent with the prospective accounting system.” Given that the including the subcontractors fee is allowable under FAR, and most DCAA-compliant indirect cost pools include the total subcontractor costs in their bases, to exclude them as the RFP states would be a inconsistent and therefore, violate GAAP. Can this requirement be waived for those Contractors where not applying the prime’s markup to the total subcontractor cost conflicts with the Prime’s accounting system and basis for the resulting multipliers? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section B, page 2 and Section J, Attachment E, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
SECTION D
| 24 |
| 394 |
| Page 23 and 25 of 105 – On both these pages there is a section entitled OCONUS WORK. Please confirm that the District plans to use this contract for OCONUS work. |
| The District plans to have the OPTION to use this contract for OCONUS work. See also response to question 393. |
SECTION H
| 25 |
| 395 |
| Page 32 of 105 – Section H.1 |
Paragraph a. – Please confirm the wording in this paragraph concerning number of awards (four), business class, and total capacity of $100,000,000.
Paragraph i. – Again, please confirm that task orders may be issued for OCONUS work under this contract.
Paragraph a- The RFP has been amended; see Section H, page 3 of Amendment 4.
Paragraph i- See response to question 393.
| 26 |
| 396 |
| Page 33 of 105 – Section H.3. Please confirm that, in general, all contractors will be allowed to compete for all task orders under this contract. Will any task orders be set-aside for competition between a subset of the awardees (e.g. between 8a firms)? |
| No task orders will be set aside for subsets of awardees. |
| 27 |
| 161 |
| Amend 01 discusses awards (up to 5) to 8(a), Hubzone, and SDVOSB. Clause H.1 on pg 32 discusses unrestricted awards. It is assumed H.1 should be revised per Amend 01 |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section H, page 3 of Amendment 4. |
SECTION J – Attachment B
| 28 |
| 102 |
| Clarification is needed on what is to be included in the Past Performance Section in the proposal. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment B, page 10 of Amendment 4. |
| 29 |
| 103 |
| Are the Past Performance Questionnaires to be emailed to Kathryn E. Brown? |
The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment B, page 10 of Amendment 4.
| 30 |
| 127 |
| Can you clarify as to whether Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted directly from the client to USACE or should be submitted to the contractor and provided within the proposal? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment B, page 10 of Amendment 4. |
| 31 |
| 672 |
| 12.b. Are customers to submit the past performance forms to USACE or are they to submit them to us for inclusion in the proposal? If to USACE, to whom should they be addressed? If they are to be included with the proposal, are they to be in sealed envelopes and will one copy included with the Original suffice? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment B, page 10 of Amendment 4. |
SECTION J – Attachment C This is a FICTITOUS site.
| 32 |
| 38 |
| Are we required to provide an estimated cost through the design stage? |
| No costs are to be calculated for the sample problem. |
| 33 |
| 39 |
| The sample problem states the subject area water table aquifer depths average 45-feet below grade, and depth to water averages 5-feet below grade. |
QA. Is there an aquitard/confining layer between the two saturated zones?
QB. Or is the water at 5-feet below grade perched and/or on clay lenses?
a- All information required to answer the example problem has been provided; however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers.
b- All information required to answer the example problem has been provided; however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers.
| 34 |
| 40 |
| Are there any well completion diagrams and/or boring logs for the existing wells? |
| No. This is a fictitious site, and all the information has been provided. |
| 35 |
| 41 |
| Does the surface topography slope to no-name creek and/or the direction of groundwater flow? |
| This is a fictitious site, and all the information has been provided. |
| 36 |
| 42 |
| On the supplied figure, there are two boxes, each with an “X” inside of them. What do these symbols represent? |
| The symbols represent buildings associated with the landfill operation. |
| 37 |
| 43 |
| Of the 1,000 ug/L VOC concentration, what amount/percent is benzene vs. chlorinated hydrocarbons? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 13 of Amendment 4. |
| 38 |
| 116 |
| Under Attachment C and Technical Factor 2, could you identify the location of the referenced pumping well, including pumping rates and yield, so that the contractor can determine the influence of the well at the site? |
| All information required to answer the example problem has been provided, however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers. |
| 39 |
| 117 |
| Under Attachment C and Technical Factor 2, please quantify how much benzene is in the 1,000 mg/L VOC plume. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 13 of Amendment 4. |
| 40 |
| 118 |
| Under Attachment C and Technical Factor 2, please quantify how much benzene is in the 250 mg/L average influent VOC concentrations. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 13 of Amendment 4. |
| 41 |
| 119 |
| Under Attachment C and Technical Factor 2, please clarify whether the Sample Technical Problem ends at the design of the Interim Remedial Action, or whether you want details on the Interim Remedial Action itself. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 14 of Amendment 4. |
| 42 |
| 120 |
| Under Attachment C and Technical Factor 2, should the contractor assume that there is not a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for the site? This question relates to how much authority that the state has as compared to EPA Region 3. |
| Not addressed. Include all relevant assumptions with your answers. |
| 43 |
| 162 |
| For the Sample Technical Problem - Is there geotechnical or additional geological data available for the site to better describe lithology? |
| All information required to answer the example problem has been provided, however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers. |
| 44 |
| 397 |
| Pages 62 -65 of 105 – Attachment C. Is something missing from Section 4.1? In reviewing the unrestricted MAES solicitation W912DR-10-R-0020, we noted that there was an additional Performance Objective and also a Section 4.2 and 4.3 under this attachment. At a minimum should sections 4.2 and 4.3 be added to this attachment? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 14, Amendment 4. |
| 45 |
| 398 |
| Page 64 of 105 – Attachment C. The third performance objective requires the completion of the Design of the Interim Remedial Action, while the associated performance objective is “Approval of Interim Remedial Measures…”. Please clarify if the performance objective should be to obtain approval of the design of the Interim Remedial Action. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 14, Amendment 4. |
| 46 |
| 584 |
| On the sample task, please clarify if the downstream tributary is classified as either a "High Quality" or an "Exceptional Value" Water. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment C, page 13, Amendment 4. |
| 47 |
| 589 |
| Can we get lithological profiles of the site both cross-gradient and down-gradient across the entire plume to include the creek. |
| All information required to answer the example problem has been provided, however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers. |
| 48 |
| 590 |
| Could we get the boring logs for the existing wells at the site. |
| All information required to answer the example problem has been provided, however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers. |
| 49 |
| 591 |
| What is the reason that the POTW cannot accept new permitted flows |
| All information required to answer the example problem has been provided, however, include any relevant assumptions you feel are required to support your answers. |
| 50 |
| 671 |
| Please describe what the square shaped symbol with a "x" used in the drawing included in the PWS represents. Page 65 of 105. There are three squares with a "x" in each one. One is located above the text "Western Section"; one is located above the text "Groundwater Flow"; and one is located to the right of the text "POTW". |
| The symbols represent buildings associated with the landfill operation. |
Section J – Attachment D
| 51 |
| 27 |
| Attachment D, page 66, Item 4 refers to Section L, paragraph 6. We cannot find paragraph 6. Is it missing from the RFP? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment D, page 19 of Amendment 4. |
| 52 |
| 28 |
| Attachment D, page 66, Item 4.a requests a Completed Contractor Experience Data Form with Supplemental Schedules A-C (attached). We assume that Schedules A-C are the three categories of “SERVICE CONTRACTOR DATA” which begin at the bottom of page 66. Is there any other data required for the Contractor Experience Data Form? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment D, page 19 of Amendment 4. |
| 53 |
| 399 |
| Pages 66-67 of 105 – Attachment D. |
a. Please provide a copy of the Contractor Experience Data Form for the contractors to complete.
b. Please provide the three Schedules A-C that are referenced. Are these the listings of Existing Commitments, Completed Contracts, and Facilities and Equipment?
c. For a Joint Venture that has been formed to be the prime contractor for this contract, should the information requested in this attachment be provided for each of the JV members?
a- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment D, page 19 of Amendment 4.
b- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment D, page 19 of Amendment 4.
c- No information is needed for each JV member.
| 54 |
| 172 |
| Section L, par 3.3, Tab 5 (a) (pg 93) Requires a Completed Contractor Experience Date Form with Supplemental Schedules. Section J, Attachment D, par. 4 refers the reader to Section L par. 6 however there is no Par 6 in Section L. The subpar. a. also states that the form is required and states that it is attached however, we were unable to find the attached form. Can you provide this Completed Contractor Experience Date Form? |
| See response to question 27. |
Section J – Attachment E
| 55 |
| 400 |
| Page 67 of 105 – Attachment E. At the bottom of Chart 1A, should the following be added below “Other Direct Cost (list below)”: |
d. Equipment
e. Material
f. Supplies
g. Travel This would be consistent with Chart 2 (Attachment G) The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
| 56 |
| 401 |
| Page 68 of 105 – In the explanation with the “**”, there is a statement requesting that direct labor hourly rates by person’s name within each job title and classification that are used to calculate an average hourly rate be listed, and that we are to show the averaging technique used for each job title/classification. As this information can get lengthy, may we include this information as “backup” or an attachment to Chart 1A and 1B? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 57 |
| 676 |
| The Chart 1A & 1B instructions state that the subs rates (presumably input on Chart 1B) should include fee, but Chart 1B does not include profit. Should we just add that? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 58 |
| 677 |
| Should Chart 1A include the Prime’s labor rates only and Chart 1B is the sub’s labor rates only? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 59 |
| 402 |
| Page 69 of 105 – Third full paragraph. |
a. First sentence refers to “The above listed other direct costs…” It is not clear what list this is referring to. Can you clarify?
b. The last sentence requests “the prime contractor will propose only one set of other direct cost rates for the contract to apply to the prime contractor and all subcontractors to include all ODCs anticipated over the life of the contract that will be direct charged by either the prime or a subcontractor.” This is not practical or even possible for this type of IQIQ contract. For example, it is not possible to commit to specific travel and per diem costs for task orders that could be located anywhere worldwide. Please remove this sentence.
a- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
b- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
| 60 |
| 403 |
| Page 70 of 105 – Attachment F (Chart 1b). |
a. At the bottom of Chart 1b, should the following be added below “Other Direct Cost (list below)”:
i. Equipment
ii. Material
iii. Supplies
iv. Travel This would be consistent with Chart 2 (Attachment G)
b. Should columns be added to this chart to shown both the subcontractors fee and the prime’s proposed multiplier (exclusive of fee)? This would appear to be consistent with the requirements in the last paragraph on page 68.
a- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
b- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4.
| 61 |
| 673 |
| The RFP seems to contradict itself on the topic of ODCs. It first defines ODCs as all non-labor direct costs. Initially it states in Note 5, “The Pricing Schedule requires use of fully burdened hourly labor rates and fully burdened unit prices for all anticipated Other Direct Costs (ODCs).” Later under Note 7, it states “ODCs to include equipment, material and supply direct costs will be negotiated as required on each Task Order and not pre-priced or listed on the Pricing Schedule. Is the intent here to list all ODCs that are not equipment, material and supply direct costs on the Pricing Schedule? This would not be much that falls into that category. Please clarify. |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment E & F, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
Section J – Attachment G
| 62 |
| 29 |
| Attachment G, page 71 and notes: Are there columns missing from the table in Attachment G to address notes 4, 5, 6 and 7? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment G, page 20 of Amendment 4. |
| 63 |
| 30 |
| Can charts 1A, 1B, and 2 be provided in Excel so that we are certain of the formulas that USACE requires? |
| Charts will not be provided electronically; however, offerors may establish own charts using the information provided in Section J, Attachments E, F, & G. |
| 64 |
| 404 |
| Page 71 -73 of 105 – Attachment G (Chart 2 and notes) |
a. Shouldn’t this chart be expanded to take care of the requirements of notes (4) through (7) – in order to calculate the “adjusted composite hourly rate”?
b. The last sentence at the bottom of page 71 states that “Offerors are to prepare this chart 2 once using the rates that will be in effect at the time of contract award.” Per page 26 of 105, should August 16, 2010 be the anticipated date of contract award?
a- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment G, page 20 of Amendment 4.
b- The RFP has been amended; see Section J, Attachment G, page 20, and Section F, page 3 of Amendment 4.
| 65 |
| 678 |
| What do we do with the equipment, materials, supplies & travel line items under Attachment G? These cannot be accurately estimated. |
| Ask Jeff for clarification |
Section K
| 66 |
| 670 |
| Please clarify if Section K is required of both the prime contractor and key/team subcontractors or if it is only required of the prime. |
| Prime only. |
Section L
| 67 |
| 2 |
| The past performance section requirements on page 90 are not completely clear. Given the need to have responses before July 8, and the uncertainty of the RFP requirement, we need answers so we can solicit the correct responses from our customers in time. Here are our questions: |
a. “The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects.” Is this meant to be five projects per company involved in the team, or five projects total?
b. Are our customers to submit the past performance forms to USACE or are they to submit them to us for inclusion in the proposal? If to USACE, to whom should they be addressed?
c. Paragraph 3.2.1 (b), page 88, last sentence says that Contracting Officers are the customers who will provide past performance data. Is the Customer Project Manager an acceptable alternative?
d. The last sentence of paragraph 3.2.5, page 90, says that there shall be a maximum of 25 pages and that there shall be one project’s past performance per page. If the intent is to include the past performance forms, they are two or more pages each. If there are three companies on the team and each submits five, we would be over the 25 page limit. What is the requirement for the content of the Technical Factor 5 section of the proposal?
a – The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5, page 31, Amendment 4.
b - The RFP has been amended, see Section J Attachment B, page 10 of Amendment 4.
c - The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.1, page 29 of Amendment 4.
d – The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5, page 31, Amendment 4.
| 68 |
| 31 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.2.1(a), page 88: “Relevant experience OCONUS should be specifically noted and may be weighted higher than other CONUS experience.” Is this meant to be included in the SDB RFP? |
| The RFP has been amended; see Section L, para. 3.2.1, page 29 of Amendment 4. |
| 69 |
| 32 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.2.1 (b) refers to a project listing matrix. Is a matrix required or desired in addition to the 11x17 project descriptions? |
| The government has provided all necessary information in the RFP. |
| 70 |
| 33 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.2.4 (a) refers to a Safety Recapitulation Table found in Section J.11. Is this missing from the RFP? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.4, page 30 of Amendment 4. |
| 71 |
| 34 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.2.5, page 90: |
| a. | “The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects.” Is it five projects per company on the team, or five projects total? |
| b. | Are customers to submit the past performance forms to USACE or are they to submit them to us for inclusion in the proposal? If to USACE, to whom should they be addressed? If they are to be included with the proposal, are they to be in sealed envelopes and will one copy included with the Original suffice? |
| c. | Paragraph 3.2.1 (b), page 88, next to last sentence says that Contracting Officers are the customers who will provide past performance data. Can the COR or Contracting Officer’s Project Manager respond? |
| d. | What does USACE require in this section in offerors’ proposals? Is it the past performance questionnaire or a one page per project write up that addresses the evaluation criteria on page 99, paragraph (e)? If it is the questionnaires, and if offerors are required to submit the questionnaires for all team members, the pages may exceed the 25 allowed (e.g., 3 team members times 5 projects times 2 pages per project equals 30 pages). The questionnaires also exceed the one page per project limit. |
| e. | Can 11X17 pages be used in the past performance section? |
| f. | Can the past performance section be excluded from the page count? |
| a – See response to question 2a above. |
b – See response to question 2b above.
c – See response to question 2c above.
d- Only provided questionnaires should be used, also, see response to question 2d above.
e – The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5, page 31 of Amendment 4.
f – The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5 and para. 4.1, pages 31 and 35 of Amendment 4.
| 72 |
| 35 |
| Section 4.4, Proposal Length, page 95 |
| a. | Fifth bullet, allows for up to ten 11X17 pages. Is this in addition to the ten 11X17 pages allowed for Technical Factor 1? Will the additional 11X17 pages count as one page or two? |
| b. | Section 4.1 states that only four factors/subfactors have been given a page limit. All other sections shall be prepared at the discretion of the offeror, but shall be within the overall page limitation. The RFP allocates 75 of the 85 pages total allowed for Volume 1. Does this mean that the remaining 10 pages are to include Factors [1a, 4, and 6] to comply with the 85-page limitation to Volume 1? |
| a - The government has provided all necessary information in the RFP. |
b - The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.1, page 35 of Amendment 4.
| 73 |
| 37 |
| Section 3.2.2, Attachment C, Is there a pricing requirement for Technical Factor 2: Hypothetical Scenario? |
| See response to question 38. |
| 74 |
| 44 |
| Section L, Instructions paragraph 3.2.4 (1) requests a Safety Recapitulation for projects identified in the Past Performance Factor and says offerors are to follow “the format prescribed in the Table found in Section J.11. Unfortunately there isn’t a Section J.11, and there is no safety recapitulation table format in Section J. |
| See response to question 33. |
| 75 |
| 45 |
| Section L, Instructions paragraph 3.2.5 says “Past performance shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages, with one project’s past performance information per page. Can we assume this means the information can be less than a page if we want, due to size of team. |
| See response to question 2a. |
| 76 |
| 46 |
| Section L, Instructions paragraph 3.4. Volume III – Subcontracting Plan. States Large business offerors shall submit a subcontracting plan. Is this a requirement for SB and SDB as well? |
| The RFP has been amended and no longer contains this paragraph. |
| 77 |
| 47 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.2.6. Shows there are 10 positions “suggested” to be key. Do to the amount of resumes could it be changed so they are not part of the page count. |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.4, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 78 |
| 48 |
| The current, specified margins (1” top, bottom, left and 0.5” on right) would prohibit firms from printing the proposal double-sided because the three-hole punch would cut off text on the backs of the page. Would you consider modifying the page margins to be 0.75” on the left and right? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.4, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 79 |
| 49 |
| It states that all text should be 11pt Times New Roman. Does this also include graphics, tables, headers, etc? |
| The government has provided all necessary information in the RFP. |
| 80 |
| 98 |
| Please provide the Safety recapitulation table J1 mentioned on page 90 section 3.2.4 (a) of the RFP. |
| See response to question 33. |
| 81 |
| 99 |
| The Project Listing Matrix on page 89 section 3.2.1 (b) requires Major Safety Incidents, Accidents, and Violations and to see Section C, Paragraph 5.1.2.1. Please provide Section C, Paragraph 5.1.2.1 in the RFP. |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.1, page 29 of Amendment 4. |
| 82 |
| 101 |
| Page 90, Section 3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance states that 5 past performance projects are to be provided. Is that for the whole team, or 5 projects per team member? |
| See response to question 2a. |
| 83 |
| 104 |
| On page 95, Section 4.4 it states that ten 11”x17”s may be used for graphic representation, charts, and schedules. On page 88, Section 3.1 it states that only the Project Listing Matrix may use ten 11”x17”. Can 11”x17” be used for both the Project Listing Matrix and graphic representation, charts, and schedules? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.4, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 84 |
| 105 |
| Is there a page limit on each resume? Does each resume have to be 1 page long, or can each be longer? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.4, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 85 |
| 106 |
| Pg. 90, Section L, 3.2.5 states: “…The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Attachment B ….” Does the Government intend for each team member to submit five past performance questionnaires? |
| See response to question 2d. |
| 86 |
| 107 |
| Pg. 90, Section L, 3.2.5 states: “…The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Attachment B…” Do the projects have to have been entirely complete within the last three years or may the offeror use projects that area substantially complete (if so, please define “substantially complete”)? |
| The government has provided all necessary information in the RFP. |
| 87 |
| 108 |
| Pg. 90, Section L, 3.2.5 states: “...Past performance shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages, with one project’s past performance information per page.” Can the government define what is required within this 25 page limit? If each team member is to submit five past performance references, does the offeror need to provide a single page written narrative about the project? If so, with more than five team members the one page per project would exceed the 25 page limit. If it is required to write narrative for each of the five projects for each team member, the narrative space for each project would be reduced – is that the Government’s intent? |
| See response to question 2a. |
| 88 |
| 109 |
| Pg. 90, Section L, 3.2.5 states: “...3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance. The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Attachment B…” Attachment B in the PDF of the RFP is spread across multiple sections of the RFP – with a separate unrelated section on the first and last pages. Can the Government provide a Word version of Attachment B, or a separate PDF of Attachment B to provide the reference form to the client without the extra unrelated text on the first and last pages? |
| Minor formatting changes to the presented material are acceptable; however, Attachment B will be provided as a Word document. |
| 89 |
| 110 |
| Pg. 88., Section L, 3.1 states:. “…The font and size for proposal text shall be Times New Roman 11 point or larger…” May the offeror use smaller font sizes in the headers and footers of the proposal, such as Arial Narrow 10 point to save on space and not expand the top and bottom margins to fit? |
| The government has provided all necessary information in the RFP. |
| 90 |
| 111 |
| As many PBC contracts and task orders are long term (5-10 years) and entitle multiple sites and contain most of the scope items required, it is difficult to use these recent projects as a whole, even though specific relevant tasks are greater than 80% complete. This is a disadvantage to experienced performance based contractors who have experience with this type of contract and has successfully completed work required by this RFP. Please allow specific tasks or may be specific sites to be used to show project listing on contracts that are less than 80% complete as a whole but have well defined tasks and given sites achieve PWS objectives where they are applicable. |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.1, page 29 of Amendment 4. |
| 91 |
| 112 |
| Could several task order at the same site which constitutes the continuation of the work at the same site be considered as one project and be listed as such under the project listing requirements? |
| Yes. |
| 92 |
| 113 |
| Under Technical Factor 1(a), the RFP indicates that “…OCONUS should be specifically noted and may be weighted higher than other CONUS experience.” Can you provide further clarification as to why OCONUS will be rated higher than CONUS and the types of OCONUS projects expected under this contract? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.1a, page 29 of Amendment 4. |
| 93 |
| 114 |
| Under Technical Factor 1(a), can you clarify as to whether Letters of Intent committing subcontractors are included within the 85-page limitation? |
| Letters of Intent are NOT included within the 85-page limitation. |
| 94 |
| 115 |
| Under Technical Factor 1(b), the RFP defines a major subcontractor as performing 10% or more of the contract. Does this same definition hold true under the Past Performance Factor, i.e., do we only provide projects for major subcontractors or for all subcontractors identified in our proposal? |
| Yes. |
| 95 |
| 121 |
| Under Technical Factor 3(e), the RFP requires a discussion of the contractor’s “…ability to provide equipment, life support (e.g., food services, lodging, and transportation) and other services to sustain field operations.” Is there an expectation that this contract will be used in areas in hostile, remote or austere environments? If so, can you identify potential locations and/or situations where this type of support will be needed? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.3, page 30 of Amendment 4. |
| 96 |
| 122 |
| Under Technical Factor 4, the RFP requires the contractor and all identified team members to provide a Safety Recapitulation for projects identified in their past performance factor as prescribed in table found in Section J.11. There is no Section J.11 in the RFP…can you please clarify? |
| See response to question 33. |
| 97 |
| 123 |
| Under Technical Factor 5, can you clarify whether we need to submit past performance projects for all team members or for just major subcontractors (i.e., those performing > 10% of work)? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5, page 31 of Amendment 4. |
| 98 |
| 124 |
| Under Technical Factor 5, the RFP states that “The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Attachment B…” Please clarify whether you want five projects total or five projects from the prime contractor and from each identified team member? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.5, page 31 of Amendment 4. |
| 99 |
| 125 |
| Under Technical Factor 5, can you clarify what is included and excluded within the 85-page limitation, i.e. are the Past Performance Questionnaires included in the page count? |
| See response to question 2d. |
| 100 |
| 126 |
| Under Technical Factor 5, the RFP requires the contractor to provide past performance information using the form provided in Attachment B, which is the Past Performance Questionnaire and is three pages long. However, at the end of this same paragraph, the RFP states that “Past performance shall be limited to a maximum of 25 pages, with one project’s past performance information per page.” This seems contradictory…can you please clarify what is expected to be provided under this factor? |
| See response to question 2d. |
| 101 |
| 129 |
| Teaming agreements are required under both Volume I (Technical Factor 6…“If there is a joint venture, teaming arrangement and subcontracting agreements then the contractor must submit copies of the agreements) and under Volume II (Tab #10…“If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), or proposes a teaming agreement, include a copy of the JV Agreement, or teaming arrangement) Please clarify that you want JV agreements and/or teaming agreements in both volumes. |
| The RFP has been amended and the teaming agreement is no longer required for Volume II |
| 102 |
| 130 |
| When you add the maximum pages allocated for four of the six factors (1, 2, 3 and 5), the total number of pages equals 75 pages, leaving only 10 pages for the remaining two factors (Factor 4—Technical Capabilities and Safety and Factor 6—Key Personnel Resources. Additionally, with four subfactors under Factor 4 (Safety, QC, Understanding of Environmental Services, Continuous Improvement) and 10-15 resumes required under Factor 6 plus discussion of prime/team personnel and non-personnel resources, it will be very difficult to address all of these requirements within the remaining 10 pages. Would you please consider excluding resumes from the page limitation? |
| See response to question 47. |
| 103 |
| 131 |
| Under Section L, Paragraph 1.0 (page 87), the RFP indicates that “This solicitation will be competed on a full and open basis.” |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 1.0, page 28 of Amendment 4. |
| 104 |
| 157 |
| Should the Direct Labor Categories listed on Page 4 correspond with the Key Personnel listed on Page 91? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.6, page 31, and Section B, page 6 of Amendment 4. |
| 105 |
| 163 |
| Do you mean Baltimore District? On page 93 of 105, it does say Baltimore District. |
| The RFP has been amended to replace “Sacramento” with “Baltimore”. |
| 106 |
| 165 |
| Will preference be given to OCONUS versus CONUS experience for this set aside solicitation? Will OCONUS versus CONUS projects be considered equally or will OCONUS projects be weighted higher than CONUS projects? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 3.2.1, page 29 of Amendment 4. |
| 107 |
| 166 |
| Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience/Project Listing, 3.2.1 (a) and (b) request different information; however, directions in Section 4.1. Volume I – Technical does not call for information for 4.2.1 (a) Please clarify if information to address 3.2.1(a) is to be included in Volume 1 and if there is a page limitation for this information. |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.1, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 108 |
| 167 |
| 3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance. … Past performance shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages, with one project’s past performance information per page. |
QA. Since the past performance questionnaire takes 2 ½ pages, how are we to include this information on one page?
QB. Should the PPQ’s be returned in a sealed envelope?
QC. If the PPQ’s are returned in a sealed envelope, and we include them in the Original Copy, how do we put them in the 4 additional copies.
QD. Can a aCPARS/ACASS from an agency other than the US Army Corps of Engineers or Navy be submitted in lieu of a PPQ?
QE. Given the gap between one page per PPQ and five PPQs is there other information that the offeror should include in this section or is the 25 pages to be used for PPQs for major subcontractors?
a - See response to question 2d.
b – See response to question 2b.
c - See response to question 2b.
d – No.
e - See response to question 2d.
| 09 |
| 168 |
| 3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance. The offeror and all other identified team members shall provide past performance information for five projects completed within the last three years using the standard form provided in Attachment B, with preference given towards projects cited in the project listing (Factor 2.2.1(b)). |
QA. Is “team member” intended to be a major subcontractor anticipated to perform more than 10% of the total contract value?
QB. Is this 5 total projects or 5 projects per each identified team member plus 5 projects for the offeror?
a - See response to question 115.
b - See response to question 2a.
| 110 |
| 169 |
| 3.2.4 (a) This Recapitulation will follow the format prescribed in the Table found in Section J.11. |
Where is Section J.11? Will a Recapitulation Table be provided?
See response to question 33 above.
| 111 |
| 170 |
| 3.2.6 Please also include the total number of employees, their names and firm affiliation in each discipline that will be made available for work under this contract. |
QA. If we include names of all potential employees for this contract, our list would run for pages – would it be better to include just the number of potential employees by discipline?
The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para 3.2.6, page 31 of Amendment 4.
| 112 |
| 173 |
| PROPOSAL LENGTH provides page limits for sections 4.2.1(b) through 4.2.5, should this be 3.2.1(b) through 3.2.5? |
Is there a page limit specification provided for Section 3.2.1.a?
The RFP has been amended; see Section L, para. 4.1, page 35 of Amendment 4.
| 13 |
| 175 |
| “3. SUBCONTRACTING PLAN. Volume III shall be reviewed by the Small Business Evaluation Committee (SBEC) established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The committee will evaluate the subcontracting plans submitted in compliance in accordance with FAR 19.7. The Subcontracting Plan is part of the Source Selection Process and shall be rated on a “go, no-go” basis and scored in accordance with AFARS Appendix DD and the likelihood that the proposed Small Business Goals are achievable. Large business concerns shall submit as part of their proposals their subcontracting projections for this project.” |
Since this is a solicitation for set asides (8(a), HUBZone, and SDVOSB, are we required to submit Volume III – Subcontracting Plan?
See response to question 46.
| 114 |
| 361 |
| Volume 1, Factor 1, (b) Project Listing (page 88 of 105). Instructions indicate that each project list is limited to a single page and that foldouts are acceptable. The 5th bullet under item 4.4 on Page 95 of 105 indicates that foldouts shall be limited to graphic representations, charts, and schedules only. These two sections conflict because much of the information requested for the project list (such as the project description) consists of general text (not graphic representations, charts, or schedules). In this case, is this general text acceptable on a foldout? |
| The RFP has been amended, see Section L, para. 4.4, page 35 of Amendment 4. |
| 115 |
| 362 |
| Instructions for Technical Factor 5 (Page 90 of 105) indicate that past performance shall be limited to a maximum of 25 pages with one project’s past performance information per page. How can we limit a project to a single page when the past performance questionnaire provided in Attachment B requires 3 pages? |
| See response to question 2d. |
| 116 |
| 363 |
| Instructions for Technical Factor 4 (Page 90 of 105), subparagraph a (Safety) indicate the “This Recapitulation will follow the format prescribed in the Table found in Section J.11.” Where is Section J.11? |
| See response to question 33. |
| 117 |
| 385 |
| Proposal Due Date – Based on the number of questions that we are submitting and the fact that the government has stated that they will not start taking comments and questions until 17 June, we request that you consider as soon as possible an extension of at least two weeks to the due date of proposals. |
| See Amendment 3, dated 30 June 2010. |
| 118 |
| 405 |
| Page 87 and 88 of 105 – Section L 2.0 – Since this is a SDB set-aside procurement, please delete the reference to Volume III – Subcontracting Plan. |
| See response to question 46. |
| 119 |
| 406 |
| Page 88 of 105 – 3.1. Please provide the referenced Project Listing Matrix. |
| There is no matrix template. Please create your own using appropriate information. |
| 120 |
| 407 |
| Page 88 of 105 – 3.2.1 (a). |
a. The sixth sentence states “Relevant experience performed OCONUS should be specifically noted and may be weighted higher than other CONUS experience.” Is this correct and, if so, please explain?
b. There is a requirement to include letters of intent unconditionally committing subcontractors to performance under this contract. Where shall these letters be included? Can they be excluded from the page count? If teaming agreements are included in Volume II, do these letters still need to be included in Volume I? Also, will a teaming agreement substitute for a letter of commitment?
a – see response to question 31 b – Letters of Intent are to be included in Volume I; see response to question 114; see response to question 129; yes, a teaming agreement can substitute for a letter of commitment - Ask Jeff for confirmation.
| 121 |
| 408 |
| Page 90 of 105 – 3.2.3 (e). This required information does not seem to be appropriate for this contract, particularly with respect to life support. Please consider removing this subsection or rewording to be more appropriate for this contract. Also, Section M, 1.1(c)(v) (page 98 of 105) is missing the related evaluation information. |
| See response to question 121; the RFP has been amended see Section M, para. 1.1(c), page 44 of Amendment 4. |
| 122 |
| 409 |
| Page 90 of 105 – 3.2.4 (a). There is a reference to J.11 and a table for Safety Recapitulation. Can you clarify if this table is required, and if it is, can you provide a copy of the table? |
| See response to question 33. |
| 23 |
| 410 |
| Page 90 of 105 – 3.2.5 Concerning the past performance factor and the past performance questionnaires (PPQ): |
a. Please confirm that you intend for bidders to include completed PPQs with their proposals.
b. If the PPQs are to be included with the proposals, can or should they be returned in sealed envelopes?
c. Since you are requesting an original plus four (4) copies of the technical proposal, will the District make the required copies of the PPQs if the original is returned in a sealed envelope? If not, how would the District like to have the PPQs submitted?
d. The Past Performance section indicates that our proposal response for this section is limited to 25 pages, with one project’s past performance information per page. Page 95, 4.1, indicates that past performance evaluations are excluded from the page count. Please verify that the Past Performance evaluations are indeed excluded from the page count and that the reference to one project’s past performance information per page, is a reference as to what information we as contractors wish to provide USACE with regarding these projects, and not the Past Performance Evaluation form itself.
e. Please confirm that alternative government forms that are used instead of the one provided as Attachment B in Section would also be excluded from the page count.
f. In the next to the last sentence there is reference made to a “past performance matrix.” This is the only place this is referenced. Can you provide more specific information as to what is being requested? In selecting projects for past performance, can we assume that “completed” uses the same requirement as stated in Section 3.2.5 for the project listing that the project is “at least 80% complete based on the total value of the contract and invoices submitted at the time of the proposal”?
g. If a contractor is participating in more than one solicitation (i.e., Solicitation No. W912DR-10-R-0107, W912DR-10-R-0020, and W912DR-10-D-0098), can the contractor have five Past Performance questionnaires completed once, and copy them for use in all three solicitations?
a –See response to question 2b.
b –See response to question 2b.
c –One copy is sufficient.
d – See response to question 2d.
e – The RFP…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
