Attachment K- 2 Questions and Answers 09-07-2010.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W912DR-10-R-0107
About this file
Attachment K Q As 2
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Solicitation W912DR-10-R-0107, Attachment K – Questions and Answers #2 09-07-10
PROJECT: MAES Contract
RESPONSE TO Contractor submitted comments September 2010
| DOCUMENT: |
| SDVOSB RFP MAES Contract |
| DATE: |
| 07 September 2010 |
| NAME: |
| Baltimore District Corps of Engineers |
| NO. |
| COMMENT |
| ACTION |
General
RFP
| 1 |
| Will we be allowed to ask additional questions, once all previous questions have been addressed? |
The Government will not entertain any additional questions unless it is related to inconsistency in the documents.
| 2 |
| Will the due date remain August 31, 2010? |
The date has been amended and will now be due on 21 September 2010.
| 3 |
| Page 1 of 82 of the revised, conformed RFP states that there are 87 pages in the first line of the SF33. Are there missing pages or is the correct number 82? |
The conformed copy has 82 pages excluding the Attachments.
| 4 |
| Can the government please provide a copy of the Safety Recapitulation Table? |
This requirement has been removed.
| 5 |
| It is our understanding that the government is transitioning from Office 2003 to 2007. Most of the industry has already transitioned. Is it acceptable to submit spreadsheets in Office 2007 format? |
Yes
| 6 |
| Attachment A, Continuation of Schedule B, Direct Labor by Job Classification Table: Please confirm that you want pricing for a Landscape Engineer in addition to a Landscape Architect. If so, please provide definitions for a Landscape Engineer - we are not familiar with this discipline. |
The RFP has been amended to remove “Landscape Engineer” from Attachment A.
SECTION C
| 7 |
| “C.1.3 Remedial/Response Actions” has been removed from Section C Statement of Work in Amendment 0005 Modification 8-17-10 – page 8 of 66, yet it is still listed under “C.2 Contract Requirements” – page 12 of 66. Is Remedial/Response Actions still part of the SOW? |
Yes. Contract requirements will include remedial/response actions.
| 8 |
| Section 3.2.2 technical Factor 2 pages 65-66 of 82 of the revised, conformed RFP states to include in the proposal the following 5 elements: “1)Background Discussion, 2)Discussion of Field Methods, 3) An identification of hazards discussion, 4)brief discussion of specialized expertise and 5) An assessment of work tasks within a time schedule.” These 5 elements are inconsistent with the 6 elements in attachment C which states “Provide an overall technical approach for the task order, addressing each of the following: 1) Health and safety considerations, 2) Regulatory considerations, 3) Stakeholder considerations, 4) Portions of work to be self performed and portions to be subcontracted, 5) Labor hours by technical discipline for each major task and 6) Any assumptions not provided above.” Can the government please clarify which elements are to be addressed in the 20 pages allocated? |
Section J, Attachment C has been amended to remove section 4.2 and 4.3. Section 3.2.2, Technical Factor 2 is still applicable.
| 9 |
| Page 65 of 82, 3.2.1 (b) Sub-factor 2 - Project Listing:, of the revised, conformed RFP it states “The project listing should identify a maximum of ten projects (six of them must be from the prime), if possible, of similar size, complexity, and nature that may be expected under this contract on which the offeror or a major subcontractor (a major subcontractor or team member is one that is proposed to perform 10% or more of this effort) have performed substantial, critical effort or at least 80% complete at the time of the proposal within the past three years.” |
Can the government clarify what is meant by “substantial, critical effort”?
Can the completion of project milestones in a long term PBC project be considered substantial and critical effort for the purpose of using a project for evaluation in this section of the proposal?
Please use best professional judgment to determine the definition of “substantial, critical effort” and justify your decision.
Completion of project milestones may be used, but use best judgment.
SECTION I
| 10 |
| Page 34 of 82, Section I - Contract Clauses, of the revised, conformed RFP incorporates FAR 52.228-5 Insurance - Work On A Government Installation by reference. The original RFP had a section in the Cost Proposal for Insurance Coverage’s Offered and Corporate Assets (Tab 6) that is not included in the revised, conformed RFP. Is it the government’s intent that no information on Insurance Coverage’s Offered and Corporate Assets be provided in the proposal? |
Yes
SECTION J – Attachment A
| 11 |
| Attachment A, Continuation of Schedule B, Direct Labor by Job Classification Table: Will the District provide a definition for the following labor categories requested in Schedule B: Geohydrologist (Classification No. 32). |
The RFP has been amended to remove “Geohydrologist” from Attachment A.
| 12 |
| Attachment A, Continuation of Schedule B, Direct Labor by Job Classification Table: Will the District consider eliminating one of the following categories, based on redundancy: Admin Assistant, Secretary, or Clerical”? |
No. The Offeror can decide which category is in line with their cost accounting system.
| 13 |
| Attachment A, Continuation of Schedule B, Direct Labor by Job Classification Table: Will the District provide definitions for the following labor categories requested in Schedule B: “Architect Engineer” and “Environmental Analyst”? |
The RFP has been amended to remove “engineer” from architect engineer and removed “Senior and Junior Environmental Analyst” from Attachment A.
| 14 |
| Attachment A, Continuation of Schedule B, Direct Labor by Job Classification Table: you have listed Personnel Protective Equipment, Level “D” Protection, Level “C” Protection and Level “D” Protection (Classification Numbers 68-71). Should these be listed under ODC rather than under the Labor Categories? |
No. These entries have been removed from Attachment A.
| 15 |
| Are labor rates required for all subcontractors or only subcontractors expected to perform 10% or more of the total contract value? |
Labor rates are for all “Team” subcontractors. A “Team” subcontractor is one that is proposed to perform 10% or more of the effort. See Attachment A, Note 3.
SECTION J – Attachment B
| 16 |
| For Attachment B, Past Performance Questionnaire, it states “The contractor identified below has made an offer for the award” and also asks that the contractor for the project reference be identified. If the reference is for a member of a Joint Venture, or a subcontractor, how would the government like the questionnaire completed and returned so that it identifies it as going with the Joint Venture’s proposal, since the names of the contractor’s on the questionnaire would be different than the name of the Joint Venture? |
Can the Joint Venture offeror be identified by the reference when emailing the Past Performance Questionnaire back to the government for a team member?
Please indicate the contractor receiving the evaluation and the corresponding Joint Venture.
Yes
| 17 |
| Page 67 of 82 of the revised, conformed RFP, “3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance” states “The offeror shall submit five (5) past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and all other identified major subcontractors may provide past performance information for up to five projects…” If the offeror is a Joint Venture, can each member of the Joint Venture submit five questionnaires? |
Yes.
| 18 |
| The original RFP instructed us to place the customer evaluations into the submission. Therefore we asked our customers to provide them back to us. Is it acceptable to provide the evaluations in our proposal rather than having them sent to the email address provided in the Conformed RFP? |
| The conformed copy of the RFP, Section J, Attachment B states the delivery options of the PPQ. |
| 19 |
| Based on requirements and Attachment B of the original RFP (dated 07 June 2010) we requested that our clients complete the originally included Past Performance Questionnaire (or an SF 1420) for our five projects. Forms were returned directly to us in original, hard copy format to include in our Technical Proposal as part of Technical Factor 5: Past Performance. To avoid requiring our government clients from completing additional questionnaires (i.e., the modified questionnaire included in the 17 August 2010 Amendment 5 for W912DR-10-R-0107) can the questionnaires and SF1420s that have been completed and returned to us be submitted to USACE to fulfill the questionnaire requirements of Technical Factor 5: Past Performance? |
No. The conformed copy of the RFP has a revised Section J, Attachment B that must be used.
| 20 |
| If questionnaires completed under the requirements of the 07 June 2010 RFP for W912DR-10-R-0107 will not be considered sufficient to meet modified questionnaire requirements, we request that clients be able to complete and submit a single questionnaire and submit the questionnaire in a single email to the USACE POC if we plan on submitting a proposal for all three solicitations (e.g., W912DR-10-R-0107, W912DR-10-R-0020, and W912DR-10-R-0098)? The questionnaire will include all three solicitation numbers at the top of the form where indicated to help you keep track of the questionnaires for the three separate solicitations. |
Correct., Refer to Section J, Attachment B of the conformed RFP.
SECTION J – Attachment C, “This is a FICTITOUS site”
| 21 |
| Per Comment 64, Sections 4.2 and 4.3 have been added to the Sample Technical Problem. The requirements of the new Section 4.2 of the Sample Technical Problem do not correlate with the requirements in Section M, Paragraph 1.1(b) Technical Factor 2 – Hypothetical Scenario Evaluation Criteria. Prior to the addition of Section 4.2, we had intended to structure our response to Technical Factor 2 to correlate with the requirements of Section M. Please clarify how the bidder should structure this factor in a logical manner within the allowable page count. |
Section J, Attachment C has been amended to remove 4.2 and 4.3.
Section J – Attachment D,
| 22 |
| Question 73(c) – Attachment D (Pre-Award Survey): The response to Question 73(c) states that “No information is needed for each JV member.” If this is correct, many categories in the Pre-Award Survey would be left blank for a new JV that was formed for this opportunity. Please clarify that each JV member can enter information specific to their company for the Pre-Award Survey. |
Question 73(c) answer has been retracted. Each JV member can enter information specific to their company for the Pre-Award Survey.
| 23 |
| Should pre-award survey information be included in the proposal, or should it be provided after an offeror has been selected? |
The Pre-Award Survey should be included with the proposal. Please refer to Section L, Para. 3.3.3, Tab 5.of the conformed RFP.
| 24 |
| Please provide the three Schedules A-C that are referenced. Are these the listings of Existing Commitments, Completed Contracts, and Facilities and Equipment? |
The language “Schedules A-C” has been removed from Section L, Para. 3.3.3, Tab 5 and Section J, Attachment D.
| 25 |
| 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? |
c- No information is needed for each JV member.
Does item “c” mean that attachment D is not needed for a JV or does the JV have to submit one for the JV as a single entity?
The offeror shall submit one for the JV as a single entity.
| 26 |
| In Attachment D, does the offer need to fill out the last page, Form 1403, and submit with its proposal? |
This form has been removed from Section L, Para. 3.3.3, Tab 5 and Section J, Attachment D.
| 27 |
| If SF 1403 is required, please clarify the specific items are required to be filled out by the contractor. SF 1403 indicates that SECTION 1 and SECTION II are to be completed by the Contracting Office. In addition, the information required by SF 1403 does not appear relevant to this solicitation. |
This form has been removed from Section L, Para. 3.3.3, Tab 5 and Section J, Attachment D.
Section L
| 28 |
| Response 125 of the Q&A indicates that Teaming Agreements are no longer required to be submitted with Volume II. However, both Question 147(d) and page 70 of the "Conformed RFP" indicate that Tab 9 of Volume II requires a copy of the JV agreement and/or teaming arrangement. Could you please re-clarify whether the JV or Teaming Agreements should be submitted with both Volumes I and II? |
Yes, The Teaming Agreement will be submitted with both Volumes I and II.
| 29 |
| Page 65 of 82, 3.2.1 Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience/Project Listing, of the revised, conformed RFP states “Breadth of experience reflects the offeror’s experience in performing all of the tasks required under Section C.1.” and also states Contractor shall provide a written discussion of their corporate experience. “This discussion will be limited to five (5) pages maximum.” In the evaluation criteria of Section M on Page 76 of 82 of the revised, conformed RFP it also states “The Government will use the information provided to evaluate the Offeror’s experience in performing the work as described in the entire Section C, Statement of Work.” Given the large number of bulleted and sub-bulleted elements in the Section C scope areas it would be difficult to address and discuss all bulleted and sub-bulleted items substantively and compliantly for evaluation of the proposal within the five page limit for this section. Can the government clarify what is expected to be addressed in these five pages given that discussion of “all” items in Section appears to be required from Sections L and M? |
The Government expects a general synopsis of the capabilities of each offeror.
| 30 |
| On Page 71 of 82, of the revised, conformed RFP, 4.1 Volume I – Technical. Factor 3.2.5: Past Performance, it states that “The past performance questionnaire will be returned in accordance with Section J, Attachment C, and does not count toward the overall page limitation.” Also, Page 67 of 82, 3.2.5 Technical Factor 5: Past Performance of the revised, conformed RFP instructions does not indicate if anything is to be printed and provided in the bound copies of the proposal for this section. Does the government want a copy of the questionnaires sent out to be included in the printed copy of the proposal, or does the government requires the questionnaires returned by email to the email address provided in the instructions (does the offeror need to do or include anything else other than sending out the questionnaires to its clients and ensure they are returned to the government’s email address provided for evaluation)? |
No, you do not have to do anything except send out the questionnaires and make sure that your clients send the PPQs in accordance Section J, Attachment B.
| 27 |
| On pages 69-70 of 82 of the revised, conformed RFP for TAB 5 it states “… In order to make the required determination and also to expedite the contract award, the following information must be submitted by the Contractor in accordance with Attachment D, Section J: |
a. Completed Contractor Experience Date Form with Supplemental Schedules.
b. Latest Financial Statements. If the financial statement is more than 60-days old, submit a certificate stating that the firm’s financial condition is substantially the same, or, if not the same, state the changes that have taken place.
c. Provide letters from Banks or other financial institutions with which the contractor conducts business.
The letters should contain information about your firm’s accounts, loans, lines of credit, etc., providing information leading to a determination that your firm is “Responsible” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9, and “Has the financial resources The Government is interested in financial stability, timely payments, the length and nature of the relationship between the firm and the financial institution, etc., which reveals the firm’s financial ability to perform the contract. The letters should also provide the name and telephone number of the bank representative the Government may contact.
Be sure to include in your Pre-award Survey, information.”
If the offeror is a Joint Venture, how does the government want the offeror to address this section? Do all members of the Joint Venture need to provide this information separately in the proposal?
Yes. All members of the JV need to provide information separately for the revised Section L, Para. 3.3.3, Tab 5 and Section J, Attachment D
| 28 |
| For an ID/IQ of this nature and size, it is customary to have a Program Manager as key personnel. Is there any reason that position was left out in the RFP? |
Offerors may propose key personnel as they see appropriate.
| 29 |
| Section L.3.2.1(a). The Government has clearly defined the purpose of the Corporate Experience subfactor (L.3.2.1 (a)); but, unlike the other subfactors in Volume 1, there do not appear to be any instructions to the offeror on how the Government wishes offerors to respond to this requirement. Can the Government provide any clarification? Should discussion be based primarily on SOW elements C.1 or C.2 or both? |
Discussion of Breadth and depth of experience should be focused on the Contract Objectives (Section C.1), while discussions of relevancy should focus on the entire Section C, SOW.
| 30 |
| 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. Relevant experience OCONUS will be weighted equally with relevant experience CONUS.
Section L, para. 3.2.1 of the conformed, revised RFP does not clarify or state this. Can the government clarify this answer?
The RFP has been amended. All relevant experience will be weighted equally.
| 31 |
| “For the purpose of submitting the cost/price information, team/key subcontractors are defined as follows: |
A Team/Key subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor specifically identified in the offer whose proposed prices and technical capabilities (to include qualifications, areas of expertise, experience and/or past performance record) are submitted and evaluated as part of the offeror’s proposal (see also Section B, Note 3).” This appears to indicate that any subcontractor specifically indentified in the offer have cost and price information provided in the proposal, which would contradict answer 23 of the Q&A. Can the government clarify this?
Yes, Section L, Tab 4 has been amended to match note 3 of Section B of Attachment A.
| 32 |
| On page 66 Section 3.2.4 (a) “Technical Factor 4: Technical Capabilities and Safety Sub-Factor 1 – Safety” of Amendment #5 it states “ The offeror must identify members that meet the requirements for the Safety & Health Manager(CIH, CSP, and CHP) and Site Safety and Health Officer, to include required training, education and experience in accordance with USACE EM 385-1-1.” Question: Does this mean that the Safety & Health Manager must have all three (3) certification: CIH, CSP and CHP? |
One of the three listed certifications will be sufficient; however, the applicable certification will be task order dependent.
| 33 |
| On page 67 Section 3.2.6 “Technical Factor 6: Key Personnel Resources” of Amendment #5 it states The Safety & Health Manager must come from the prime. |
1) Question: Can we have subconsultants provide support to the prime’s Safety & Health Manager for specific tasks? The scope of services provided includes a broad range of services some of which are very specialized including but not limited to munitions and radiation. Each of these areas will have specialized Safety & Health Manager and Site Safety & Health Officers do we include resumes for the specialized areas?
Subconsultants can support the prime’s Safety & Health Manager, but must report to the prime. Resumes may be submitted for the specialized areas, but are not required.
| 34 |
| Tab 5, Item a. indicates that a “Completed Contractor Experience Data Form with Supplemental Schedules” is to be provided by the contractor. However, Attachment D of Section J indicates that SF 1403 be completed by the contractor. Please clarify which form is required to be submitted. |
This form has been removed from Section J, Attachment D.
| 35 |
| Question 125 - 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. Yes, it is required for both volumes. |
And
147 Page 91 of 105 – 3.2.6.
d. In the last paragraph of this section, there is a requirement to submit copies of JV agreements and teaming agreements. Are these to be submitted with this volume or should we consider this requirement is met when they are included in Volume II, Tab # 10? If they are to be included with this volume also, can they be excluded from page count limitations? d- The RFP has been amended and the teaming agreement is no longer required for Volume II. Agreement letters will not count towards page count.
Question: Are the Teaming/JV Agreements required in both Volumes?
Please disregard comment number 147(d). Please submit the Joint Venture Agreement in both volumes. The JV Agreement will not count towards the page count limitation.
SECTION M (pages 74 – 81 of the Conformed RFP )
| 36 |
| Item (5) on page 80 of 82 is confusing, can the government please clarify. |
This items has been removed from Section M.
| 37 |
| Section M, 1.1 (a) states “…Breadth - 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. Depth - The Government will evaluate this submission to determine if the Offeror has multiple experiences relating to the services required under Section C, Statement of Work.” whereas Section L, para. 3.2.1. states “Breadth of experience reflects the offeror’s experience in performing all of the tasks required under Section C.1, Statement of Work, while depth of experience should show the magnitude of the offeror’s experience in performing each of the tasks.” These two sections of the conformed revised RFP appear in conflict with the answer to this question. Can the government clarify. |
The Government considers “multiple experiences relating to Section C, SOW” and “magnitude of experience” as the same requirement.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .