The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Number
| Question |
| Section of the Solicitation |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| Experience in Relevant Projects Form – Is it permissible to use an alternate format as long as we include the information requested in the form? |
| L |
| No. the contractor is required to use the form provided in the solicitation. |
| 2 |
| The RFP does not define a project. Can an IDIQ contract be defined as a project? Can multiple consecutive TOs at a single site be defined as a project? In both these cases, there is a single POC who can provide past performance information. |
An amendment will be issued. A project is limited to either 1) a stand-alone contract or 2) a single task order performed under an IDIQ contract, similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation, and whose POP is at least 75% complete as of the date of the solicitation.
| 3 |
| Experience in Relevant Projects Form – Is it permissible to use an alternate format as long as we include the information requested in the form? |
| L |
| No. The contractor is required to use the form provided in the solicitation. |
| 4 |
| Experience in Relevant Projects Form – The text in this form is TNR 10-pt font; therefore, can we utilized 10-pt TNR for our projects to match the form, in lieu of the 12-pt TNR requested in the Proposal Instructions (Section L.2.d)? |
| L |
| TNR 12-pt shall be used for the forms. |
| 5 |
| We request a 2-week extension due to the early release date of the RFP. The FedBizOpps presolicitation notice dated 30 Aug 2016 indicated a release date of 22 September, and therefore we allocated resources to begin at that time. With the release two weeks ahead of time, we request additional time to allow for the needed reallocation of resources to adequately respond to this solicitation. |
| A – Front Page |
| Amendment will be issued to address. New proposal receipt date will be 1 November 2016, 2pm EST. |
| 6 |
| Page 97, iii Cost/Price Data – there is a reference to “Government provided Price Schedules, Attachment I”. Is there an Attachment I to the solicitation? |
| L |
| Language has been removed. See amendment. |
| 7 |
| . Page 97, iii Cost/Price Data – this section states that the “Contractor may not modify the price schedule wording or format”. Would the Government allow footnotes to the Price Schedule? |
| L |
| Yes |
| 8 |
| Page 97, iii Cost/Price Data, Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule – this section states that the “offerors are instructed to review the labor qualifications provided in Section J of the RFP”. No labor qualifications were found in Section J attachments. Please clarify if the Contractor is to use labor qualifications found on pages 90 -91 or if there is another attachment. |
| L |
| See response to Question 6. |
| 9 |
| Page 97, iii Cost/Price Data, Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule, (1) Hourly Rates – this section states that “offerors shall provide an unburdened labor rate, the “Base Hourly Rate” and a burdened “Fully Loaded Hourly Rate.” The Bid Schedule in Section B for Firm Fixed Price Task Orders doesn’t have a column for unburdened labor rates. May we modify the sheet to add this column? |
| L |
| No. See amendment for revised sheets in Section B. |
| 10 |
| Page 97, iii Cost/Price Data, Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule, (1) Hourly Rates – this section states that “offerors shall provide an unburdened labor rate, the “Base Hourly Rate” and a burdened “Fully Loaded Hourly Rate.” Once the contractor provides an unburdened labor rate, what is the difference between the Base Hourly Rate and Fully Loaded Hourly Rate? |
See Question 9
| 11 |
| Page 98, Sample Problem Price Proposal – this section references a “Government Sample Problem Price Sheet”. It does not appear that this Price Sheet was provided with the RFP documents. Will the Government be providing this price sheet? |
| J |
| See amendment. See Attachment 8 |
| 12 |
| Page 119, Small Business Participation Plan – this section states that Contractors are to “use $24,000,000 as the value of the total acquisition for this requirement”. Please verify that this number is the correct value. |
| L |
| Yes, this number is correct. |
| 13 |
| Please clarify the definition of recency in regards to Past Performance. Section L. (page 89) indicates a project has been “completed within the last five (5) years as of the RFP closing date, or is currently being performed and is at least 75% complete (as measured by performance period).” Section M. (page 114) defines recency as “ongoing or must have been performed during the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation.” |
| L and M |
| See amendment, Section M for revised language. |
| 14 |
| On page 114, recency rating methods are listed as applicable for Factors 3 and 4. Can we assume this recency requirement only applies to Factor 3, as some key personnel requirements require at least 7 years of experience. In order to adequately demonstrate staff as having at least 7 years of experience relative to the position, we must go back further than the 5 year recency requirement. |
| L |
| Only applies to Factor 3. See amendment |
| 15 |
| May Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire please be re-issued with a reduced font size for the fillable form. The default font size (which cannot be changed on our end) is oversized, which makes the text entered into the form illegible. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 3. |
| 16 |
| Can you please confirm the deadline/due date for questions on the MAES solicitation (W912DR-16-R-0004). |
October 7th – will issue by amendment.
| 17 |
| Please define a project for the purposes of this submittal. |
| L |
| See response to question #2. |
| 18 |
| Will a MATOC or ID/IQ contract be considered a project? |
| L |
| See response to question #2. |
| 19 |
| Can a project include multiple task orders or multiple contracts if they are from the same site or installation and they are for the same remediation effort such as multiple phases of one project? |
| L |
| See response to question #2. |
| 20 |
| Please allow CPARs to be used in lieu of PPQs |
| L |
| No. PPQs shall be provided. |
| 21 |
| The provided Experience in Relevant Projects form is in 10 point font. The limitation on size for text is 12 point font. Please clarify if the experience forms can be provided in 10 point font. |
| L |
| See response to question #4. |
| 22 |
| In Section L, Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule, a reference is made to “the labor qualifications provided in Section J of the RFP.” This document was not included in the original solicitation. |
| 23 |
| Section L, 1 requires the offeror to provide “proof they will be able to obtain bonding.” In which volume should this be provided? |
| L |
| Should go in Volume 3. See amendment. |
9/16/18
| 24 |
| Will the Government please issue a four-week extension to the RFP due date to provide sufficient time to develop the complex sample task and to develop the extensive proposal required? |
| A – Front Page |
| See response to question #5. |
| 25 |
| The current RFP does not appear to address the Q&A process. What is the Government’s process for receiving and responding to questions regarding the RFP, when are questions due, in what form (i.e., e-mailed to you or submitted through ProjNet), and how will the responses be distributed to bidders? |
| J |
| ProjNet will be used. See Attachment 9. Last day to submit questions will be October 7th. |
| 26 |
| Sample Technical Problem: It appears half of Figure 1 from the sample problem is missing. Figure 1 should at least show Building 426, which is included in the legend. It appears that the figure was larger than 8.5 x 11 inches, but was cut off when printed. Will the Government please provide all of Figure 1? |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6 |
| 27 |
| Figure 1 depicting the plan view layout of Site F was provided on an 8 ½ x 11 page within the Sample Technical Problem background documentation. Based on review of Figure 1, it appears as though the eastern extents of Site F were inadvertently cut off during formatting or production of the figure. Please confirm that the eastern extent of Site F ends as currently depicted and that the MRS boundary (red-line) would extend north from the current southeastern termination point to the northeastern termination point. |
| J |
| The term MRS has been changed to “Site Activity Area” on the revised figure. See amendment, Attachment 7. |
| 28 |
| Section 1.0 Site Background describes the former fire training area (FTA) as a “50 meter diameter unlined, bermed burn pit”, suggesting a circular footprint. However, Figure 1 currently depicts the former FTA as a rectangular feature located southeast of the former warehouses. Please confirm that the former FTA feature should be depicted/interpreted as a 50 meter diameter circular burn pit. |
| J |
| See amendment , Attachment 6. |
| 29 |
| Figure 1 currently does not identify the locations of Building 423 and 426, noted in Section 3.2 (Groundwater Operable Unit) as potentially at risk from soil vapor intrusion. Please identify the locations of the buildings on Figure 1. |
| J |
| See response to Question 26. |
| 30 |
| Table 1: Performance Objectives Summary – CLIN 1 Approved Project Management Plan (PMP), Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), and all PM responsibilities throughout the life of the project currently identifies that the Draft PMP and QASP is due within 20 days of NTP with Final PMP and QASP due 10 days following COR comments. Section 5.1, PMP, states that the Draft PMP is due within 15 days of contract award (i.e., NTP) and Final PMP and QASP is due 15 days following COR comments. Please clarify the discrepancy in the available days for submittal of the Draft PMP and QASP and Final PMP and QASP. |
| L |
| Table 1 is correct. Section 5.1 will be changed to match it. |
| 31 |
| Is Abstract Creek located within the boundary of Government controlled property? |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 32 |
| Section L.3.c.1).iii, p. 89 (Volume 1, Factor 2): The Government does not appear to have defined what constitutes a “project” for the purpose of proving experience or past performance. Are we correct to assume that a project is limited to either 1) a stand-alone contract or 2) a single task order performed under an IDIQ contract, similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation, and whose POP is at least 75% complete as of the date of the solicitation? |
| L |
| See response to Question 2. |
| 33 |
| Section L.3.c.1).iii, p. 88 (Volume 1, Factor 2) states “Describe at least five (5) but no more than eight (8) recent and relevant projects performed as the prime…” but on p, 89 states ”The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror’s experience with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor”. Will the Government please confirm that the offeror’s or formal teaming partner’s 5-8 projects may have been performed as a prime, or as a major subcontractor? |
| L |
| Yes – this is confirmed. Amendment will revise Section L. |
| 34 |
| Section L.3.c.1).iv, p. 89-90 (Volume 1, Factor 3): On numerous occasions where CPARS and/or a previous PPQ exist for a project, the Government client refuses to fill out a new PPQ. Will the Government please confirm that we can we submit the most recent CPARS or existing PPQ to fulfill the Factor 3 requirement? |
| 34.5 |
| Bid Schedule for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 (p. 7-10) state “Each year’s rates will be effective for a 12 month ordering period”. If the POP for a Task Order (TO) extends into subsequent contract year(s), can the bid include future-year labor rates for work to be performed during out-years? For example, if a TO price is requested in the base year of the contract and has a POP of 36 months, is the offeror permitted to use Year 1, 2 and 3 rates according to when the work is scheduled to be performed, or are the rates restricted to the base year only for the entire 36 month POP? |
NO, The task order will be restricted to the Base year only for the entire 36 months.
Note. The rates used at the time of a task order award will be active for the entire period of performance.
| 35 |
| Section I, Clause 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist (p. 70 -76) is only applicable when certified cost or pricing data is required; and, since this RFP does not require certified cost or pricing data (Section L.3.c.3).iii, p. 96, Volume 3, Factor 7, General), it is our understanding that submission of the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required for this proposal. Please confirm our understanding. |
This has been deleted in its entirety.
| 36 |
| Section L.3.c.3).iii, p. 97 (Volume 3, Factor 7), Cost/Price Data: Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule indicates that the offeror may not modify the price schedule wording or format; however some offerors have different indirect rates for home and field yet in some categories on the form (Fringe, FCCOM, G&A) only one line item is provided. May the Offerors modify the form and include two rate tables – one for field staff and one for home office staff – to be consist with their accounting practices? |
| L |
| Please provide info as backup. See amendment, Section B, revised Bid/Price schedules. |
| 37 |
| Section L.3.c.3).iii, p. 98 (Volume 3, Factor 7), Sample Problem Price Proposal states “Offerors may use their own format for the price spreadsheets, but must submit Government provided Price Schedules, Attachment I.” No Attachment I is included in the solicitation. Please clarify. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 8. You must use the price sheet in Attachment 8. You must provide backup to support your proposal. |
| 38 |
| Sample Technical Problem: Please clarify how the Sample Problem Technical Approach and Cost/Pricing should be submitted. The Sample Technical Problem, 4.0 Technical Approach (p. 102) states “The Sample Technical Problem should is a stand-alone submittal, separate from the Cost Evaluation. It should include the technical approach, project schedule and labor hours for each task of the sample problem.” We assume this means that the Technical Approach, with a schedule and table of labor-hours required for each task, should be included in Volume 1 and the bid sheet provided on p. 109 be submitted as part of Volume 3. Please confirm. Also, the Bid Schedule for the Sample Technical Problem identifies Soil remedial Action Plan under CLINs 5 and 8. We assume the entry under CLIN 8 should read “Soil Remedial Action Completion report” – please confirm. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. |
Volume 1 includes no estimates of hours, but is only the technical approach and schedule. Volume 3 will contain the proposal of labor hours.
CLIN 7 should read “Soil Remedial Action and Remedial Action Report” and CLIN 8 is as published in the solicitation.
| 39 |
| Factor 3—Past Performance currently has a page limitation of 5 pages with PPQs not counting toward the page limitation. Can you please provide some insight as to what content is required for the 5 pages allocated? |
| L |
| See amendment. Amendment will remove the requirement for the 5 page. |
| 40 |
| Is it permissible to use an 11x17 (that is not a table or graphics representation) to describe relevant projects under Factor 2—Relevant Corporate Experience/Project List? |
| L |
| No. 8.5 x 11 is required as per the solicitation. |
| 41 |
| Is it permissible to modify the Experience in Relevant Projects as long as the same information is provided in the same order as the form? |
| L |
| No. Must use form provided. |
| 42 |
| The Site F figure on pages 110-111 in the RFP includes two items in the legend (existing building (426) and barracks) that are not reflected on the map…is this an oversight? |
| J |
| See response to Question 26 |
| 43 |
| L.3.C.1 iii. The first sentence of Factor 2 (Page 88) indicates the relevant projects must be performed as the prime. In the 3rd paragraph on page 89, the RFP notes the offeror should provide documentation outlining its experience as a prime or major subcontractor. The Past Performance Questionnaire also requests if the work was performed as prime or subcontractor. Can the offeror use a project where it had a significant role as a subcontractor? |
| L |
| See Response to question #33. |
| 44 |
| L.3.C.1 iii. The RFP does not provide amplifying information on what constitutes a project – e.g. Site Specific vs an ID/IQ contract that may include multiple sites. It also does not indicate if the offeror performed at a single site under multiple contract vehicles can the offeror cite multiple contracts. Can the government clarify what constitutes a project? |
| L |
| See response to question #2. |
| 45 |
| L.3.C.1 iii. The Factor 2 heading “Relevant Corporate Experience/Project Listing” implies the government may be seeking an introduction or narrative, but does not explicitly spell this out the subsequent RFP text. Can the offeror provide an introductory narrative to help demonstrate its depth, breadth, and relevancy of its experience in addition to the project descriptions? |
| L |
| No introductory paragraph. Relevant project form is to be used. See Attachment 4 |
| 46 |
| Is it permissible to use a sans serif typeface, such as Arial, for tables and illustrations? |
Yes – refer to Page 87, paragraph 3.
| 47 |
| Based on the level of effort needed to address the requirements of this RFP, we respectfully request an extension to the submittal date to 2pm ET Friday, October 28th. |
| A |
| See response to question #5. |
| 48 |
| In Section L Instructions to Offerors (page 88) under Factor 2, the RFP states that projects that demonstrate experience with different phases of the CERCLA process will be viewed more favorably. Will projects that demonstrate experience with the RCRA equivalent of the different phases of the CERCLA process also be viewed more favorably? How about the state equivalent such as Act 2? As CENAB is aware more and more remediation work is being performed under RCRA or other state programs, such as Act 2 in PA, one of the focus states. |
| L |
| Because CERCLA is the process that applies to the majority of our work, we are most interested in projects that demonstrate experience with the different phases of the CERCLA process. If an offeror does not have a wide variety of experiences with the different phases of CERCLA, then they can describe such experience with RCRA or with similar state programs, but CERCLA experience will be viewed most favorably. |
| 49 |
| In Section L Instructions to Offerors (page 89) under Factor 3, the RFP states that there is a 5-page limitation for Factor 3. The only requirement for Factor 3 are the PPQs, which don’t count against the page limit. What additional information are you looking for in this section that would require the 5 allotted pages? |
| L |
| See response to #39. |
| 50 |
| In Section L Instructions to Offerors (page 90) under Factor 3, the RFP states that the PPQs should be sent directly to the Government’s POC and that Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. |
a. Instead of requesting a new PPQ from the client, may the Offeror provide previously completed PPQs in their entirety in their proposal? It is our understanding that the standardized PPQ form was meant to be used multiple times in an effort to reduce the requirement to continuously go back to the client for a Past Performance references when new Proposals were pursued.
| b. | May the Offers provide a completed CPARS in their proposal, instead of a PPQ? Many clients have refused to fill out PPQs when a completed CPARS is in place. |
| L |
| No. CPARS or previously submitted PPQs shall not be used. |
| 51 |
| In Section M Evaluation Criteria (page 112) under Factor 1, the RFP states that the Proposals will be evaluated for personnel selected to execute the remediation and the extent to which the proposed solution is feasible, reasonable and efficient in terms of execution, cost and schedule (among other factors). |
a. Please confirm that cost is not to be included/evaluated as part of Factor 1.
| b. | Are you looking for a full Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) or would a summary table suffice? If an IMS is required, will it count towards the page limitation? |
| M |
| a. Cost will not be evaluated/included in Factor 1. |
b. IMS is not required, however we would like to see a summary schedule.
| 52 |
| On Page 30 of the RFP, the NAICS code for this acquisition is 562910, Remediation Services, with a size Standard of 500 employees (Environmental Remediation Services). Please confirm the correct size standard is 750 employees. |
| H |
| Size Standard of 750 employees is correct – see amendment. |
| 53 |
| Can the Offeror include the "Persons authorized to negotiate" information and "Persons authorized to sign the proposal" information in a cover letter to the proposal, instead of on the Cover/Title Page(s)? |
Cover letter is acceptable.
| 54 |
| Proposal Adequacy Checklist (page 70): Which Volume should the Proposal Adequacy Checklist be included in? |
See response to Question #35
| 55 |
| In Section M Evaluation Criteria (page 119) under Factor 6 (item ‘u’), the RFP states that the Government will evaluate our utilization of Small Businesses, including a requirement for the most recent Individual Subcontracting Report(s) for each project submitted. The instructions (page 95, item ‘v’) recognize the possibility that contracts held by Small Businesses may not include a FAR Clause 52.219-8 requirement. Please confirm that Small Businesses that have certified the same will not be penalized during the associated evaluation. |
| M |
| See amendment. |
| 56 |
| Page 30, H.1 (B) states “Of the 10 contracts proposal; up to six contracts will be reserved for small business.” Of the 6 contracts for Small Businesses, will there be a reserve for 8a, Woman Owned, HUBZone, and/or Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses? |
| H |
| No |
| 56.5 |
| Page 117, D.7 (b) states “Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty-five (25) percent or more of the proposed effort.” Please confirm if corporate experience submitted under Factor 2 must be from team members who will perform 25% or more of the MAES contract. |
| M |
| Confirmed |
| 57 |
| Is it acceptable to present Factor 2 project descriptions on 11”x17” paper? We understand this size paper accounts for 2 pages. |
| L |
| No. The Form provided must be used. |
| 58 |
| Section L.1 Introduction, page 85, 6th paragraph requires that offerors provide proof that they will be able to obtain bonding. Where shall this information be included in the proposal? |
| L |
| See amendment, Volume III |
| 59 |
| Volume III: Factor 7.iii. Cost/Price Data, first bullet – Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule, page 97 indicates “…offerors are instructed to review the labor qualifications provided in Section J of the RFP and select the most appropriate/similar labor disciplines from the provided labor disciplines.” Please provide the referenced labor qualification. |
| L |
| See response to Question #8 |
| 60 |
| Section M Evaluation Criteria (page 116) under Factor 2.a indicates that the evaluation will focus on relevant experience with the project types listed in the PWS. Will the project types listed in Section L.1.iii Factor 2 be viewed more favorably than other types of projects? |
| L |
| See page 88, paragraph iii |
| 61 |
| Section L, Factor 3: Past Performance. Many of our customers’ policy is the CPAR is the official project performance report and they no longer issue separate PPQs. Can a CPAR be submitted in lieu of a PPQ? |
| L |
| No. CPARS is not to be submitted. Use the provided PPQ. |
| 62 |
| Section L, Factor 3: Past Performance. On Page 89, item iv. Factor 3: Past Performance states "Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) do not count towards the page limitation". Item (3) under Factor 3 states "Completed PPQs should be submitted by the previous customer directly to the Government’s point of contact, Kathy Brown via e-mail…prior to proposal closing date of the solicitation”. Which PPQs are the government referring to that won’t count against the page limitation? |
| L |
| PPQs will not count towards the page limitation. 5 page limitation will be removed via amendment. |
| 63 |
| Section L, Factor 3: Past Performance. Will the Government accept previously completed PPQs for projects listed in Factor 2? - The Government appears to allude to this being acceptable when it says Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) do not count against the page limitation for Factor 3: Past Performance. Allowing the submittal of previously completed PPQs helps avoid loss of productivity by federal employees by repeating PPQ preparation that has already been prepared for a similar RFP. |
| L |
| No. PPQs must be submitted thru the contract specialist as described in the RFP. |
| 64 |
| Factor 7, Cost/Price Information. For purposes of cost estimating, can the Government provide projected start dates for the IDIQ contract and Sample Problem? |
4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. Sample problem is a hypothetical problem.
| 65 |
| What is the deadline for submitting questions? |
See response to Question 16
| 66 |
| The Sample Technical Problem in the RFP (beginning on page 100 of 121) is slightly different than what is presented in Attachment 6 Sample Technical Problem. Which do we follow? |
| J |
| The Sample Problem has been revised and will be reissued. See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 67 |
| Will the Government consider extending the proposal due date due to the Federal holiday on Monday, October 10, 2016? |
| A |
| See question #5. |
9/19/16
| 68 |
| What is the last day offerors may submit questions? |
See response to Question #16
| 69 |
| RFP Section L, Volume I – Factor 3: Past Performance. Offerors are instructed to have their clients complete and submit the PPQ form included in the RFP (Section J), also known as Form PPQ-0. For our clients’ convenience, may offerors submit to the Government PPQs (Form PPQ-0) completed by our clients that were previously submitted in other proposals? |
No. Old PPQs may not be submitted. New PPQs must be submitted to the contract specialist per the RFP.
| 70 |
| If offerors may provide previously submitted PPQs, should they be submitted with the proposal as an Attachment to Factor 3 that will not be included in the page count? Or should the offeror provide the previously submitted PPQs directly to Kathy Brown via email? |
| L |
| See response to Question #62 |
| 71 |
| May offerors provide a recent project CPAR in lieu of a PPQ |
No.
| 72 |
| If offerors are allowed to provide a previously submitted PPQ, may they provide PPQs in formats other than the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ Form (Form PPQ-0)? |
No.
| 73 |
| RFP Section L, Volume I – Factor 5: Management/Organizational Capabilities, first bullet states, “…The Government should be able to easily see the depth, diversity of technical disciplines and years of experience of the offeror’s qualified personnel.” Please confirm that the term qualified personnel is the same as proposed personnel. If not, please clarify how qualified personnel differs from proposed personnel. |
Qualified personnel include all technical/management personnel that each Offeror can utilize based on the complexity of each Task Order to be awarded. Proposed Personnel are a subset of the qualified Personnel and are defined in Factor 4.
| 74 |
| RFP Section I, DFAR Clause 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist – Please clarify if this Checklist is required to be completed and submitted with the proposal. If submittal is required, please specify in which section of the proposal. |
This has been deleted in its entirety.
| 75 |
| RFP Section J, Attachment 5, Lobby Form - Please clarify if this form SF-LLL is required to be completed and submitted with the proposal. If submittal is required, please specify in which section of the proposal. |
Volume III
| 76 |
| RFP Section L, Subsection 1, Paragraph 6, states “Offerors shall provide proof that they will be able to obtain bonding and have an adequate accounting system.” Please specify in which section of the proposal this bonding documentation should be included. |
Volume III
| 77 |
| RFP Section L, Subsection 2, Volume II, Factor 6, section v Utilization of Small Business – The RFP requires for “…each project submitted, include the corresponding most recent Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR), covering the period of performance for the submitted project.” Small Businesses are not required to submit Individual Subcontracting Report(s), (ISR), therefore Small Businesses would be unable to comply with this requirement. Respectfully request the Government consider making this requirement not applicable to Small Business Offerors. |
| L |
| See amendment. |
| 78 |
| RFP Section L.3.subsection v, Factor 4 includes a Key Personnel Labor Category for Program Manager, but RFP Section B, Bid Schedule does not include the Program Manager labor category. Please clarify. |
| B |
| See amendment. |
| 79 |
| RFP Section L.3.subsection v, Factor 4 includes a Key Personnel Labor Category for Senior Environmental Engineer but RFP Section B, Bid Schedule does not include the Senior Environmental Engineer labor category. Please clarify. |
| B |
| See amendment |
| 80 |
| RFP Section L.3.subsection v, Factor 4 includes a Key Personnel Labor Category for Senior Environmental Engineer but RFP Section B, Bid Schedule does not include the Senior Environmental Engineer labor category. Please clarify. |
| B |
| See amendment, Attachment 8. |
| 81 |
| RFP Section L, subsection iii (2) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Certification – Please clarify where in the proposal this documentation should be provided. |
| L |
| See amendment, Attachment 8. |
| 82 |
| RFP Section L includes “MAES 2017 Sample Technical Problem Bid Sheet Remedial Measures at Site F;” however, this appears to differ from the RFP attachment 6, which includes “Bid Schedule for Sample Technical Problem.” Please confirm which bid schedule is accurate for the sample problem. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 8. |
| 83 |
| RFP Section L, Sample Problem Price Proposal – Since this is a fictitious sample task please confirm that no backup documentation must be provided for costs for proposed subcontractors, travel, and other direct costs. |
| L |
| See amendment. |
| 84 |
| RFP Section L, Volume II, Factor 6, Small Business Participation Plan, subsection iv – Please clarify if the Teaming Agreements documenting enforceable commitments to utilize small businesses submitted in this section, should also be submitted in Volume III, Factor 7, Subsection ii, Contract Documentation, second bullet. |
| L |
| Yes |
| 85 |
| RFP Section L, Volume I, Factor 1, Sample Problem, subsection ii – The text references an Appendix H, but no Appendix H has been provided or identified in the RFP documents. Please clarify. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 86 |
| Sample Technical Problem – Please confirm that the map provided on the last two pages of the sample problem is complete. The eastern portion of the site appears to have been cut off. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 7. |
| 87 |
| Sample Technical Problem – Please show the groundwater plume on the figure. Is the groundwater contamination discharging to Abstract Creek? |
| J |
| The Government is not specifying this detail. The professional judgment of the bidder shall be used. See amendment, Attachment 6 for revised Sample Problem. |
| 88 |
| Sample Technical Problem – Are Buildings 423 and/or 426 currently occupied? |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 89 |
| Please clarify if the four “former warehouses” that are in the foot print of the contaminated area, and their foundations, have been removed. Alternatively, please provide enough construction details to provide a basis for estimating the impact of the remnants of the warehouses on the remedial process. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 90 |
| If it is necessary to remove the railroad tracks near the southern boundary of the contaminated area, will replacement of these tracks be required? |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 6. The rail line is not active, and would not have to be replaced if removed. |
| 91 |
| Section B: We understand that the rates provided in Bid Schedule for CLIN 0001 will be binding and will be the maximum rates to be used for Firm Fixed Price Task Orders. Please confirm that the rates provided in Bid Schedule for CLIN 0002 for Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders are not binding, but are being provided so that the government can make a determination of Price Reasonableness. |
| B |
| See amendment, Section B. The rates on the bid (price) schedule are binding. |
| 92 |
| Section B: What is the expected award date we should assume to establish rates for Year 1 (Base Year)? |
4th quarter Fiscal Year 2017.
| 93 |
| Section B: The labor rate tables do not align with two of the key positions listed in Section L. Please confirm that the following are equivalent: |
| Section B Description | Section L Key Position |
| Principal | Program Manager |
| Safety and Health Manager | Corporate Health and |
Safety Officer
| L and B |
| See amendment, Section B, revised Bid/Price Sheet. |
| 94 |
| FAR 52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting: Does the Limitations on Subcontracting clause apply to small businesses on task orders competed on an unrestricted basis? |
NO.
| 95 |
| DFAR 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist: Please confirm that the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is only required on Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders, and therefore, is not applicable to the Sample Problem. Specifically, we are not required to obtain detailed pricing backup, including subcontractor quotes, etc. |
This has been removed in its entirety.
| 96 |
| Section L.1 Introduction: The sixth paragraph states “Offeror’s shall provide proof that they will be able to obtain bonding ($150K in individual bonding capacity and $10M in aggregate bonding capacity) and have an adequate accounting system.” The determination of adequate accounting system is to be provided in Volume III, Contract Documentation. Please confirm that proof of bonding should also be included in this section. |
| L |
| Yes, bonding information shall be included in Volume III. |
| 97 |
| Section L.3.c1).iii Factor 2 Relevant Corporate Experience/Project List: The requirement states “Five (5) of the projects should be of the following types: CERCLA groundwater remediation; CERCLA soil remediation; bioremediation; investigation or remediation of a radiological site; landfill cap construction or repair; environmental compliance; free product recovery; underground storage tank removal/closure/replacement.” This sentence lists 8 different types of work. Is it the government’s requirement that all 8 types of work must be shown within only 5 projects? Or is it acceptable to demonstrate these 8 types of work within a minimum of 5, but up to 8 projects? |
| L |
| Bid as shown… |
| 98 |
| Section L.3.c1).iii Factor 2 Relevant Corporate Experience/Project List: One of the 8 project types requested is “environmental compliance.” Please define what is meant by environmental compliance as the term can have a broad interpretation. |
| L |
| Bid as shown. |
| 99 |
| Section L.3.c1).iii Factor 2 Relevant Corporate Experience/Project List: If multiple task orders were issued to complete multiple phases of a project at the same site, may those be provided as one “project”? |
| L |
| See response to Question #2. |
| 100 |
| Section L.3.c1).iii and Section M.D.6, Factor 2 Relevant Corporate Experience/Project List: There appears to be some minor differences between what “will be viewed more favorably” as stated in Section L versus the items listed in Section M as “The evaluation will focus on…” To make sure the evaluation criteria are absolutely clear to both offerors and evaluators, we suggest reconciling these requirements. |
| L |
| Bid as shown. |
| 101 |
| Section L.3.c1).iv Factor 3 Past Performance: We request that the government consider allowing two additional methods of receiving past performance evaluations: |
Allow previously completed and signed NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ‐0 to be provided in our proposal. The purpose of standardizing the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form was so that government clients do not have to complete PPQs for each individual solicitation. It is a considerable burden to have clients complete multiple PPQs for the same project. The timing of this solicitation at government year-end makes it particularly burdensome.
Allow CPARS to be provided in our proposal in lieu of the PPQ form. We have several clients, including USACE customers, who will not or cannot complete a PPQ if a CPARS has been completed. Some of these are by choice; others have been directed by legal not complete PPQs if CPARS have been completed.
| L |
| Provided PPQ document must be used. |
| 102 |
| Section L.3.c1).v Factor 4 Relevant Technical Capabilities/Key Personnel: The RFP lists 13 positions, with 3 of the positions requiring at least 2 resumes for the position. If we were to provide the maximum number of resumes, it would be 23 resumes, or 46 pages at 2 pages per individual. Please consider increasing the page limitation in this factor to 46 pages to allow for the maximum number of resumes to be provided. |
| L |
| 40 pgs is the limit. |
| 103 |
| Section L.3.c1).v Factor 4 Relevant Technical Capabilities/Key Personnel states “Resumes will be evaluated to determine the depth and breadth of their individual experience and training as it relates to the responsibilities each person will have on this contract.” This implies that the government will be evaluating depth and breadth of experience for each individual, rather than depth and breadth of experience among multiple people. Please confirm this assumption is correct, as we are trying to ascertain if it is more beneficial to show the maximum number resumes for each position, even though 1 of those resumes may not show a lot of depth and breadth of experience but does show experience or training that the other two personnel do not have. |
| L |
| How offerors chose which resumes to show is up to each offeror. The Government will evaluate both the Team Member and how they will function as part of the proposed Team. Refer to Pg. 90 and 113. |
| 104 |
| Section L.3.c1).v Factor 4 Relevant Technical Capabilities/Key Personnel: For the Corporate Health and Safety Officer, please consider having the minimum requirement be a Certified Industrial Hygienist OR a Certified Safety Professional, and rating personnel who hold both certifications more favorably. It appears that this position is equivalent to the Safety and Health Manager (SHM) as defined by EM 385-1-1. Section 33.C.01 of EM 385-1-1 states that the SHM “shall be a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), Certified Safety Professional (CSP) or Certified Health Physicist (CHP).” |
| 105 |
| Section L.3.c2).v Utilization of Small Business: The requirement states “Ensure that ISRs are of similar in size, scope and complexity.” We are a small business under NAICS 562910, but a large business under other NAICS codes on contracts that are not similar in scope to the MAES 2017. Please confirm that ISRs for these contracts should not be included in our proposal. |
| L |
| See response to Question # 77. |
| 106 |
| Section L.3.c2).v Utilization of Small Business: The RFP states “Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR Clause 52.219-8 shall certify the same; however, they may provide alternate documentation from customers; local, state or federal agencies that demonstrates use/support of small businesses.” If a small business does not have similar contracts with this clause and does not have alternate documentation from customers that demonstrates use/support of small businesses, may we provide other supporting information, such as listing the percentage of small business utilization on similar projects? |
| L |
| See response to Question #77 |
| 107 |
| Section L.3.c3).iii.(1) Exceptions/Assumptions: Please confirm that only exceptions or deviations from the terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in Section C should be included in this section. Assumptions for the Sample Problem Price Proposal should be included in the narrative, pricing methodology, and basis of estimate provided in the Sample Problem Price Proposal section. |
| L |
| See amendment. |
| 108 |
| Sample Problem Bid Sheet: The Bid Sheet provided on page 109 of 121 in the main solicitation document is slightly different than the Bid Schedule provided in the file named “Sample_Technical_Problem.pdf.” The most significant difference is that the Bid Sheet on page 109 lists CLIN 0007 as “Soil Remedial Action & Remedial Action Report” whereas the separate file states “Soil Remedial Action & Remedial Action Plan.” Please confirm which version takes preference. |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 8. |
| 109 |
| Section J, Experience in Relevant Projects Form: When we exported this form to Microsoft Word, we note that the font is 10 point font. Further, the form is provided in table format. Per Section L.2.d, “Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.” |
| J |
| The form is a PDF and shouldn’t be exported to Word. The form will be reissued per amendment fixing the font issues. See amendment, Attachment 4. |
| 109.5 |
| Please confirm that use of 10 point font is acceptable for text provided in the Experience Form. |
If resumes are provided in a similar format, would 10 point font be acceptable for those as well?
TNR – 12 pt font is required.
| 110 |
| Sample Technical Problem: We understand that the Baltimore District has a separate contract to perform transportation and disposal of radioactive waste (Multiple Award Radiological Transportation and Disposal Services Contract). May we assume that the radiological waste will be transported and disposed of under this contract? |
No, all work must be performed under the Sample Task.
| 111 |
| Sample Technical Problem: The figure appears to be cut off with the right hand portion of the figure missing. Please provide a figure showing the locations of Buildings 423 and 426 and Abstract Creek. |
| J |
| See response to Question 26. |
| 112 |
| Sample Technical Problem: Should the Contractor assume that the 2012 Remedial Investigation was comprehensive? In other words, it delineated nature and extent of contamination horizontally and vertically, identified all contaminants of concern, and assessed risk, and was approved by the regulatory agencies? |
| J |
| The Government provides no further information. The technical judgement of the bidder is required. |
| 113 |
| Sample Technical Problem: Is the intent of the verification sampling listed in the Bid Sheet to verify contaminants and extent of contamination before the remedial action, or after? |
| J |
| The Government provides no further information. The technical judgement of the bidder is required. |
| 114 |
| Sample Technical Problem: Is the railroad shown on the Site F Figure (pg 110) an active railroad? |
| J |
| See response to question 90. |
| 115 |
| Sample Technical Problem: The bid form for the sample problem only includes the project tasks. How will the Government evaluate the lowest 30-year cost as required in the performance standard? |
| J |
| The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the contractor’s discussion of how they will meet this particular requirement in the Technical Proposal. |
| 116 |
| The Sample Problem Bid Sheet has CLIN 0002 listed as Verification Sampling however there are no major milestones associated with this CLIN (pg 104 of 121). It is our understanding that RIs have been completed for both the soil and groundwater operable units. Does the Government anticipate verification sampling will be required prior to preparation of FF/PP/RODs for soil and groundwater operable unit in CLINS 0003 and 0004? |
| J |
| See response to question #s 113 and 208. |
| 117 |
| The figure provided with the Sample Problem appears to be cut off along the right margin. We request a figure that shows the entire site including the location Bldg 423, Bldg 426, and abstract Creek. |
See response to question 26.
| 118 |
| The figure shows a Rail Road track within the area of RAD contamination. Is the track active? If the track is not active and Contractors elect to remove it during the soil remedy, does it need to be replaced? If the track is active, how active is the track with respect to number of potential disruptions per day or week? |
See response to question 90.
| 119 |
| Is there a deadline for questions to be submitted? |
See response to Question #16
| 120 |
| RFP section L, iv, (3) states that completed PPQ forms should be submitted directly to the Government rather than submitted with offeror proposals. However, Attachment 3 (PPQ form) page 1 includes instructions to customers to send the completed PPQ back to the offeror for inclusion with their proposal. We request that PPQs be sent with offeror proposals per the instructions in Attachment 3. It is already very difficult to make sure PPQs are completed and turned in on time. Providing conflicting instructions to customers will increase the possibility of PPQ forms not being submitted correctly. This will also ensure we are able to track the PPQs and know that they are submitted on time/correctly. |
Bid as shown.
| 121 |
| In order to reduce effort on government staff, specifically PPQ contacts, we request to use previously completed PPQs in our submittal, rather than asking government POCs to complete another PPQ for the same project. |
Bid as shown.
| 121 |
| Please confirm if there is a cutoff date for submittal of questions? |
See response to Question #16
| 122 |
| Can the executive summary be presented on 11x17? |
No. 8.5” x 11”
| 123 |
| Is all font in the proposal limited to Times New Roman including section headings and on graphics? |
Refer to Page 87, paragraph 3a
| 124 |
| Section L, Page 88, Factor 1 - Text references an Appendix H which is not provided. Will one be provided or is this a typo? |
| L |
| See amendment. |
| 125 |
| Factor 2, Section L, page 89 of the RFP states: "The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining the offeror's experience with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. In addition, the offeror shall address the following elements within the narrative:..." Please clarify if this information should be included within the 5-8 project descriptions or within a separate narrative? |
| L |
| Within the described number of pages. |
| 126 |
| Factor 2 - please confirm if a project is defined as one specific task order or if it can be multiple related task orders at the same location, either under the same or different contracts? |
See response to question #2
| 127 |
| Factor 2 - Section L, page 89 states that "rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation." What is the average size task order anticipated to be in order to compare relative size? |
| 128 |
| Factor 2 - Section L, Page 89 - referring to the Experience in Relevant Projects template, can the form be altered slighted so long as all the information requested is included and clearly identified? |
| J |
| See amendment, Attachment 4. |
| 129 |
| Factor 3 - we respectfully request re-consideration of the requirement for PPQs to be submitted directly to the KO from the customer. Can PPQs be compiled by the contractor and submitted with our proposal vs. directly to the USACE? This way we can be sure they are all submitted and organized appropriately. |
| L |
| Bid as shown. |
| 130 |
| Factor 3 - Can recently completed PPQs for the same project be used? This reduces the burden to the customer. |
| L |
| Bid as shown. |
| 131 |
| Factor 3 - Can a CPARS be used in lieu of a PPQ for past performance? |
| L |
| No, bid as shown. |
| 132 |
| Section L, page 85 - the RFP requests proof of bonding capacity - where in the proposal should this information be provided? Should this be within Volume III with the cost/price information? |
See response to Question 23.
| 133 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.c.3) iii (page 97) first bullet: Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule: states "Offerors may not modify the price schedule wording or format." Just below in paragraph (1) it states that "Offerors shall provide an unburdened labor rate, the "Base Hourly Rate" and a "Fully Loaded hourly Rate" for each of the fire years of the ordering period starting in FY 17 for each of the labor categories provide on the Price Schedule." The FFP and CPFF Price Schedules in Section B do not have a column for the Unburdened rates and to add one would be modifying the price schedule in violation of the above statement. Please advise how this should be handled. |
| L |
| See amendment. |
| 134 |
| Section L, paragraph 3.c.3) iii (page 97) first bullet: Hourly Labor Rates Price Schedule refers to "labor qualifications provided in Section J of the RFP..." Section J does not include such labor qualifications. Please advise. |
See response to Question #10
| 135 |
| Sample task figure - page 110: The radiological contamination in the figure has an open end on the railroad on the right hand side. It is assumed the limit of radiologically contaminated soils is just that in the figure? |
| J |
| See response to question 26. |
| 136 |
| Sample task: Will the radiological portion of the remediation be conducted under MARSSIM; that is will a final status survey FSS be part of the plan? |
| J |
| Applicable MARSSIM requirements must be met. See amendment, Attachment 6. |
| 137 |
| Sample task: The sample problem indicates that there are VI issues in buildings 423 and 426. These buildings are not identified in the map. Where are they located? |
See response to question 26.
| 138 |
| Sample task: Section 3.2 discusses groundwater impacts based on the RI, but limited detail is provided. Is there any more groundwater quality data? Sample locations? Depths? |
No, the technical judgement of the bidder is required.
| 139 |
| Section M, Par. D EVALUATION APPROACH, Subparagraph 7 Factor 3: Past Performance, subparagraph b., second paragraph (page 117) states "Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five (5) years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date." We understand that past performance data cannot be older than five (5) years. What is the significance of the three year period? |
| 140 |
| We respectively request an extension of 2 weeks on this proposal to allow adequate time for receipt and incorporation of the Q&A. |
See question #5
9-20-16
| 141 |
| Section I (pages 70 through 76) contains the Proposal Adequacy Checklist, which is to be completed. However, the instructions in Section L do not specify the proposal volume in which the checklist is to be provided. Please clarify where the Proposal Adequacy Checklist should be included and whether a tab divider is required. |
This has been deleted in it entirety.
| 142 |
| Section L.1, page 85, states “Offeror’s shall provide proof that they will be able to obtain bonding ($150K in individual bonding capacity and $10M in aggregate bonding capacity) and have an adequate accounting system.” Can the Government please clarify whether we are to include this proof of bonding in the same section of the cost proposal as information regarding our accounting system, or some other location within the proposal? |
| L |
| Bonding capacity should be included in Volume III. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
