Questions_ _Answers__5.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #5

1. Three contradictory lists of key personnel are included in the RFP:

· Section C, RFP pages 34-45

· Section M, first paragraph of RFP page 182

· Section M, bottom of page 182 through 183 and pages 198 through 199

The personnel list provided in Section M on pages 198 through 199 appears the most relevant and is included twice in the RFP. Is it correct that we should provide resumes for the 25 personnel on this list?

ANSWER: See Amendment 02.

2. The first paragraph of RFP page 182 suggests that letters of commitment are required for various key personnel. Please confirm that letters of commitment are required only from Authorized Officials from Key Subcontractors (as described in Attachment 1, page 205) and not from individual key personnel.

ANSWER: The next Amendment will have the required content of the Letter of Commitment for Key Personnel. The letter referenced is for Key Subcontractors only.

3. The Proposal Volume outline shown on page 192 of the RFP includes Volume III, Tab (D) - Cost Pool and Audit Information. The Proposal Content section on page 195 of the RFP does not include a Tab (D) under Volume III, nor is the cost pool and audit information described elsewhere in the proposal. Please clarify whether this information is required.

ANSWER: See Amendment 02.

4. Offerors may have already submitted PPQs to clients for our projects in the latest NAVFAC/USACE PPQ format for submission to USACE or other Government contracting offices. Instead of asking our clients to complete another PPQ again, is it acceptable that we just include the completed PPQs in our proposal if we have a copy or request that they submit a copy of the already completed PPQ in response to this solicitation without having to complete another form on our behalf?

ANSWER: YES, MUST BE WITHIN THE LAST 3 YEARS

5. Would it be possible for the government to provide background environmental documents on the Pago Pago Elementary/Vaipito Military Reservation Sites? A list of documents that are referenced in an American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency flier include:

o 1999 Preliminary Site Investigation, by Environmental Chemical Corporation o 2003 Pago Pago Elementary School Remedial Investigation Report, Will Chee Planning o 2005 Remedial Action Plan, Will Chee Planning o 2011 Site Work Plan and Well Abandonment at Peter Coleman Elementary School, Engineering Remediation Resources Group

ANSWER: The available documents are being provided under Amendment 03. If additional final documents become available they will be provided by Amendment.

6. Reference: Technical Exhibit 6 – Key Subcontractors and Key Personnel was included with the RFP and referenced in Section H.

Question: Please clarify where this exhibit should be placed in the proposal.

ANSWER: Exhibit 6 should be provided in Volume III.

7. Reference: Attachment 04

Question: Attachment 04 has a tab called Labor Rate Calculation Method whose title is Burdened Straight-Time Rate- Base Year CPFF Rates? If all task orders are FFP should this tab be removed from Attachment 04. If not, should members of a Joint Venture submit 2 separate tabs for the labor rate calculation since each Joint Venture Company computes their labor rates slightly differently depending on their individual cost pools?

ANSWER: The Tab is required. Only one rate is allowed. The JV needs to agree to a firm fixed priced binding rates for each personnel category.

8. It has come to our attention that the primary incumbent on the existing POD contract has been working at the seed project site for over 10 years developing predecessor technical documents. Also, the technical approach for the seed project is the most highly rated portion of the criteria for evaluating the proposal. Furthermore, the government states it will provide the seed project historical data- it is now half-way through the current proposal period and these documents have not been provided. Finally, a previous question also asked for a map of the site and the government’s response instead of providing the map was “if you don’t have a map of the seed project site, the government can provide one”. If what has come to our attention is accurate, these factors could lead to an unfair advantage to the incumbent. Vital missing information includes number, depth, screened interval of site wells, historical soil and groundwater trend data to allow potential innovative approaches and the proposal of a “best value”, number and depth of historical soil samples collected in each plume, and more. Will the government provide the technical documents and maps for the seed project site as soon as possible and extend the proposal due date two weeks from when the data is provided by the government so that non-incumbents have the necessary documents to compete for the work?

ANSWER: The proposal due date remains 22 February 2016 @ 12:00 Noon CST.