ATTACHMENT P - QA PROJNET - 25 JAN 2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Quality Assurance (QA) Seeding Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W912DY20R0028
About this file
This is a solicitation for an unrestricted full and open multiple award task order contract to provide quality assurance seeding services. The contract is valued at $49 million over five years and will support sites throughout the United States, U.S. territories, and outlying areas. Individual task orders will average $500,000. The North American Industry Classification System code is 562910 for environmental remediation services. The applicable product service code is F108 for hazardous substance removal, cleanup, and disposal services. Questions regarding this solicitation should be directed to the point of contact listed by the specified deadline.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| QA Seeding Questions & Answers | ||||||
| Questions | Government Response | PM/PE Responses | OC Comments | OC extra comments | ||
| 1 | Due to the upcoming holidays would the government consider granting a 1 week extension to the December 23rd ProjNet deadline for questions to allow bidders a more thorough review of the RFP Documents? | There will be no extensions for the ProjNet deadline for the questions. | ||||
| 2 | Would the Government please consider a 2-week extension of the proposal due date from Thursday January 21, 2021 to Thursday, February 4, 2021 due to the upcoming holidays and allow bidders adequate time to evaluate potential impacts of any forthcoming response to questions (after ProjNet closes on December 23, 2020). From recent solicitations, the limited amount of time after all questions are answered has created logistical challenges associated with evaluating impacts to technical and cost proposals while obtaining reliable and competitive equipment and material pricing and coordination with subcontractors and vendors. | According to Amendment 02, the proposal due date has been extended to Feb 8, 2021 at 9:00am CST | Based on the prior discussion, I think this needs to be revised. | |||
| 3 | Please clarify whether the Third Party contractor is required to review geophysical and or seed data from the contractor performing the RA and report any issues/comments to the USACE. | This will not be required for this Sample Task Order. | This will not be required for this Sample Task Order. | Should this read "Sample Task Order" rather than "Task Order"? | ||
| 4 | Please clarify how many sweepers will be actively sweeping during the surface clearance at the provided production rate of 7 man | |||||
| team/day production rate. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | On any of these related to something they are assumption is needed or clarified, I would simply state: "The Offeror shall state any assumptions required to execute their technical approach as required by the RFP." Otherwise, these are the government's specifics not relying on them to know how and what is needed to do the work. | |||
| 5 | Please clarify which version of EM 200-1-15 should be referred to for preparation of this sample task order. It is suggested that the | |||||
| most recent Draft Version dated August 2020 be used as it is the most recent and comprehensive version. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue | Please use the Final October 2018 EM 200-1-15 in your proposal. | Instead recommend saying: "The most current version of EM-200-1-15, as shown on *** is dated ***." and fill in the details of where the current version of the policy is located and its date. | |||
| 6 | Under production rates it states; "Cued Data Collection- 300 cues/day." Please specify if this is for a single system or two systems. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue | Attachment C was updated for clarity. | On any of these related to something they are assumption is needed or clarified, I would simply state: "The Offeror shall state any assumptions required to execute their technical approach as required by the RFP." Otherwise, these are the government's specifics not relying on them to know how and what is needed to do the work. | ||
| 7 | Is it acceptable to modify the sample task order spreadsheet (Attachment I) in order to add subtasks? | No additional subtasks may be added; however, adjustments can be done based on difference to your accounting systems. | Attachment I has been updated. Please do not add subtasks. | |||
| 8 | Please confirm that no dollar value is to be added to CLINs (pages 7 – 12 of the RFP) and that the contractor is not required to include these pages in our proposal. | Correct. The CLINS are for information purposes during the solicitation | Correct. The CLINS are for information purposes during the solicitation | |||
| 9 | There are numerous differences between the labor categories listed in the RFP (page 5) and in Attachment H. Please confirm which labor categories we are to include in our proposal. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue | Section B has been revised to reflect Attachment H. | |||
| 10 | Please confirm if profit is to be included in the labor rates, there is a discrepancy in the proposal document. Page 101 of 117 of the RFP states: . "The rates that the Offeror proposes shall show the base rate and all mark ups (including percentages) to come to the burdened labor rates (excluding profit) for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for the base period and the escalation factor(s) for the remaining option period." Page 6 of 117, footnote to Labor Categories, "Note: All labor costs and overhead, G&A, and profit on direct labor must be recouped through these rates." | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Section B has been revised. The note was removed from Section B. | |||
| 11 | The General Insurance Requirements listed in H.4 of the solicitation are very different from the insurance requirements listed in FAR 28.307-2 and from what we have seen on similar RFPs. It appears that the insurance requirements that are listed are more applicable to a commercial contract rather than a federal contract. Please clarify if it is the intent of USACE to have contractors provide a certificate of insurance in accordance with the Solicitation provisions or in line with the requirements of FAR 28.3. | The RFP has been updated with this modification. | ||||
| 12 | Please consider excluding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the page limit to allow us adequate space to describe our small business goals and strategy for this contract? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 13 | Will there be an area available for the QA contractor to place a conex for equipment storage? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | On any of these related to something they are assumption is needed or clarified, I would simply state: "The Offeror shall state any assumptions required to execute their technical approach as required by the RFP." Otherwise, these are the government's specifics not relying on them to know how and what is needed to do the work. | x | |
| 14 | Can the contractor assume the grasslands are accessible by 4 x 4 pickup trucks? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The contractor may assume the grasslands are accessible by 4 x 4 pickup trucks. | On any of these related to something they are assumption is needed or clarified, I would simply state: "The Offeror shall state any assumptions required to execute their technical approach as required by the RFP." Otherwise, these are the government's specifics not relying on them to know how and what is needed to do the work. | x | |
| 15 | For Optional Task 3 C – Additional Mobilizations – Can this task be broken down to 3 C1 (Surface Seed Team Mobilization) and 3 C2 (Subsurface Seed Team Mobilization) since shipping requirements for the AGC sensors and number of personnel will vary for the two different activities? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment I and Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 16 | Will surface clearance be performed prior to validation seeding and AGC data collection within the Impact Area MRS? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | A surface clearance will not be performed prior to validation seeding and AGC data collection. Please state your technical approach and assumptions. | If it will not be performed, can they assume in the assumptions htat it is? IF not, why say the last sentence. | ||
| 17 | Please confirm that no surface validation seeding will be required in the Impact Area. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | ||||
| 18 | Please confirm that the Validation Seeding Plan is required in lieu of an AGC-QAPP for the project? | Confirmed. For this TO, the Validation Seeding Plan is required. | Confirmed. For this TO, the Validation Seeding Plan is required. | |||
| 19 | Is establishment of survey control at the site within the validation seeding contractor scope? | Yes. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 20 | Volume I, Tab 1: Technical Approach, Element 2 – Sample Task Order, 1st Paragraph, Last sentence states: "The Offeror shall submit their DAGCAP Seeding SOP". Is the DAGCAP Seeding SOP included in the page count? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | See revised note under proposal format for the exlusion of the DAGCAP Seeding SOP from the page counts. | |||
| 21 | Is it permissible for a contractor to use their own corporate costing sheets instead of Sample Task Order spreadsheets provided in the RFP if all information requested in the Sample Task Order spreadsheets is contained with the corporate cost spreadsheets? | No. Contractors are to propose in accordance with the instructions on the solicitation. | Not at this time. Offerors are to propose in accordance with the instructions on the solicitation. | replace "not at this time" with no. | ||
| 22 | Tab 1, Part C requires a narrative of past performance in performing Third Party Blind Validation Seeding and Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC) Data Collection and Processing for the projects listed under Volume 1, Factor 1, Tab 1, Element 1 | |||||
| – Technical Capability. Furthermore, projects submitted to demonstrate past performance that reflect MMR and HTRW Technical Capabilities shall be completed projects. COVID-19 has resulted in several third party validation seeding project schedule delays just as the program is attempting to launch; unfortunate timing. Some of these third party validation projects may have been completed if not for COVID-19. Will USACE consider allowing for submittal of partially completed third party validation projects to support past performance? Will PPQs be accepted for partially completed third party validation seeding projects. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | See revised RFP, "A 100% complete project is defined as work performed under a “project” as defined above where all fieldwork CLINS/Tasks are 100% completed and invoiced and has been accepted by the customer." Unless the project adheres to this requirement then it will not evaluated as part of the RFP. | If this is not changing the definition of a project as defined in the RFP, then recommend this answer read "All projects must meet the reequirements as stated in the RFP." | |||
| 23 | Volume 1, Tab 1 Element 1 - Technical Capability states: The Offeror shall provide at least three (3), but no more than five (5) examples of projects that demonstrate the Offeror's and its team members' Technical Capability. Project submitted shall have been executed by the Offeror and its team members as either a Prime Contractor or a key subcontractor. Volume II is Past Performance. Should Project Description write-ups be included in Volume I or Volume II? | Per RFP, the Project Description writeups should be provided in both Volume I and Volume II. | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | When excluding information from page counts, I would recommend each of these have the same response: "The RFP has been updated in (page count section/exclusions) to address this issue." Rather than having multiple answers to these requests to exclude them from the page count. | ||
| 24 | Section M, page 110. Please consider excluding the Table of Contents of the required written Safety and Health Program from the page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 25 | Section M, page 110. Please consider excluding the documentation to demonstrate that the Offeror, or Subcontractor in charge of performing the work, is accredited in accordance with DoD DAGCAP from the page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 26 | Section L, Page 92. Please consider excluding the Basis of Estimate from page count in Volume 1 and Volume III | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 27 | Section L, Page 96. Please consider excluding figures from Sample Task page count. | No change to the RFP | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 28 | (Volume I, Tab 1: Technical Approach, Element 2 – Sample Task Order, Item a), pg. 96) Please consider excluding the DAGCAP Seeding SOP from page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 29 | Attachment C, PWS for Sample Task Order, PWS Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 only specify subsurface seeding at the Impact Area MRS. Please clarify if the government requires surface seeding at the Impact Area MRS. | No change to the RFP. Attachment C is correct | Attachment C is correct as stated. | Recommend removing "as stated" and leave just "Attachment C is correct." | ||
| 30 | Sample Task: What geophysical equipment is being used by the RA contractor? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 31 | Sample Task: How many teams for dynamic and cued data collection and for surface clearance is the RA contractor using? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 32 | Sample Task: What is the total acreage for the Excluded Areas? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 33 | In addition to the Representations and Certifications included in Section K, there are Representations and Certifications included in Section I (Annual Representations and Certifications, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, and Alternate A Annual Representations and Certifications). Should these items be included in our proposal in addition to Section K? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Please include the Representation and Certifications in all volumes and sections where requested. | x | ||
| 34 | Section L, Volume III, Tab 1: Price – Price Schedule (pages 101-102) states "Required Supporting documentation (if any) shall be provided with the Offeror's proposal as described in Volume III, Tab 3 guidance below". Please confirm Attachment H supporting documentation should be provided in Tab 2 – Supporting Documentation for Attachment H, and Tab 3 Sample Task supporting documentation should be provided in Tab 3. | Correct. | Please include the information in all volumes and sections where requested. | x | ||
| 35 | Section L, Volume III, Tab 3: Price – Sample Task (page 102) states "All FFP Fully Burdened Hourly Rates, Subcontract Handling Charge Rates, MSE Handling Charge Rates, and G&A rates in Attachment I should be the same amounts as the Offeror provided in Attachment H". However the next paragraph states "The labor rates proposed for the Sample Task Order cannot exceed the rates proposed on...Attachment H." Please verify that Attachment H ceiling rates must be used in Attachment I Sample Task pricing. | The Sample Task Order labor rates (Attachment I) cannot exceed the labor rates that were identified as ceiling rates in Attachment H. | The Sample Task Order labor rates cannot exceed the labor rates that were identified as ceiling rates in Attachment H, however rates can be lower than the ceiling rates used in Attachment I. | |||
| 36 | Section L Volume III, Tab 3: Price – Sample Task Order Pricing (page 102) – Please clarify if the provided Service Contract Labor Standards rates provided for the Sample Task should also be used in Attachment H as the maximum rates if the Attachment H rates are to be used in Attachment I Sample Task pricing. | The Service Contract Labor Standards will be identified with each task order issued on the MATOC. | The Service Contract Labor Standards will be identified with each task order issued on the MATOC. | |||
| 37 | Section L Volume III – Please verify offerors will be able to propose local prevailing Service Contract Labor Standards rates on contract task order pricing if higher than Attachment H maximum rates for Service Contract Labor categories. | The Sample Task Order labor rates (Attachment I) cannot exceed the labor rates that were identified as ceiling rates in Attachment H. | The Service Contract Labor Standards will be identified with each task order issued on the MATOC. | |||
| 38 | Section L Volume III, Tab 3: Price – Sample Task Order Pricing a.) Direct Labor (page 103) requires offerors to submit a total compensation plan. Please confirm this is to be provided in Volume III Tab 3 - Sample Task Order Pricing. | Please propose IAW the RFP | Please include the information in all volumes and sections where requested. | |||
| 39 | Section L Volume III, Tab 3: Price – Sample Task Order Pricing a.) Direct Labor (pages 102 -103). The total compensation plan is not excluded from the 18 allowed pages for Volume III Tabs 1 – 3. Please consider removing the compensation plan from the page count as it could vary widely from firm to firm and could take up a large percentage of the allotted pages. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | See revised RFP "Proposal Format" Section D for removal of page limitation on Volume III - Price. | Same as 23. | ||
| 40 | Volume III Attachment H Price Proposal Worksheet. Please confirm the indirect rates listed at the bottom only apply to non-labor costs. | The Indirect and G&A rate categories at the bottom of Attachment H were provided as examples or example based on categories that are routinely applied to labor and non-labor costs. Since, accounting systems differ among contractors, each Offeror should specify the indirect and G&A rates that will be proposed for each contract year. Each offerors rates should be traceable to the build up of burdened labor rates in Attachment H and traceable to the base rates proposed in Attachment I. | The Indirect and G&A rate categories at the bottom of Attachment H were provided as examples or placeholders based on categories that are routinely applied to labor and non-labor costs. Since, accounting systems differ among contractors, each Offeror should specify the indirect and G&A rates that will be proposed for each contract year. Each offerors rates should be traceable to the build up of burdened labor rates in Attachment H and traceable to the base rates proposed in Attachment I. | I believe a different response was discussed on the call on Tuesday. | ||
| 41 | Attachment I Sample Task Order Worksheet – individual task pricing tabs row 165 calculates "Fee or profit on ODCs". Should that line include fee on labor which is not included in the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates in Attachment H? There is currently nowhere to apply fee to labor. Please advise as per instructions we are not to modify worksheet calculations. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment I was updated to all the Contractor the ability to charge profit on direct labor. | should "all" be "allow"? And Gray is this aceptable to have profit on direct labor alone as opposed to a single profit line overall for the task order based on the weighted guidlines? Or am I misreading this question? | ||
| 42 | Attachment I Sample Task Order Worksheet – individual task pricing tabs row 164 calculates "G&A on ODCs and Direct Labor", however G&A is already included in the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates so we wouldn't apply additional G&A. Please advise as per instructions we are not to modify worksheet calculations. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. The offerors responsibility for ensuring that formulas used in the worksheet adequately reflects estimating approach. | See revised Attachment I for corrected G&A formula. | THEY CAN ADJUST THE FORMULAS IN THE EXCEL SHEET TO REFLECT THE VALUES THEY WANT THE GOVT TO LOOK AT | ||
| 43 | Attachment I Sample Task Order Worksheet – individual task pricing tabs row 165 calculates "Fee or profit on ODCs" but does not account for fee on G&A (row 164). Please advise as per instructions we are not to modify worksheet calculations. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. The offerors responsibility for ensuring that formulas used in the worksheet adequately reflects estimating approach. | See revised Attachment I for corrected Fee or Profit Formula. | |||
| 44 | Due to the upcoming holidays would the government consider granting a 1 week extension to the December 23rd ProjNet deadline for questions to allow bidders more time to thoroughly review the RFP Documents? | There will be no extensions for the ProjNet deadline for the questions. | Unfortunately, there will be no extensions for the ProjNet deadline for the questions. | |||
| 45 | Would the Government please consider a 2-week extension of the proposal due date from Thursday January 21, 2021 to Thursday, February 4, 2021 due to the upcoming holidays to allow bidders adequate time to evaluate potential impacts of all responses to questions? | |||||
| According to Amendment 02, the proposal due date has been extended to Feb 8, 2021 at 9:00am CST | Based on the prior discussion, I think this needs to be revised. | |||||
| 46 | Section L, Volume I, Tab 1: Technical Approach, Element 2 – Sample Task Order, subsection a states that "The Offeror shall submit their DAGCAP Seeding SOP." Please exclude the DAGCAP Seeding SOP from the page count as the SOP is approximately 20 pages. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 47 | RFP Page 90 of 117, Section L, Proposal Format states that the proposal is to be prepared using Time New Roman 12-point font or larger font size. Question: Can the font size be revised to be 11-point font or larger, which is common practice for this of document and very readable? | No change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | |||
| 48 | RFP Page 91 of 117, Section L, Proposal Format states that "each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line." Question: Can 6 point be used between paragraphs, which is common practice for paragraph spacing and makes the document very readable? | No change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | The space between paragraphs should be done using the same text size. | ||
| 49 | RFP Page 91 of 117, Section L, Proposal Format states that Font size for spreadsheets, tables, charts, etc. may be reduced to font size 8. Question: Can fonts other than Times New Roman (i.e., Arial, Verdana) be used for spreadsheets, tables, charts, graphics, etc.? These fonts are easier to read in graphics. | No change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | |||
| 50 | RFP Attachment D, Key Personnel Resume Format states that "Resume information...shall be provided in the following format..." Question: Can the required information shown in a. through g. on the form be combined so as to allow for additional background information? Example, can "a. Name and Title" and "b. Assignment on this Contract" and/or "c. Name of Firm" and d. No. of Years: With this Firm, With Other Firms" be combined into one line if possible | Offerors can create the resume format as they choose as long as the information requested in Attchment D is present on the resume | Offerors can create the resume format as they choose as long as the information requested in Attchment D is present on the resume | Offerors can modify the resume format as they choose as long as the information requested in Attchment D is present on the resume and not hard to find. | ||
| 51 | RFP Section L, Volume I, Tab 1 – Technical Approach, Element 2 – Sample Task Order: Should the schedule use calendar days or work days? | For this Sample TO, please assume work days. | Please state your technical approach and assumptions. | If we are answering the equipment issue so we have consistency, it would seem we should answer this one as to which you want for consistency… | ||
| 52 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order: The PWS for the sample TO does not address how MPPEH/MEC will be managed | |||||
| by the 3rd Party Validation Contractor. As the sample TO requires seeding in an impact area (presumed high anomaly density), it may be required that the Contractor clear a location to place the validation seed. Please clarify who will be responsible for managing the MPPEH/MEC. | For this Sample TO, please assume anamoly avoidance. Please state your technical approach and assumptions. | For this Sample TO, please assume anamoly avoidance. Please state your technical approach and assumptions. | ||||
| 53 | RFP Attachment D, Key Personnel Resume Format states that "Resume information...shall be provided in the following format..." Question: Can the font size for resumes be reduced to 11-point font? | No change to the RFP | The font size may be reduced to size 11 font for resumes. The RFP has been updated with this modification. | ENSURE ITS ON THERE | ||
| 54 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order: Will surface clearance of the Impact Area MRS be performed prior to emplacement of QA seeds?" | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | A surface clearance will not be performed prior to validation seeding and AGC data collection. | |||
| 55 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order: Will surface clearance of the Impact Area MRS be performed prior to emplacement of QA seeds?" | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | A surface clearance will not be performed prior to validation seeding and AGC data collection. | |||
| 56 | RFP Page 91 of 117, Section L, Proposal Format d. Note: States that "Key personnel resumes" are excluded from the page counts; however, Attachment D, Key Personnel Resume Format, states that "Resume information...and shall not exceed 1 page per resume." Question: Can Key Personnel Resumes be provided in the format in Attachment D be limited to 2 pages per resume so that adequate background details for each of the key personnel can be included for consideration? | no change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | |||
| 57 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order: Since the prime contractor is only performing a surface clearance of the Buffer Area MRS, please confirm the 3rd party validation contractor QA seed rate in the 50-acre Buffer Area. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | For this Sample TO, QA seed rates will follow EM 200-1-15, Table 11.6. | |||
| 58 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 2.3 provides the removal action contractor expected production rates for dynamic data collection and surface clearance, but does not provide the number of teams to conduct the work each day. How many dynamic data collection and surface clearance teams are anticipated for production days for both tasks? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | x | ||
| 59 | The Basis of Estimate (BOE) is addressed in three locations (excerpted below) in the RFP. The Basis of Estimate is NOT excluded |
from the page count. Please consider the RFP excerpts below when responding to the following questions.
(a) Please confirm whether the Basis of Estimate should detail labor hours by labor category for each work element/task?
(b) Please confirm whether the Basis of Estimate should detail equipment/materials for each work element/task?
(c) Please confirm whether both prime and subcontractor Basis of Estimates are required, or if the prime's Basis of Estimate should incorporate subcontractor Basis of Estimate detail?
(d) Given extensive Basis of Estimate content requirements, please consider excluding the Basis of Estimate from the page count, as a compliant Basis of Estimate alone would likely exceed the 20 pages allotted for the sample problem.
· RFP Page 97 of 117, Section L, f) Basis of Estimate. The Offeror shall provide a basis of estimate... to include but not limited to...labor hours, labor categories, subcontractors...The list of equipment and materials shall be itemized in the basis of estimate to reflect the work proposed for the sample task order. The key subcontractor BOE...shall be detailed to include team size and make up, number of teams, labor productivity/ duration, labor hours, labor categories, equipment, materials.
· RFP Page 103 of 117, Section L, e. Basis of Estimate. The Offeror shall provide a basis of estimate...for each task to include...labor hours, labor categories, equipment, materials, subcontractors...The list of equipment and materials shall be itemized...
· RFP Page 109 of 117, Section M, f) Basis of Estimate. The Government will evaluate the Basis of Estimate to determine if the Offeror understands the feasibility, efficacy, and efficiency of the approach in satisfying the performance requirements for team size and make up, number teams, labor productivity/ duration, labor hours, labor categories, equipment, materials, subcontractors, number of meetings, etc., such that the Government can get a clear understanding of the basis for the proposed approach. The Government will evaluate if the equipment and materials itemized satisfy the performance requirements for the proposed work for the sample task order. The RFP has been updated to address this issue. a) confirmed b)confirmed c)both
| d) The RFP has been revised. | For d), same as 23. | ||||
| 60 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 2.3 states the RA fieldwork will commence 4 months from start of the award. No date is provided. Can the government establish the start date for the purposes of developing a realistic schedule? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C was updated for clarity. | x | |
| 61 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 2.3 states a seven person surface clearance team is assumed. Will the team leader be an operator or a manager of the team? This affects the number of coverage (surface) seeds necessary to place each day if the TL is included in the production. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C was updated for clarity. | x | |
| 62 | RFP Page 33 of 117, Section C 4.1.2 Programmatic Quality Manager: Question: Assuming the prime is the GCO, is it the intent that the Programmatic Quality Manager be the respective position under the firm's DAGCAP accreditation (e.g., "Programmatic QA Manager")? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Yes. | ||
| 63 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 4.2.2 states the performance standard for the Validation Seeding Plan is to be compliant with the data item description (HNC-002.02 is the applicable DID). HNC-002.02 states in "References" that the format for the plan must comply with formatting for DID HNC-001.03 (Project Planning Documents) . HNC-001.03 does not follow the QAPP format which other performance criteria requires. Please clarify that the format for the Validation Seeding Plan is the QAPP (worksheets) and not a chapter and appendices format. | The format for the Validation Seeding Plan is specified in DID HNC-002.02. The Validation Seeding Plan is a separate document than the UFP-QAPP. |
DID HNC-001.03 is referenced for formatting such as numbering chapters, appendicies, revisions and government printed matter. The format for the Validation Seeding Plan is specified in DID HNC-002.02. The Validation Seeding Plan is a separate document than the UFP-QAPP.
DID HNC-001.03 is referenced for formatting such as numbering chapters, appendicies, revisions and government printed matter.
| 64 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 2.3 states the government will not provide worksheets #10 (CSM) and #11 (DQOs), but in Attachment C, Section 4.3.3, Bullet 5, the government references analog areas, utility pipelines, burial pits, and stockpiled soil as not requiring validation seeds. These areas affect the cost impacts for seeding. Can the government provide an estimated acreage that will not require validation seeds? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | |
| 65 | The footnote of the RFP's Section B indicates that all labor costs, overhead, G&A, and profit must be recouped through the proposed rates. However, instructions in Section L Volume III Tab 1 (Price Schedule) and Attachment H (MATOC Proposal Worksheet) are to provide burdened labor rates excluding profit. Please clarify if profit is to be included in the "FFP Ceiling Burdened Hourly Rates" table. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Section B has been revised. | |
| 66 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 4.3.3, Bullet 6, requires the validation contractor to place QA seeds in the Buffer Area for the surface clearance (final remedy). EM200-1-15 (2018), Table 11-6 does not provide a coverage/surface seeding rate. The rate provided in the table is for buried or blind seeds. Can the government clarify the surface/coverage seeding rate they require for the surface clearance of the Buffer Area? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | For this Sample TO, QA seed rates will follow EM 200-1-15, Table 11.6. | |
| 67 | RFP Attachment H (MATOC Proposal Worksheet) has some labor category differences than labor categories in Section B. Please confirm that applicable categories for this effort are the listed categories in Attachment H. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Section B has been revised to reflect Attachment H. | x |
| 68 | RFP Attachment H (MATOC Proposal Worksheet) has columns for overtime and hazard pay for applicable labor categories. |
a. Please clarify if these columns are for fully burdened rates or base rates only
| b. If for Base Rates only, do offerors need to insert additional rows in the MATOC Proposal Worksheet in order to show base rates plus applicable overtime and/or hazard pay fully burdened rates? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | a) Base rate only. |
| b) Attachment H was updated. | Verify with Grey. |
5 CFR 550.904 and Appendix A.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2008-title5-vol1/pdf/CFR-2008-title5-vol1-part550-subpartA.pdf
| https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2008-title5-vol1/pdf/CFR-2008-title5-vol1-part550-subpartI-appA.pdf | Need an answer to question b. | |||||
| 69 | For Attachment I (Sample Task Order) and Volume III Tab 3, can offerors add a travel detail worksheet without counting against the page limit requirements for the volume? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | This level of detail may be provided in the BOE. The RFP was updated to exclude the BOE from page count. | x | ||
| 70 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 4.3.5 identifies a potential for additional surface seeding can be added up to 10 times. Section 4.3.6 says mobilization and demobilization can be exercised twice. If the amount of surface seeding is 40 seeds at a rate of 5-6 seeds per day per operator (one, 7 person team), that would be one day to place the seeds in 8 acres (one day surface clearance production rate). These two options are not logical as the increase in surface seeding may take more than two times if MEC is located close to the boundary of the Buffer Area. Can the government reconsider the number of mob/demobs for the purpose of additional seeding for both Optional Tasks 3 a and 3b? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C was updated to reflect Section 4.3.6 up to ten (10) times. | |||
| 71 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Attachment 1 identifies the deliverables for the Task Order. Please confirm if any deliverables will be reviewed by regulatory agencies. This has a direct impact on the schedule for regulatory reviews. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | For this Sample TO, assume that the the EM CX will review the Work Plan and Validation Seeding Report. You may assume there will not be a regulatory review for this Sample TO. Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 72 | Can offerors make necessary adjustments to formulas/calculations in Attachment I (Sample Task Order) in accordance with their current estimating system? | Yes. It is the offerors responsibility to ensure formulas within the document adequately reflect estimated approach | Offerors can make necessary adjustments to formulas as long as each formula is present in the excel worksheet and explanation is provide in the write up. | Offerors can make necessary adjustments to formulas as long as each formula is present in the excel worksheet and formulas are not hidden. | ||
| 73 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Attachment 1: List of Submittals identifies a Project Management Plan (PMP) as a deliverable. Please confirm that a PMP is required for the QA Validation Seeding Contract. Would WS#6 of the abbreviated QAPP not serve the purpose on this task? | No change to the RFP. | Please see Section 4.1.2 of Attachment C for the PMP deliverable performance standards. | |||
| 74 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 9.1 references the QASP. As the contract and task orders are being performed for the government as a QA function, is a QASP applicable? A QASP for this contract is not identified as a deliverable in Attachment 1 (list of submittals) to Attachment C. Will the QA Validation Seeding Contractor requirements be included in the QASP and will the Seeding Contractor be provided a copy of the final QASP? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | A QASP is not part of the deliverables. Section 9.1 of Attachment C, Sample TO PWS, specifies how the contractor will be evaluated. The Government will develop and provide the QASP. | |||
| 75 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 9.3 requires the contractor to attest to their due diligence in researching the site conditions and the investigation as reflected in the price. As this is a fictitious site and no GFI are provided, is this section applicable? | Yes, it is applicable. A location is provided for the Offeror for per diem rates and to research the site conditions and weather." | A location is provided for the Offeror for per diem rates and to research the site conditions and weather. | I think this answer should read "Yes, it is applicable. A location is provided for the Offeror for per diem rates and to research the site conditions and weather." | ||
| 76 | RFP Section L, Volume I, Tab 2, Management Approach, Elements 1-4: the response is limited to 10 pages, which isn't enough space to adequately address all the RFP requires in the 4 elements of this tab. Suggest increasing the page limitation to 12 pages (not including the Safety and Health Program Table of Contents and DOD DAGCAP documentation). | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated with this modification. | Same as 23. | ||
| 77 | Section L Volume 1 Tab 1 (Technical Approach) Item f) instructions indicate that the Basis of Estimate (BOE) need to correspond with Volume I Tab 1 Element 22 and Volume III (Price) Tab 4. Volume III (Price) instructions indicate that the BOE is part of this volume's Tab 3. Please clarify if offerors need to add Tab 4 as part of Volume III. | No change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | |||
| 78 | RFP Section L, Volume I, Tab 2, Management Approach, Element 2: Please confirm the Table of Contents for the required written Safety and Health Program is excluded from the page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 79 | Due to the detailed information required in the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Volume III (Price), can the BOE be excluded from the page limit for this volume? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 80 | RFP Section L, Volume I, Tab 2, Management Approach, Element 3: "The Offeror shall provide documentation to demonstrate that they, or Subcontractor in charge of performing the work, is accredited in accordance with DoD DAGCAP." Please confirm this documentation is excluded from the page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Need to ensure the wording stays on or else it could get put in Vol 0, Tab 3 Certs | Same as 23. | |
| 81 | RFP Section L, Volume 1, Tab 1, Element 1, one of the bulleted services reads: "Safely locate and avoid Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)." There is no corresponding evaluation factor for this requirement in Section M, Volume 1, Tab 1, Element 1, bulleted capabilities and experiences. Recommend the HTRW service requirement be eliminated throughout Section L since HTRW is rarely encountered (thus no need to locate and avoid it) on MMR sites requiring blind seeding and AGC data collection and processing services. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | |||
| 82 | RFP Section L, Volume III Tab 3 (Sample Task Order Pricing) instructions indicate that "subcontractor proposals shall be included within the prime's proposal and shall be submitted not later than the required proposal due date." Due to Volume III page limitations, please clarify that only the key subcontractor/teaming member proposals are required for this proposal submission. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 83 | RFP Section L, Proposal Format, Subsection (d) limits the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume IV, Tab 2 to 10 pages. As per RFP Section L, Volume IV, Tab 2, the format of this plan must meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219- 7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive Subcontracting Plan). Please remove the page limitation for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to ensure a compliant plan can be submitted. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | ?? | Same as 23. | |
| 84 | RFP Section L, Volume I, Tab 1, Element 2: The RFP states "the Offeror shall submit their DAGCAP Seeding SOP." Please confirm this SOP is excluded from page count. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | ||
| 85 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order : Is the QA Seeding contractor required to provide biological escort services as a part of the Sample Task Order? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 86 | RFP Section M indicates the Small Business participation is to be evaluated as Factor 4 of Volume III. However, Section L indicates that Small Business Participation is Volume IV. Please clarify | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | update heading on page 115 of 117 to Volume IV | ||
| 87 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order : Is the QA Seeding contractor required to provide biological escort services as a part of the Sample Task Order? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 88 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order : Is the QA Seeding contractor required to provide archaeological escort services as a part of the Sample Task Order? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Attachment C has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 89 | RFP Section L Proposal Format instructions indicates electronic submission of Adobe PDF files and includes volume title instructions. However, Volume III (Price) instructions indicate that the Basis of Estimate (BOE) is to be submitted in MS Excel format. Please clarify if offerors need to submit completed Attachment H (MATOC Proposal Worksheet), Attachment I (Sample Task Order), and BOE separately as MS Excel files. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated for clarity. | |||
| 90 | RFP Section C, Section 4.1.: Please provide the required qualifications for the Programmatic Quality Manager when the offeror is the DAGCAP GCO. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | |||
| 91 | For proposal and evaluation purposes, please clarify if offerors are to use Base Year fully burdened rates for the Sample Task Order? | Yes. | The FFP Fully Burdened Rates for the sample task order shall be taken from the Base Year in Attachment H. | |||
| 92 | Attachment C, PWS for the Sample Task Order, Section 2.2 states "AGC selection criteria will be determined based on site-specific noise levels to maximize detection depth while minimizing false positives, and will be chosen to detect and classify 37mms to at least 20 cm." In order to determine this, additional data is needed. Was AGC or a standard EM61 used to establish the site-specific noise levels during the RI? And what is the site-specific noise level or an assumption? | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | For the Sample TO, it is expected that the noise levels are sufficiently low to meet the detection/classification depth per section 2.2; however, AGC data is not available. Please state your assumptions regarding the need for additional data, how you would establish RMS and seeding depth levels. | |||
| 93 | RFP Section L, Proposal format – Please remove the page count limit (18 pages) for Volume III Price, in order to allow bidders to comply with the RFP requirements for detailed pricing, BOE, and backup documentation. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | x | ||
| 94 | RFP Section L, Volume 1, Tab 1, Element 1, states "Projects submitted to reflect MMR and HTRW Technical Capabilities shall be complete projects." Further, it states: "A 100% complete project is defined as work performed under a 'project' as defined above where all CLINS/Tasks are 100% completed and invoiced and has been accepted by the customer. Contractor shall provide dollars invoiced versus contract value." Please confirm a project where all field work has been completed, invoiced and accepted by the customer, but has end-of-project CLINs for administrative actions such as the final report (which often requires significant time for stakeholder/regulator review) that have not been invoiced, will be accepted as a completed project. | refer to question #22 | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 22. Need to use the same answer here. | ||
| 95 | RFP Section L, Volume III, Tab 3 Sample Task Order Pricing (a) – Please confirm the Compensation Plan will be excluded from page count restriction | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | The RFP has been updated. | Same as 23. | x | |
| 96 | RFP Section L, Volume 1, Tab 1, Element 1, 3rd bulleted service states: "Develop and follow an AGC-QAPP." Some AGC projects (e.g., an RI/FS versus a removal action) have an MR-QAPP requirement instead of an AGC-QAPP requirement. Please confirm an MR-QAPP on an AGC project would meet this bulleted requirement. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | Yes, an MR-QAPP on an AGC project would meet this bulleted requirement. | |||
| 97 | RFP Section M, Volume 1, Tab 1, Element 1, 8th bulleted capability/experience states: "project(s) that demonstrate experience with regulatory and stakeholder interface." Recommend this capability/experience be deleted from Section M since a blind seeding/AGC contractor does not interface with regulators in performing these services. | no change to the RFP | Offerors are to propose in accordance with the formatting instructions on the solicitation. | |||
| 98 | RFP Section L, Volume II, Tab 2: Past Performance: Can existing PPQs using the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form be submitted in lieu of asking our clients to fill out the PPQ form provided as Attachment A? Most offerors use the same projects on multiple proposals, and already have existing PPQs on file. In order to not have to keep asking our clients to complete PPQs, it would be appreciated by offerors and clients if existing PPQs can be used. | no change to the RFP | Amy says yes as we normally do. | What is the agreed answer here? I believe the current RFP says no. | ||
| 99 | RFP Section L, Volume III, Tab 3 Sample Task Order Pricing (b) Subcontracts – Please confirm these requirements for Subcontractor backup documentation are only required for key subcontractors anticipated to perform 20% of the effort: "The price narrative from each key subcontractor/teaming member shall include the same level of detail described in this section to support the proposed price. Subcontractor proposals shall be included within the prime's proposal and shall be submitted not later than the required proposal due date. | no change to the RFP | In accordance with the RFP, "Throughout this Solicitation, “key subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who will perform at least 20% of the total contract effort or a subcontractor who the Offeror considers a key member of their team." |
The following pricing requirement: "The price narrative from each key subcontractor/teaming member shall include the same level of detail described in this section to support the proposed price. Subcontractor proposals shall be included within the prime's proposal and shall be submitted not later than the required proposal due date." follows the same definition for "Key Subcontractor". If the Subcontractor meets the definition of a "Key Subcontractor" as defined by the RFP, then a price narrative with the appropriate information is required to be provided in Volume III.
| 100 | RFP Section L, Volume III, Tab 3 Sample Task Order Pricing (b) Subcontracts – Since the Sample Task is fictitious, please confirm it is acceptable to use historical pricing for the proposed subcontract pricing, as it would not be reasonable to require bidders to solicit current bids from potential subcontractors where there is no actual work to be awarded. | The sample TO pricing should be proposed as if it was going to be awarded | The sample task order pricing should be proposed in accordance with the RFP requirements and provided in such a way that the FFP task order could be awarded. | ||
| 101 | RFP Section L, Volume III, Tab 3, Proof of Financial Capability and Stability – Please confirm this requirement is only required upon the Government's request, and there is no submission required for this proposal. | The RFP has been updated to address this issue. | This is required upon request by the Contracting Officer |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .