Q&A_v3_W912EP20R0007_Veg Mgmt.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO SOLICITATION W912EP20R0007, VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT, FLORIDA & SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION

VERSION 3 - UPDATED 18 FEB 2020

1. In the price schedule for the IDIQ, are you asking for ceiling prices that would apply to any task order regardless of scope or wage determination?

Answer: The Government is requesting fully burdened rates for each line item provided in the Price Exhibit.

2. In the price schedule for the IDIQ, is the total price an offeror enters for CLIN 001 supposed to be the sum of all items priced in the pricing exhibit for the base year (and so on for each subsequent line item)?

Answer: Pricing is only requested for the line items. A total price for each CLIN/Section is not being requested.

3. Are you looking for a per-person price for line items A602 (per diem) and A603 (lodging)? If not, how many personnel should the Offeror use as a basis for these line items?

Answer: The Government anticipates pricing per person based on the JTR for the IDIQ and a total anticipated price for the personnel required to perform the work for the Mock Task Order. For the IDIQ proposal, JTR line items can be left blank.

4. For line items A401 and A402, what herbicide should the offeror use for pricing?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose the appropriate herbicide and quantities anticipated to be used to perform the work.

5. For line items A310 and A314, what is the minimum horsepower (HP) and minimum cutting width required for the mulching head, and what is the maximum ground pressure allowed?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

6. For line item A319, what is the minimum HP required? Does the grinder need to be on tracks?

Does the ground woody debris need to meet a certain size specification? Is there a daily production rate target (in cubic yards)? Does the price need to include disposal of the processed material? If so, what are the disposal requirements?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

7. For line item A318, what size or class is desired?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

8. For line item A403 and A404, what equipment is allowed to pull the rollers? Can you define the density in terms of stems per acre and average diameter? Can you provide more information on what species are targeted?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

9. For line item A405, what size discs are required? What width of disc is required? Does the disc need to have a hydraulic wheel assembly?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

10. For line item A406, what are the minimum equipment requirements for bush hogging in terms of horsepower and cutting width, and is 4wd required?

Answer: Offerors are requested to propose equipment, etc. deemed necessary to accomplish the work.

11. Does the Offeror need to provide resumes for key personnel in the proposal?

Answer: No. Per the solicitation, the name of the Project Manager and an alternate who shall act for the contractor when the manager is absent shall be designated in writing to the contracting officer. For proposal purposes, only the qualifications listed in the Performance Work Statement, Section 2.4, Qualifications, shall be provided. It is the offeror’s choice to either submit the qualifications in a resume format or in any format deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the solicitation that properly reflects the skills, abilities, qualifications, and experience of the key personnel.

12. Can herbicides be mixed on site?

Answer: Yes, herbicides can be mixed on site in accordance with the herbicide label.

13. To provide an equivalent foundation for offeror pricing, can you please provide a wage determination that Offerors should use to inform their pricing?

Answer: Wage Determinations (WD) throughout the state of Florida will be incorporated in to each task order. Offerors are required to verify the most current revision for each WD that may be incorporated.

14. Is the "mock" task order the same as the "seed" task order? Is the mock task order an awardable task order?

Answer: At a minimum, a guaranteed task order will be awarded at time of award of the IDIQ. The mock task order is only intended for evaluation purposes, but may also be a future requirement of the Government.

15. In the "mock" task order, how many acres will be treated mechanically and what specific equipment is required? What herbicides are required for use?

Answer: The mock PWS states that chemical control of vegetation is to be performed. The Offer shall propose the herbicides to be used to perform the work based on species identified in the PWS.

16. In the map on page 83 of the solicitation, can you provide a map key or otherwise define what is represented by green and red segments?

Answer: Red and green segments are reaches on the HHD. Each segment has a number beside it (Reach 1, etc.).

17. What wage determination should the Offeror use for pricing the mock task order?

Answer: Offerors shall use any WD appropriate for the counties that incorporate the specific Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) area at Lake Okeechobee. The Government anticipates the use of WDs 2015-4581, 2015-4582, 2015-4563, 2015-4564, 2015-4573, and 2015-4574.

18. Can you clarify that Volume IV of the IDIQ proposal should include pricing for the IDIQ as well as a separate price schedule for the mock task order?

Answer: Per page 25 of the solicitation, Volume IV, para b., the Mock Task order shall apply the work execution and management plans and shall price the task order in accordance with the pricing schedule to show the proposed level of effort.

19. Can you clarify that Volume II of the IDIQ response should include an overall Contract Management plan as well as a plan for the mock task order?

Answer: Yes, offerors shall include an overall Contract Management plan as well as a plan for the mock task order. Per page 24 of the solicitation, offerors are provided a Mock TO PWS to incorporate and apply their work execution plan as proposed for the IDIQ.

20. Reference Exhibit C of RFP No. W912EP20R0007, Estimated Workload Data, Will you please provide the locations/area within the State of Florida (or outside) where the subject work within the Exhibit was performed?

Answer: 80% Central and South Florida – 20% Jacksonville and Tampa areas.

21. In regard to RFP No. W912EP20R0007, Volume III, Past Performance (Factor 2), is it acceptable to use appropriate (IAW PWS requirements per RFP) individual Task Orders issued under an IDIQ Contract and have these TOs count as individual submittals meeting the requirement for three (3) Past Performance Contracts?

Answer: Yes, the Government will accept IDIQ TO submittals for past performance. These submittals can encompass any or all aspects of the current requirement, but offerors are cautioned that only three (3) past performance submittals will be evaluated, so the information in the past performance submittals should be sufficient to meet the evaluation criteria of the solicitation.

22. RFP Page 71, Performance Work Statement, Section 11 Performance Requirements, paragraph

11.3 Vegetation Management Activities: How will the Government make a measurement of 95% efficacy for all treatments? It will be good for the contractor to know the process used to achieve this measurement.

Answer: Following treatments and the time required for herbicides to be effective, a Government representative and Contractor’s Project Manager (PM) and/or Quality Control Officer (QCO) will perform an inspection of the area treated to ensure 95% was met. Depending on site conditions, species treated and treatment method, aerial surveillance may be utilized to inspect the treatment area.

Retreatments will always be at the Contractor's cost unless it is determined that decreased efficacy was not the fault of the contractor (i.e. weather related, fire, insects, etc).

23. RFP Page 72, Performance Work Statement, Section 11.4 Environmental Restoration/Protection:

The contractor shall conduct prescribed burns. What are the USACE requirements for Rx. Burn Operators, Burn Bosses? What are the USACE requirements for Pile Burns, and/or Air Curtain Burns?

Answer: All work shall be conducted in compliance with state & local rules and regulations as well as in compliance with EM385-1-1. State regulations to be followed include utilizing a qualified Florida Certified Prescribed Burn Manager.

https://www.fdacs.gov/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/Wildland-Fire/Prescribed-Fire/Certified- Prescribed-Fire-Acreage

In addition, following USACE Wildland Fire Guidelines on Burn Plan Management, Fire Suppressions, etc. as outlined in EM-385-1-1 will be required.

https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/Safety/EM%20385-1-1,%202014%20Sections/EM%20385-1- 1%202014%20Section%2009.pdf

24. RFP Page 62, Performance Work Statement, Section 2.3 Key Personnel and 2.4 Qualifications – Are Resumes for the Key Personnel required to be submitted as part of the proposal?

Answer: No. Per the solicitation, the name of the Project Manager and an alternate who shall act for the contractor when the manager is absent shall be designated in writing to the contracting officer. For proposal purposes, only the qualifications listed in the Performance Work Statement, Section 2.4, Qualifications, shall be provided. It is the offeror’s choice to either submit the qualifications in a resume format or in any format deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

25. In a Prime/Sub Teaming Agreement, will the Subcontractor’s Past Performance be allowed and if so what is the requirement for the subcontractor as to number of contracts required to be submitted?

Answer: The Government will accept and evaluate past performance projects from major subcontractors (10% or more of the value of the contract under which the subcontract is awarded), or subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement. There is no set limit related to prime/sub submissions.

The Government only requests a total of three (3).

26. Please confirm that the incumbent contractor for the current contract is Applied Aquatic Management, Inc.

Answer: Yes, the incumbent contractor for the current contract is Applied Aquatic Management, Inc.

27. On page 24 of Solicitation #W912EP20R0007, Volume III – Past Performance asks for evidence of past performance for three (3) contracts. Is this limited to three or may more than three be submitted?

Answer: The Government will only accept and evaluate past performance evidence from three (3) contracts.

28. Page # 18, Instructions to Offerors, Section (a)(4). The provision states that at a minimum offers must show: “A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary.” Question: We would appreciate understanding if there are additional requirements beyond what is stated under the RFP’s Instructions for the Preparation of Proposals?

Answer: Please refer to the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors beginning on page 21 of the solicitation for instructions for the preparation of proposals.

29. Page # 21, Proposal Submission Instructions. The RFP advises to “make allowances for delays in transmittal and time for delivery.” Would it be reasonable to assume that proposals sent three hours prior to the offer due date and time would be sufficient?

Answer: Offerors are advised to submit their proposal in sufficient time to allow for receipt by the appropriate Government personnel.

30. Page # 23, Instructions for the Preparation of Proposals, Volume I – Administrative (f). Joint venture Offerors are required to provide financial statements “to verify that the aggregate total of receipts for all members…does not exceed the small business standard.” The requirements cited above implies that if a joint venture under Mentor-Protégé agreement has total receipts above the small business standard the joint venture may not be qualified to pursue the contract. Under CFR 125.9 (d) (1) a joint venture formed under a Mentor-Protégé agreement approved by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) may seek any type of small business contract. Please confirm that a joint venture formed under a SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement would qualify as a small business, even if the total receipts of the joint venture partners exceeds the small business standard.

Answer: Yes, joint venture formed under a SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement would qualify as a small business.

31. Page # 25, Instructions for the Preparation of Proposals, Volume IV – Pricing (b). Offerors are required to price the Mock Task order “in accordance with the pricing schedule.” We would appreciate further guidance about what pricing schedule to use. Should pricing of the Mock Task order conform to the Price Exhibit, which starts on page 3 of the RFP? We encourage the government to provide a pricing schedule that all Offerors will use to help assure a uniform basis for evaluating proposed Mock Task order prices.

Answer: The Mock TO pricing shall be in accordance with the IDIQ Pricing Exhibit. Offerors are advised to propose disciplines/line items from the IDIQ Pricing Exhibit that’ll be necessary to accomplish the work of the Mock TO.

32. Page # 28, Evaluation of Proposals for Award, Factor 2. Past Performance. If a proposal is submitted by a joint venture that is a small business by virtue of a Mentor-Protégé agreement approved by the SBA under the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASMPP), we understand that in evaluating past performance, the agency is required to consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture. Does the past performance evaluation approach have a preference for work performed by the joint venture compared to work performed by individual partners in the joint venture? Similarly, in evaluating past performance, is there a preference for projects performed by a non-JV Offeror?

Answer: There is no preference for work performed by either the joint venture or by individual partners of the joint venture. Nor is there preference for work performed by a non-JV Offeror. The Government will evaluate all past performance submittals in accordance with the solicitation.

33. Page # 28, Evaluation of Proposals for Award, Factor 2. Past Performance. Assuming two completed projects are identical except for the clients served -- one for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or another U.S. federal agency, and the other for a private sector client or municipality – would one be considered to have greater Relevancy than the other? Under the same circumstances, assuming both projects received “Exceptional” ratings for all elements in the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2), and there is no countervailing information, would there be a higher Performance Confidence Assessment for the project performed for a federal agency?

Answer: The Government will evaluate past performance based on the procedures listed in the solicitation. No higher relevancy rating or confidence rating will be assigned based on the type of customer previously services. The ratings will be assigned based on relevancy and overall confidence when compared to the current requirement.

34. Page # 29, Evaluation of Proposals for Award, Factor 3. Price. When evaluating the additional six

(6) months of service based on option year four (4) rates, will the government develop a pricing model that reflects quantities of unit prices based on the estimated workload under the current contract?

Answer: The Government will continue use of the rates for option year four (4) if FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services is exercised and will apply those rates to any task order issued during the additional six (6) months. During award evaluation, the Government will evaluate and determine if the prices for the additional six (6) months are fair and reasonable compared to the prior year’s rates.

35. How many contracts do you anticipate awarding?

Answer: The Government will award one (1) IDIQ as a result of this solicitation.

36. Will each task order under this contract be competitively bid?

Answer: The Government will award one (1) IDIQ as a result of this solicitation. As such, each task order will be awarded to the awardee of the IDIQ.

37. Will the Mock Task Order be awarded after the contract award?

Answer: At a minimum, a guaranteed task order will be awarded at time of award of the IDIQ. The mock task order is only intended for evaluation purposes, but may also be a future requirement of the Government.

38. Volume III – Past Performance. Would you accept subcontractor projects for past performance evaluation?

Answer: The Government will accept and evaluate past performance projects from major subcontractors (10% or more of the value of the contract under which the subcontract is awarded), or subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement.

39. With the proposals due by Feb. 24 at 3PM EST, what is the expected award date for the new contract?

Answer: An award will be made once the evaluation process has been completed and a vendor has been selected.

40. Is the “Mock” TO expected to be awarded under the new contract at time of award?

Answer: At a minimum, a guaranteed task order will be awarded at time of award of the IDIQ. The mock task order is only intended for evaluation purposes, but may also be a future requirement of the Government.

41. It was stated that the previous contract has expired and therefore there is no current contract (and all TOs have been completed by the previous contractor)…..is there any requirement for a transition/Phase-In period under the new contract?

Answer: No transition/Phase-In period is required.

42. GPS data collected in the field must be down loaded and converted to GIS. Will the new contractor be performing the GIS conversion for entry into the data base or will we submit the GPS data to the COE in raw form?

Answer: It is anticipated that the contractor will collect GPS data (typically via handheld units) and convert to shapefile format before sending to USACE. Data will be collected in datum WGS 1984 in UTM Zone 17 S.

43. Does the USACE have any criteria / requirements for drone operations over and above FAA for this requirement?

Answer: No, the contractor will follow the FAA’s guidelines for drone registration, national airspace and remote pilot certificate (FAA Part 107).

44. Will routine progress reports be submitted electronically to the USACE COR/Contracting Officer for each of the TOs?

Answer: No, routine progress reports will not be required for each task order.

45. The Mock Task Order Performance Work Statement requires performing invasive plant management chemical control on areas that have been treated for invasive vegetation within the past 1-2 years. The Mock Task Order will be considered “follow-up treatments” to the previous work.

Question 1: Was the previous invasive vegetation management completed under the predecessor contract: W912EP14D0007?

Answer: Yes, the initial treatment of vegetation noted in the Mock Task Order was performed under contract W912EP14D0007, but the Mock Task Order is not identical to the previous work and is provided to give all offeror’s an idea of the typical work required for this IDIQ.

Question 2: If so, will the government consider revising the Mock Task Order to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage this gives to the incumbent contractor, as they would be the only Offeror to know the price and execution details previously accepted by the government?

Answer: While the Mock Task Order is based on follow-up treatment of vegetation, the new requirement is for a percentage cover of target vegetation that is different from the initial treatment. Offerors are advised that the anticipated price, level of effort, and requirements of the work for the Mock Task Order are different from the initial treatment of target vegetation, and thus would not provide the incumbent contract an unfair advantage. Additionally, offeror’s are advised that the work required in the Mock Task Order is typical of the work that has been completed by not only the previous contract, but contracts previous to that, and is also typical of future requirements.

46. Under the Mock Task Order performance requirements, Offerors are required to “conduct invasive plant management chemical control efforts within the areas identified.” Please clarify if Offerors should assume that chemical control efforts are required for the entire 665 acres in Reaches 1, 5 and 7? If not, we would appreciate more detailed information about the areas within Reaches 1, 5 and 7, as well as the total area that require chemical control efforts. This will help assure that the government has a uniform basis comparing Mock Task Order pricing when evaluating Evaluation Factor 3 -- Price.

Answer: Contractors should use 350 acres of treatment for the Mock Task Order. It is anticipated that of the 350 acres, 15% will be for Reach 1; 15% will be for Reach 5; and 70% will be for Reach 7.

47. Please explain the difference between the red and green lines on Exhibit C. Will the government consider providing more detailed maps to Offerors that distinctly indicates where chemical control efforts are required?

Answer: The red/green lines were used to visually separate the different reaches on the map. Where red stops and green begins, and vice versa is the start of a new Reach.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM SITE VISIT HELD 4 FEB 2020.

48. Why didn’t USACE use all the funding available on the contract?

Answer: The previous contract included a ceiling amount, not an actual amount. The same will be the case for this requirement.

49. Are we treating cattail for the Mock TO?

Answer: No, aquatic treatment under the mock task order is not required.

50. Are there places where invasives extend past USACE responsibility & how is that handled?

Answer: Yes there are but the contractor will only treat within the boundaries provided by USACE.

51. What kind of vehicles/equipment can be used?

Answers: Vehicles must be minimal impact to HHD and other lands.

52. How much funding is available for 2020?

Answer: It is unknown how much funding will be available for 2020.

53. How much mechanical work was on the old contract?

Answer: Approximately 30% of the funding used on contract W912EP14D0007 was for mechanical vegetation control.

54. Is treatment conducted on both sides of the HHD?

Answer: Yes, treatment is anticipated to be conducted on both sides of HHD.

55. Will vegetation be treated in place or removed.

Answer: All target vegetation will be treated in place and there will be no removal.

56. What is the typical crew sized?

Answer: It will be up to the contractor to determine manpower, usually 12-15 determined by project.

57. Will work be conducted in all 5 states in SAD?

Answer: The majority of the work has been performed in Florida. Offerors shall anticipate 95% of future work to be in Florida and another 5% for Georgia.

58. What is the typical wait time for inspections?

Answer: Wait times are determined by species and project.

59. Do we have to wait to invoice following an inspection?

Answer: Billing occurs on a monthly basis. Any treatment that is not effective as a result of contractor negligence will be retreated at an expense to the contractor.

60. Will the unit rates submitted for the mock task order be set for the life of the contract?

Answer: The unit rates proposed for the Mock TO should be in-line with the prices submitted for the base contract period. Individual TO rates will coincide with the pre-priced rates for each line item/discipline for each contact year established at time of award.

61. Does the contractor have the ability to help to develop the scope of work?

Answer: The contractor has the ability to help USACE determine methods to be used that benefit the Government.

62. What kind of GPS data is required?

Answer: Points for species when asked and GPS tracks of treatments.

63. How much aerial work is anticipated?

Answer: We anticipate less than 5% of overall cost.

64. How much funding was allocated to crew work vs buggy/ATV?

Answer: Approximately half for each.

65. Are we treating all Cat I & II species?

Answer: For the Mock Task Order, offerors are expected to only treat woody species listed as Cat I & II.

Exceptions may be cogon grass or wild sugarcane if encountered.

66. Are there any environmental or seasonal changes that may impact treatments?

Answer: Lake elevation and T&E species.

67. Do the Past Performance Evaluations (pages 85 & 86 of the solicitation) count towards the Volume III – Past Performance page limit of 20 pages?

Answer: No, Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires (PPQs) received as a result of this solicitation do not count against the total page count for Volume III, Past Performance.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM QUESTIONS RECEIVED 7 FEB 2020.

68. Are there any restrictions on using a drone to collect aerial imagery?

Answer: The contractor will follow the FAA’s guidelines for drone registration, national airspace and remote pilot certificate (FAA Part 107) while collecting aerial imagery.

69. What is the format for delivery of aerial imagery?

Answer: The collection of aerial imagery/photographs/video may be utilized for monitoring work progress, herbicide treatment efficacy, etc and should be sent to USACE in both RAW and JPEG formats.

Videos will either be in MP4 or MPEG format. Traditional remote sensing via aircraft (i.e. orthorectified imagery) will not be required of the contractor under this solicitation.

70. During the site visit, the total work area for the mock task order was reduced to 350 acres. Can you identify the approximate percent cover of each invasive species and access for the work area?

Answer: The Government estimates the following coverages of the HHD reaches outlined in the Mock Task Order: Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) 80%; java plum (Syzygium cumini) 5%; lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala) 5%; climbing cassia (Senna pendula) 5%; misc. other woody invasive spp (4%);

misc. grasses (imperata cylindrica), napier grass (pennisetum purpureum) 1%.

71. Element A of Volume II requires the Offeror to attach their established Procedures Manual. This requirement is not typical of the RFPs we've seen from USACE; however, we are accustomed to providing technical proposal with procedures that are specific to a contract, and we maintain an overarching corporate policy and procedures manual. To clarify what is expected of Offerors, can you please provide an example of what you want to see in terms of a Procedures Manual or list the elements of the Procedures Manual that you want to receive?

Answer: The Government does not have an example to provide and is not requesting specific elements for a Procedures Manual. Per the solicitation, the offeror shall provide a copy of its established Procedures Manual to execute the required services in either the public or private sector. The established Procedures Manual shall detail the offeror’s methodology, using current industry standards and practices that are appropriate for the types of services specified in this solicitation, and delineate how the offeror proposes to incorporate USACE’s procedures and regulations. The Procedures Manual can be submitted as an attachment via .pdf and will not be counted towards the volume II page limit.

72. The type of herbicide applied can have a great influence on price. When pricing helicopter applications, what herbicide does the Government want Offerors to use as the basis for pricing?

Answer: Herbicide work for aerial treatments will be based on the target species, hydrology, proximity to sensitive agriculture crops, etc; however, there will be no aerial treatment conducted under the mock task order. The contractor can use a volume/acre base price (i.e. 5 gal/acre, 20 gal/acre).

73. Should submitted pricing be based on the mock task order, since the scope and size of other work on this IDIQ is not defined at this time?

Answer: The Government is requesting fully burdened rates for each line item provided in the Price Exhibit. Additionally, per page 25 of the solicitation, Volume IV, para b., the Mock Task order shall apply the work execution and management plans and shall price the task order in accordance with the pricing schedule to show the proposed level of effort.

74. Request Clarification: Page 25 Volume IV – Pricing (Factor 3), para a. states “Do not include quantities in the price list”, it is assumed that in the “Price Exhibit” starting on Page 3 of the RFP, we are to enter single unit prices. Question: On page 13 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES, CLIN 0001-5001, provided for pricing is the following data:

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT

UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 FL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 1 JOB

FFP

Please provide direction as to how you expect us to complete this Section of the RFP.

Answer: Offerors are not required to provide pricing or any other data on the provided CLIN lines. The CLIN information, including ceiling prices will be included at time of award.

75. It is our understanding that the MOCK TO will be evaluated for Technical acceptability. How will the MOCK TO be evaluated in the overall pricing Scheme? Or will it not? We understand that we will use the Base Year UNIT Prices from the “Price Exhibit”.

Answer: Offerors are advised to refer to pages 26-29 of the solicitation for evaluation approach and basis for award criteria. Factor 3, Price is detailed on page 29.

76. The Performance Work Statement for the Mock Task Order – HHD Vegetation Management details the Period of Performance is one year from task award and the final product of each task order shall provide a project site with 100% treatment/removal of target vegetation with a 95% efficacy for all treatments. If the contractor completes and obtains USACE acceptance of 100% treatment with a 95% efficacy well within the one year period of performance (e.g. within 6 months of NTP), will the contractor be required to maintain/treat the area for the entire one year period of performance or will the work be consider 100% complete after USACE acceptance?

Answer: The work will be considered 100% complete after USACE acceptance and no follow up work will be required unless determined necessary and additional funding is added to the particular task order during the established PoP.

77. Does the USACE plan to use the USACE Resident Management System (RMS) including the Three-Phase Control System for each Definable Feature of Work?

Answer: No, RMS will not be a requirement of this contract.

78. Does the USACE and/or govt have an established laydown area near the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) at Lake Okeechobee that the contractor can use to stage large equipment/trailers when needed?

Answer: Yes.

79. It was mentioned during the Site-Visit that there will be a variance between the acreage documented in Mock Task Order versus the acreage communicated during site visit. We anticipate this change will be issued as part of the RFP – correct?

Answer: Offerors should use 350 acres of treatment for the Mock Task Order. It is anticipated that of the 350 acres, 15% will be for Reach 1; 15% will be for Reach 5; and 70% will be for Reach 7.

80. Also, difference in target species documented in Mock Task Order versus communicated during site visit?

Answer: The Government estimates the following coverages of the HHD reaches outlined in the Mock Task Order: Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) 80%; java plum (Syzygium cumini) 5%; lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala) 5%; climbing cassia (Senna pendula) 5%; misc. other woody invasive spp (4%);

misc. grasses (imperata cylindrica), napier grass (pennisetum purpureum) 1%.

81. The Determination of Responsibility (Attachment 4) requests Performance References. We would appreciate guidance about the type of references sought.

Answer: Offerors are advised to refer to page 89 of the solicitation, as well as refer to the guidance and requirements of FAR Parts 9.104 and 42.15.

82. The units associated with line item A602: Mileage and A603: Per Diem are listed as per “Day”.

Is the “day” unit per person/ day or per crew/ day?

Answer: The “day” is for each person for per diem, but does not include subcontracted laborer. Lodging rates are person/night, but the contractor is encouraged to use two (2) persons/per room when applicable.

83. Do the hourly staff rates listed on the bid sheet include or exclude travel time to/ from the sites?

Answer: Hourly rates include travel time except for the Crew Leader (licensed applicator), Laborer, Sub-contracted Laborer, Applicator, Equipment Operator, and other subcontracted personnel.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM QUESTIONS RECEIVED 17 FEB 2020.

84. In order to fulfill the requirements of Volume I - Administrative, the documents requested will exceed 20 pages.

Requested documentation consists of the following page counts:

Document Pages (*estimated)

SF1449 2

Representation & Certification 15 Joint-Venture Agreement 62 Determination of Responsibility 5 Financials 50*

Would the Government allow Offerors to provide the required documents as an appendix to the proposal and be compliant with the RFP requirements?

Answer: USACE Jacksonville District intends to leave the page limit as is.

Please note that FAR 52.212-3 only requires completion of paragraph (b) if the offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through Blockedhttps://www.sam.gov.

Additionally, offerors are not required to submit every page of a Joint-Venture Agreement or from Financial Statements. The Government only requires sufficient information to determine an offeror responsible per the requirements of FAR Part 9.

85. In order to submit a proposal that complies with all provisions of the solicitation, we would greatly appreciate additional guidance.

Volume I (d) of the solicitation requires that offers from a joint venture “must provide a written copy of the joint venture agreement.”

o Would submitting the first page and signature page of a joint venture agreement satisfy the requirements of Volume I (d)?

Answer: Yes, submitting the first page and signature page of a joint venture agreement will satisfy the requirements of Volume I (d).

Volume I (f) requires submitting a completed Determination of Responsibility Form, including the latest financial statements, which “must be provided from all members of the joint venture.”

o In lieu of the complete financial statements, can Offerors demonstrate they have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, as required on the Determination of Responsibility Form, by only providing the information required to calculate the ratio of assets to liabilities?

Answer: Yes, as noted above, the Government only requires sufficient information to determine an offeror responsible per the requirements of FAR Part 9.