B.06 Comments from Industry.xlsx

Sheet1

a) Summary that reflects the offeror’s proposed approach and justification

b) Technical approach demonstrating understanding of Government and regulatory requirements to achieve the objectives and deliverables

i) Objectives and deliverables

ii) Investigation phase – demonstrate understanding and capability to perform all tasks required to characterize the nature and extent of potential contamination such that a well-informed FS, PP, and ROD can be attained

iii) Remedial Action phase – demonstrate understanding and capability to achieve remedial action objectives in a timely manner

c) Integrated Master Schedule and Milestone Payment Schedule (without cost)

i) Integrated Master Schedule – include/address the following:

o Realistic sequence and timing of activities and documents to demonstrate achievement of objectives within the period of performance o Logical incorporation of realistic Government and Regulatory review periods o Timing of decision points specifically addressing risk mitigation and/or contingency strategies

ii) Milestone Payment Schedule that addresses the following:

o Presents appropriate milestone payments considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the POs o Includes a reasonable number of milestone payments based on scope and anticipated duration o Excludes unacceptable milestone payments representing a progress payment or monthly payment for level of effort expended as well as management or overhead costs o Includes final CLIN/Sub-CLIN milestone payments demonstrating achievement of the objectives

(2) Comprehensive Management Plan

a) Clear identification of roles, responsibilities, and communication strategies for key personnel, subcontractors, and other relevant team members

b) Organizational chart depicting prime and subcontractor personnel

c) Key personnel qualifications for designated roles

d) Relevant team experience with the remediation technologies proposed

e) Description of change and risk management, including management of multiple and concurrent events

f) Description of processes/procedures to ensure services that result in submission of high-quality technical documents and deliverables Page 75 of 115, Section D, 1.b – Can you provide more information on what is to be submitted and what is acceptable for entry-gate screening?

Page 77 or 115, D, 2, c – It seems like there no opportunity to provide more documentation on experience beyond the 3 PPQs. The sole use of PPQs (especially 3), seems insufficient for the government to determine the skills, experience, and past performance for such a large project. Please consider allowing at least 5 projects.

Page 91 of 115 Attachment 5, Is this to be filled out or is the rate table on page 4 the correct one to fill out. I assume the notes on page 4 table should also be applicable to this table in Attachment 5? Yes Yes There are a few inconsistencies within the RFP instructions, and we have submitted questions regarding those via ProjNet. It would be beneficial for offerors to have a better idea of the key personnel/resumes required for submission. Additionally, the draft RFP states that offerors should submit a “technical approach based on the Performance Work Scope (PWS).”

However, additional information would be extremely beneficial to prepare accurate and technically sound proposals. Namely, it would be beneficial if the government could furnish the documents noted in Seed Task Section 8.0 References. Section C, PWS, 2.3.2 [page 8] – There is mention of a contractor being available within 2 hours during normal business hours to meet Government personnel to discuss problem areas. After normal business hours, the contractor shall be available within twenty-four hours or by the next business morning whichever is earlier. In order to full fill this on-call requirement please clarify that phone and/or virtual meeting meets this requirement. Section L, Proposal Submission, C.3 [page 73] – Suggest definitively stating that font for text shall not be smaller than 11 pt. Section L, Proposal Requirements, D.2.c [Page 77] – Please accept CPARS in lieu of PPQs. PPQs are time consuming due to the contractor having minimal control over the customer completing and returning the PPQ in a timely manner; it is difficult to obtain PPQs from a customer that is no longer actively involved; to ensure PPQs are completed contractors must engage the customer frequently which can put a strain on small business customer relationships. Section L, Proposal Requirements, D.2.b [Pages 76 & 77] and Attachment 5 [page 91, 95, 103 & 108] Refer to Key Personnel Qualifications, with demonstrated relevant experience, and the Seed Project requests/refers to the following key personnel: Registered Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Geologist, Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) or Certified Safety Professional (CSP) – Please identify and define key personnel categories for the MATOC and/or Seed Project. Section M, Evaluation Criteria, C.3.b(3) [Page 113] - Suggest giving higher weight to past performance demonstrated by bidding entity. The instructions to Offerors are clear and provide sufficient detail to submit proposals. • In general, yes, the Instructions to Offerors clear and provide enough detail to submit proposals. Note that the first sentence in Paragraph C.2 states: “Proposals shall not exceed 50 pages for volume II (Technical Proposal) with the following exceptions. The IMS and MPS in Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and the PPQs in Factor 2 (Past Performance) will not count towards the 70-page limitation in the Technical Proposal.” It is not clear if the technical proposal is limited to 50 or 70 pages. Yes • As written, it is unclear if the evaluation criteria in Section M is for the seed task, the contract or both. • Page 112-113: Under Factor 2 Past Performance, Relevant Projects there is a statement “All three projects shall meet the characteristics listed in paragraph (d) below.” However, only (a), (b), and (c) are in the following paragraphs. Can you add (d) or remove the reference to it? • Page 112-113: Under Factor 2 Past Performance, Relevant Projects, item (a) lists “Remediation of contaminants of concern (COC) for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), metals, and pesticides. Within surface soils, subsurface soils, surface and groundwater.” Can you please add explosives to the list to be consistent with what is listed in Section 3.1 on page 10? As it reads now, it is not clear if projects with explosives as COCs would be relevant. • Page 3 of 115 indicates that the maximum task order amount under this contract will be $5,000,000. Item (f.) on Page 20 of 115 states that post-award debriefing for task orders exceeding $6,000,000 will be given to requesting contractors. Please consider lowering the task order value for requesting a debrief, as the current value implies that contractors will not be able to receive any debriefs on this contract. Basis for Award. The criteria listed in this section are geared towards the award of a task order and not a MATOC. The first sentence states “Contract award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government utilizing the Tradeoff process,” which may represent how the seed task order will be awarded. However, this statement does not describe how USACE will select firms for the overall MATOC. Subsection C. Evaluation Criteria, 3. Factor 2 – Past Performance, b. Evaluation Criteria. The statement is followed by a list enumerated (a), (b), and (c), which is missing item (d) referenced in the statement above. Please clarify the characteristics that all three projects should meet. Page 113 of Draft Solicitation states “If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance and experience of the unit or division submitting the offer.”

Through common ownership of an Alaska Native Corporation (ANC), companies managed by the ANC are allowed to use the experience of the leadership, workforce, and project examples of sister companies to respond to RFPs and in contract performance when those sister firms will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. This approach has been successfully implemented and is clearly supported by Government Accounting Office (GAO) rulings including File B-401560.3, B-401560.4, B-409187, B-409187.2, B-409187.3, and B-409196. B-290482

• How will CESAS and CESAW reviews be conducted? Will all deliverables be reviewed by CESAS and then by CESAW, or can concurrent reviews be conducted?

• Will USACE Environmental Munitions Center of Expertise (EMCX) be involved in reviewing any deliverables? Will EMCX reviews be conducted in between the USACE Districts and the regulators?

• Is the 60-day review schedule for the regulators realistic based on previous document reviews for Camp Sibert? Review times on LDKJV projects in Alabama have routinely required well over 60 days. It is unclear whether the 3 meetings are in-person or virtual. This content needs to be clarified. no response We have the following comments/questions on the seed project PWS:

In Section 2.0, Background, Page 92. Please confirm the pending work is perceived as a groundwater study only. We understand that soil impacts and CWM have been delineated and remediated where appropriate. Has soil and CWM remediation been approved by the primary and secondary regulatory oversight? We expect that while it is no longer a media of concern, contingencies will need to be in place for detection of CWM.

What is the current RAC Score Risk Assessment Code (RAC) for area 2A?

What is the confidence level that all residual CWM has been removed / mitigated in area 2A?

In Section 4.0, Tasks, Task 2: Remedial Investigation (RI) Field Work Completion/Reporting, Page 96. This section indicates that the contractor should incorporate previous investigations with new findings. We expect that previous progress reports, technical memos, files and data from the incomplete RI and all other reports will be provided to the respondents? What is the timing for providing these files?

In Section 4.0, Tasks, Task 4: Proposed Plan, Page 97. What has been the public interest / involvement with the activities at the Site. Is there an active public outreach effort? Who is responsible for coordination with the public outreach, if any?

What is the anticipated level PPE for subsurface work associated with RI completion?

In Section 4.0, Tasks 4: Deliverables (All Inclusive). For project deliverables, who will be the client review team? Will the regulatory review team include both the EPA and ADEM? Who is the lead regulatory agency? Is there a pledged turnaround time from the client review team and the regulatory review team for the deliverables?

Is High Resolution Site Characterization a required element of the RI?

In Section 4.0, Tasks, Task 3: Feasibility Study, Page 97. This task states “The FS will evaluate all alternatives against the 9 evaluation criteria….” Can the government specify whether there will be a list of alternatives at minimum to be evaluated in the FS?

Will PFAS be evaluated as part of the RI/FS?

Request that the government provide the report "Strategic Optimization Technical Memorandum for Site 2A (September 2021)" – this is an important guiding document for this site.

Please provide documents or links for all previous reports submitted/completed for the seed project. If electronic copies of site reports/documents are not provided by the government, it is recommended that access to the AR (local library) is granted to make copies (usually with electronic copies available) during the site walk.

In Section 5.0 Submittals, Table 5-2, Submittal Guidance, Page 102. Please clarify the approach bidders should take to substantiate a technical determination that the RI/FS 36-month period of performance (POP) is sufficient. The contractor’s independent assessment of the site may warrant a different POP, depending on conditions that may be encountered. No – not as presented in the draft without the supporting documents as listed below.

Offerors will require access to all documentation relating to Site 2A that were accessible to, or delivered by, the contracted party conducting the 2019 RI. Additionally, all data, figures, and field logs would need to be accessible to all bidders or an incumbent bidder will have an unfair advantage in the cost and technical approach development.

Page 94, section 4 objectives reference a Strategic Optimization Technical Memorandum for Site 2A (September 2021) prepared by USACE. Will this be provided to offerors so we can address the recommendations for additional site investigation in our technical and pricing proposal?

• Item a: Please clarify how USACE intends to “use data, external to the offeror’s proposal, such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data”.

• Item a: The Total Evaluated Price is simply the Government estimate for the seed project since all CLINs in Attachment 4 Proposal Schedule are listed as Base Award. In addition, how will the Government estimate be used in the evaluation process? Will bidders with pricing significantly lower or higher than the Government estimate be eliminated from consideration?

• Item a: Please clarify how Attachment 5 Discipline Rates (for the MATOC) will be used in the evaluation of the MATOC beyond indicating these labor rates need to be used in pricing the seed project.

• Items b and c: The discussions of reasonableness and unbalanced pricing do not indicate how the MATOC will be evaluated. Will this evaluation include pricing for the seed project in Attachment 4 or will labor rates in Attachment 5 be evaluated as well?

• Item d: How can USACE determine insufficient details were provided when Section L simply requires completed tables for pricing the seed project (Attachment 4) and labor rates for the MATOC (Attachment 5)?

The primary concerns are:

(1) How to assess a discipline such as “Senior Engineer” where this could be a Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Structural, or Environmental Engineer that could have significantly different labor rates besides educational requirements to achieve the necessary requirements of the PWS.

b) Also, can you confirm that in “Note 2: labor rates shall be burdened with Labor, OH and G&A” is referring to the fully burdened labor rates table on page 4?

c) We believe that a separate G&A rate should be applied to ODCs and Subcontractor costs on the rate schedule. Clear and Reasonable. DAWSON generally applies overhead and G&A (in many cases at a reduced rate) to ODCs and subcontractors. By not allowing overhead and G&A, the government is effectively preventing contractors from recouping the administrative costs necessary to source, purchase, and process all costs for the contract, including Travel and ODCs. FAR 31.203 expressly states ".......". Applying G&A on Travel and ODCs is a usual and customary business practice, and the FAR language is structured to allow contractors to track costs in logical cost groupings and allocate them in a rational manner to the benefiting contracts. We have no comments regarding profit, Overhead, and G&A at this time. Overhead, profit, and G&A will be included in the rates supplied in the rate schedule. Rates listed will be fully burdened. Without more detailed information regarding future task orders, exact percentages for profit, overhead, and G&A are impossible to calculate at this time. Schedule B, Notes 3, 5, 6, and 7 state that Overhead and G&A are not allowed on ODCs, Subcontracting, or Travel. This restriction puts an unacceptable financial burden on contractors who incur substantial risk on subcontractors, ODCs and travel costs for a performance-based contract and significant costs to comply with government procurement requirement. Contractors recover costs associated with procurement management and compliance through overhead and G&A. – Please consider revising to allow Overhead and G&A on ODCs, Subcontracting and Travel. Profit, Overhead, and G&A will be calculated using General Accounting Practices using the most recent accounting period and projected fiscal year after award of the contract. In accordance with FAR Part 31, we will identify, but will not include any unallowable or unallocable costs in the overhead. A summary similar to the below could be included: Fringe Benefit Rate (%): _________ (Applied to Direct Labor) General OH Rate (%): __________ (Applied to Direct Labor, Indirect, and Other Direct Costs) Total OH Rate (%): _________ (Applied to Direct Labor, Indirect, and Other Direct Costs) Proposed Annual Escalation (%): ________ (Applied to Direct Labor) Profit is typically negotiated at the Task Order level depending on the level of effort. • Overhead should be included in the labor rates provided in Attachment 5. G&A and profit are applied to the subtotal of labor, ODCs, and Subcontractors (G&A first applied and the profit to the total including G&A). G&A and overhead costs are associated with our annually reviewed management, financial, and/or other expenses incurred as part of the overall “cost of doing business percentages.

Profit or fee, we calculate as a percentage of the total estimated, and will be added to the actual cost to perform the work which includes fringe, overhead and G&A costs.

Escalation will then be applied to future contract years to account for changes in the economy and market volatility. We use the Department of Labor Consumer Price Index (CPI) Applying G&A on Travel and ODCs is a usual and customary business practice. Please consider allowing G&A on ODCs and Travel (see Note 3). FAR 31.203 expressly states “(d) Once an appropriate base for allocating indirect costs has been accepted, the contractor shall not fragment the base by removing individual elements. All items properly includable in an indirect cost base shall bear a pro rata share of indirect costs irrespective of their acceptance as Government contract costs. For example, when a cost input base is used for the allocation of G&A costs, the contractor shall include in the base all items that would properly be part of the cost input base, whether allowable or unallowable, and these items shall bear their pro rata share of G&A costs.” The notes associated with MATOC binding rates are clear, but the stipulations on G&A will require many bidders, including LDKJV, to operate against their Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)-approved accounting practices. For example, the DCAA-approved accounting practice for KEMRON is predicated on a total cost input accounting system that includes applying G&A to subcontractor costs, and the provisional labor rates established each year with DCAA are predicated on G&A costs being applied to labor, subcontractors, materials, travel, and other direct costs. Other USACE districts have issued MATOCs with similar limitations on the application of G&A, but the majority of USACE districts do not have restrictions limiting G&A to only labor, while other districts simply rely on competitive fixed price bids to ensure adequate pricing. If G&A restrictions are not removed, firms with total cost input accounting systems will have individuals with direct support functions, such as accounts payable and accounts receivable, charge time directly to projects under this MATOC instead of being included in the G&A.

The notes on applying overhead (OH) to only labor costs is typical with other USACE districts. LDKJV maintains separate Home Office and Field OH rates and will use a unified labor rate in preparing Section B.

The notes associated with applying fee are easily understood and LDKJV concurs with Note 4 that profit should be applied at the task order level. The limitation of not allowing fee on travel costs in Note 5 also has been adopted by other USACE districts. Regarding the evaluation, we do not agree with removing profit or G&A on travel, ODCs, and subcontractors. These adders are part of our DCAA approved rates and should be included in the costs for these items. We understand per the Q&A on Projnet, this stipulation may be addressed in the final RFP. We strongly encourage considering amending this pricing requirement. no response G&A will be included in the labor rate. G&A will be added to travel, other direct costs, and subcontractor costs. Profit will be added to labor, travel, other direct costs, and subcontractor costs. The notes in Schedule B state: a) OH, Fringe, and G&A costs will be included in the discipline labor rates; and, b) Overhead and G&A shall be included in labor rates only. This cost is not acceptable for Other Direct Costs (ODC’s), Subcontracting Costs, or Travel Costs.

This is contrary to: 1) the accepted method used by industry, 2) USACE SAV’s prior solicitations/awards including the ERS awarded in 2018, and 3) guidance provided in the SBA’s 7[j] Management and Technical Assistance program used to train 8(a) participants.

The difference is not allowing G&A to be included in ODC’s, Subcontracting cost, and travel cost. Our interpretation of FAR 31.203 is that these types of direct costs are burdened with G&A rates. The application of G&A to ODCs and subcontractor costs is part of our standard accounting procedures which we must follow. Our company develops rates yearly based on the expected cost and basis for the upcoming year. The accepted method of cost recovery; as stated above, is shown in the below table where the rate is applied to the cost categories listed in the basis.

Can you provide specific guidance or interpretation on how G&A costs are not applicable to ODC or subcontract costs in a fixed firm price contract? Does USACE plan to include a “Rate” table to identify the G&A rate applicable to the costs other than the labor rates provided in schedule B? ?????/