Q A_W912HQ-16-R-0007_0001.pdf

Page # Section Number and Title Question Answer

Given the substantive role that energy policy and technology play in the scope of work, it seems appropriate for this solicitation to fall under the $38.5 million Energy Policy Act of 1992 exception to the NAICS size standard. Could USACE clarify whether this exception applies?

Section 3021(b)(1) of 102, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776, 3133) states that “for purposes of contracts and subcontracts requiring engineering services (awarded under this Act) the applicable size standard shall be that established for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons.”

However, this contract is not being awarded under the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The preponderance of the work that is expected to fall under the scope of this contract, to include work in subject areas 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, does not relate directly to work contemplated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

2 54 L(c)(2)

Please confirm that the information requested—Solicitation number, Name/Address/Phone/Fax, etc.—should be provided on the first page following the Table of Contents and other front matter. Should this information be on the first page of the proposal or in a separate cover letter? Is the first page considered the "cover letter" of the proposal?

The first page of the proposal must show as listed on 52.215-1 (c)(2), page 56 and 57 of RFP. This page will be considered as the first page of the proposal.

3 58 Instructions to

Offerors 1.c

Are there any special procedures that need to be followed for hand-delivery of proposals? Ex: call in advance, provide name of deliverer, etc.

When hard-carrying proposals, Offerors are advised that they must process through gate security and should account time for possible delays. The offerors are highly encouraged to contact the Contract Specialist, Tae Won Eum at tae.w.eum@usace.army.mil or 703-428-6421 one day prior to delivery with the company name and individual requesting access to the installation. A valid form of identification is required (i.e. drivers license)

W912HQ-16-R-0007 0001

4 14 Section B.2

The Price-Schedule Labor rates schedule lists the Program Manager category as being 4000 hours, which is over the industry standard of 2080 per man year. Appendix A references this position as being a "single individual." Please clarify.

The 4,000 hours are for the base year (and the same for subseqent option years) for this labor category. It reflects an indefinite quantity of hours anticipated to be used for all individual task orders combined. For example, an individual task order may only require 100 hours for the program manager labor category.

5 19 1.1 Scope (9)

Scope 9 states "Environmental Management and Remediation (i.e., Developing revised Medical Cost Avoidance Model cost factors and associated algorithms based on data from the Military Health System...Army Publis Health Center)." The description provided appears unrelated to the subject area. Could the government clarify this?

The description has been revised. The objective is to further the advancement of CBP’s environmental and energy programs through the development of technical resources;

establishment of environmental practices and procedures;

enhanced communication tools; and the integration of IT solutions into standard environmental business practices.

6 27 Sr. Project Leader The RFP states “Possess a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university related to the areas of work.” Can a bachelor degree from an accredited university and relevant work experience be sufficient?

No. A bachelor's degree in engineering or related disciplines shown in the scope of work and NAICS Code 541330 - Engineering Services would be applicable to this requirement.

7 60

a) Volume I Factors 1-3

The RFP requests the offeror to demonstrate its capabilities and understanding of the technical requirements described in the PWS.

Under which factor (1, 2, or 3) should that information be provided?

If under Factor 1 (Technical) under which sub-factor should it be provided?

The only information required is the information in Factors 1-3 and listed. Factor 1 is made up of 3 sub-factors.

8 27

Appendix A – Labor Categories

Program Manager

What constitutes a “related program” (“BA in …. Engineering, Architecture or a related program”). Please confirm all science and engineering disciplines considered related programs.

A related program would include engineering and/or scientific displicines relevant to the scope of work and and or as reference in the description of NAICS Code 541330 - Engineering Services.

9 27 Appendix A –

Labor Categories

Can education be substituted for experience and experience substituted for education for the minimum qualification of each labor category?

No, the minimum requirements remain as stated for both the base as the task order response.

Section B - Supplies or

Services and Prices

The X002 (Materials) and X003 (Travel) CLIN descriptions all reference the Base Year. Please confirm that the not to exceed amounts are the same for each contract year; $50K for materials and $150K for travel.

The not to exceed amounts are the same for each contract year; $50K for materials and $150K for travel. RFP will be revised to correct the contract year.

11 14 & 28 B.2 & Appendix A

Section B.2 includes the labor category, Jr. Technical Specialist (General Manager) and Appendix A includes a Jr. Technical Specialist (General Engineer). Please confirm that Appendix A has the correct title for the Jr. Technical Specialist.

Jr. Technnical Specialist is General Engineer. Appendix A will be revised to correct the title.

12 Attachment 4

Attachment 4 does not include rows for Materials or Travel value.

Will the Government issue a new Attachment 4 to include rows for Materials and Travel? If not, should the Offeror modify the template on their own?

Attachment 4 is only for Labor rates. The Government is asking the offeror to propose an amount for materials and travel. This is a NTE amount and will used as a place holder for pricing.

13 4,6,11,14 Section B DD1423 CDRL – Base Year

CLIN 0005, 1005, 2005, 4005 are all labeled “DD1423 CDRL – Base Year.” Should these be labeled “Option Year 1”, “Option Year 2”, “Option Year 3”, “Option Year 4”?

CLIN 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005 will be revised to be labeled as Option Year 1 through 4.

14 14, 66

Section B, B.1 and TAB G – Labor

Rates Price Schedule

P.14 B.1 states, "Offeror shall not enter figures into any of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) for the base contract. These CLINS are placeholders to be used in awarding task orders. See Section L for instructions on information that shall be submitted by Offerors in the proposal.”

P.66 Tab G - Labor Rates Price Schedule states, “The offeror shall complete the pricing sheet located in Section B of the solicitation as well as the Attachment 4 (Excel format) 5-Year Pricing Schedule. …”

Please clarify if the offeror needs to complete Section B pages 2-14 or the Price Schedule – Labor Rates tables in B.2 pages 14-17.

The offeror shall complete B.2 Labor Rates Price Schedule from page 14 on and as well as the Attachment 4 - Excel Format_5 Year Pricing Schedule.

15 64 Tab C – Factor 3, Small Business Participation

Please reference Tab C – Factor 3, Small Business Participation, page 64, item 4, Past Compliance with Subcontracting Plans where it states: “Offerors … shall provide information … that details their subcontracting goals … and accomplishments/actuals for the five (5) most recent Federal contracts…” Please clarify, since recent awards may be within a period when actuals are not available or reported until the next reporting period, as such there would be no data to report. Does the Government mean five recent awards within the prior small business reporting period?

The Offeror shall provide the last 5 plans with the final data reported.

16 37, 56, 67

Section L., 52.215- 1 (f), Section M.A, Section H Task Orders

The Instructions to the Offerors RFP Section L., 52.215-1 (f) (page 56) states "the government intends to issue awards to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation."

Section M.A. (page 67) states "the award(s) will be made based on the tradeoff source selection process for proposals that are determined to be most beneficial to the Government." However Section H Task Orders (page 37) states that for post award task orders, "the Government will select the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price and a task order will be issued unilaterally." This approach to task order awards seems in conflict with the tradeoff evaluation methodology used for award of the IDIQ contracts. If the government uses best value tradeoff evaluation methodology in determination of the IDIQ it would seem most beneficial to apply that same approach for award of the task orders. Request the Government revise the RFP to require the tradeoff process among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal for task order awards.

The RFP will be revised Sectino H. Task Order to "the Government will select the proposal based on the tradeoff source selection process for proposals that are determined to be most beneficial to the Government".

1. Historically, large businesses have used $40M + of the capacity for the work they have brought to this contract. Our team is concerned that the current allocation strategy for the contract capacity is prejudiced against small businesses as large businesses will likely bring significant tasks to the contract early in the period of performance and disproportionately consume the cap versus Pool 1 winners who may take a longer time to participate in tasks given that their activity is limited to work areas 5, 6 and 9. Will the USACE consider giving each successful bidder in Pool 1 or Pool 2 $40 M in capacity thereby providing Pool 1 small businesses the same opportunity as Pool 2 businesses?

No. The capacity of the entire MATOC is set at 40M and to be shared by all contractors. Historically, approximately 40% of the work was in the subject areas reserved for small business.

Does the Small Business Prime have to perform 51% or does performance by all Small Businesses including subcontractors count toward the 51%?

13CFR 125.6 (a)(1) In the case of a contract for services (except construction), the concern will perform at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees.

The RFP states that the following positions require “…a current Project Management Professional (PMP) certification, certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI), or an equivalent certification accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), throughout the contract.” – Program Manager (Supv Program Manager), Sr. Project Leader (Project Manager), and Junior Project Leader (Project Manager). Would a Professional Engineering License meet ANSI requirement for equivalent certification; or can a PE be substituted for PMP or ANSI certification? Solicitation, Offer and Award Document, Appendix A – Labor Categories (pages 27-28 of 74);

Labor Category: (Program Manager (Supv Program Manager), Sr.

Project Leader (Project Manager), and Junior Project Leader (Project Manager).

No. A PE is not relevant to a PMP. However, a PMP will not be needed for the Jr. Project Leader as long as either the Program Manager or the Senior Project Leader has it. If only a Jr.

Project Leader (Project Manger) is proposed, then it is required.

Does 6 point spacing after each paragraph count as a “blank line” between paragraphs? Solicitation, Offer and Award Document, “Instructions to Offerors” section 2. c) (page 59).

No, spacing should remain at the standard, 12-point minimum.

Is the maximum page limit of 250 pages for Volume I correct?

Solicitation, Offer and Award Document, “Instructions to Offerors” section 2. Table (page 59).

Yes.

TAB B – Factor 2 – Past Performance, section iii (page 62 of the RFP), states that the Government may also review “past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal.” This statement appears to be in conflict with section iv., which states, “Only PPI under the same CAGE codes/DUNS numbers as the Offeror will be considered and evaluated.” We are assuming that the definition of the Offeror in section iii. (Prime contractor and its team members) is the same definition of Offeror in section iv. Is this accurate?

Solictation will be revised to clarify that only past performance information for the prime offeror, as listed on page one of the SF33, will be evaluated. Text "using all CAGE codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate)" will be removed. If more than one contractor is listed on page one of the SF33, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal.

23 58 Section L Is it correct to assume Offerors can propose key personnel from both the prime contractor and its subcontractors?

Yes, the offeror many propose key personnel from both prime contractor and subcontractors.

24 58 Section L Is it correct to assume Offerors can propose past performances from both the prime contractor and its subcontractors?

Only past performance information for the prime offeror will be evaluated.

25 37 Section K, Task

Orders

We respectfully request the Government reconsider selecting task order awardees based on a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The 4/1/16 Memorandum from Ms. Claire Grady, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy regarding the appropriate use of LPTA is relevant to this RFP. The Memorandum clearly states that LPTA should be used “where the Government would not place any value on a product or service exceeding the Government’s threshold technical or performance requirements and these requirements can be objectively defined in measurable terms. Such situations include acquisitions of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly and objectively defined.” The work defined in this Solicitation is comprised of technical services in support of complex engineering analyses, studies, and assessments to USACE clients. These analyses, studies, and assessments require a very high level of skill and expertise in order to provide the high level of performance that USACE clients expect, and is not suited to be objectively defined in measurable terms. Further, USACE could determine that proposed services provide greater value, which would warrant a best value evaluation process. The 4/1/16 Memorandum provides timely guidance that the “tradeoff process allows for selection of the lowest price acceptable offer or a higher priced offer as providing the best value.”

The RFP will be revised Sectin H. Task Order to "the Government will select the proposal based on the tradeoff source selection process for proposals that are determined to be most beneficial to the Government".

* On page 64 of the solicitation (Factor 3 – Small Business Participation, #4, Past Compliance with Subcontracting Plan), the final sentence reads, in part, “…for which the offeror was both the prime contractor and subcontractor that required an associated subcontracting plan.” Are we correct in assuming that the sentence should read, in part, “…for which the offeror was both a prime contractor OR subcontractor that required an associated subcontracting plan.”

for which the offeror was both the prime contractor and subcontractor that required an associated subcontracting plan" is correct assumption in corrected language.

With respect to the requirement in Tab B – Factor 2 – Past Performance on page 61 of 74 for ongoing past performance citations to be at least 50% complete as of the release date of the solicitation, we believe this metric is appropriate for projects with a short period of performance, and/or projects with a heavy design and engineering component. For technical, analytical, and engineering services contracts with periods of performance of up to five years with a consistent scope of support, performance can be reliably established and validated prior to the 50% completion point. Would the Corps consider removing this 50% completion requirement, or revising the requirement to permit multi-year projects with a completed base period and/or a completed interim CPARS report? This would permit consideration of technical services projects with scopes of work similar to the subject procurement and with several years of established performance.

"On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation or must have completed base period CPARS report in case of multi-year project."

In regards to the BPFTI systems including TRIRIGA, FM&E’s computer aided facility management (CAFM) system, work management information system (WMIS) used for managing TI assets, the facilities and infrastructure tracking tool (FITT), and CBP’s financial management system, SAP, will the contractor be briefed and have access to the systems in order to derive pertinent information regarding the requirements of the Task order?

Selected TO awardee will be provided all necessary information to complete the task order during the kick off meeting.

Is the term Bi-weekly as used in the Task order narrative defined as every two weeks?

Yes, every two weeks.

Will the contractor be provided a single POC for the assessment process at each PMO, understanding that contract guidance will be from the COR?

Contract guidance will be provided by either COR or Contracting Officer. A POC, for the assessment process may or may not be the COR, will be provided.

Can Years of Experience successfully program managing nearly identical programs be substituted for a Master’s Degree? If so, how many years of experience will substitute for the degree?

A Master's Degree is "PREFERRED" not "REQUIRED".

If three Program Managers in our company typically split duties to manage our portfolio of contracts. One Program Manager has a Master’s Degree in Engineering, but it not currently PMI certified, and the other two do not have Master’s Degrees but many years of experience and are PMI certified. All have clearances and very experienced and successful with this type of program. Will the Government recognize this management team as having the minimum requirements plus the preferred Master’s Degree?

The Program Manager assigned to the contract must meet the requirements of the contract at all times.

Our company is a small business that provides services to other Government Agencies with exceptional results, strong past performance, certified personnel and competitive pricing. Our experience is stronger in task areas that are NOT reserved for small business. This RFP seems to favor small businesses that are strong in the three areas that were selected by the Government and puts small businesses that may be exceptional in other task areas at a disadvantage forcing them to complete for pool 2 in order to win a seat. We have several questions related to this.

1. What was the rationale for selecting the three task areas set aside for small business?

2. Will the Government consider allowing Small Business to select the three task areas, and Sample Task to propose?

3. Will the Government consider allowing awardees in pool 1 to bid on pool 2 task orders when they are released?

4. If a small business specializes in task areas other than 5, 6, and 9, does that mean that the small business must proposal on the unrestricted pool in order to be considered for task orders for tasks areas other than 5, 6, and 9?

5. Will task orders in all task areas released for the program be available for pool 1 awardees to submit a proposal at the task order level? For example, will small business IDIQ holders in pool 1 have the opportunity to bid on a task order RFQ that is best categories in task area 3 or will pool 1 awardees be precluded from bidding on task area 3?

See below

1. What was the rationale for selecting the three task areas set aside for small business?

Three task areas were selected based on the result of Sources Sought which was posted on FBO on 4 June 2015 under solicitation number :W912HQ-15-S-0008 in order to maximize the participation from SB and minimize the admin burden to the Gov't. Those three task areas were selected because there are multiple SB vendors determined to be capable performing the requirement.

2. Will the Government consider allowing Small Business to select the three task areas, and Sample Task to propose?

No

3. Will the Government consider allowing awardees in pool 1 to bid on pool 2 task orders when they are released?

Although SB can propose for Pool 2 at the MATOC level, Pool1 contractor may not be propose for the TO released for Pool2 unless they awarded under Pool2 as well.

4. If a small business specializes in task areas other than 5, 6, and 9, does that mean that the small business must proposal on the unrestricted pool in order to be considered for task orders for tasks areas other than 5, 6, and 9?

For those who are specialized in task areas other than 5, 6, & 9, may propose in Pool 2 but shall be capable performing all task areas.

5. Will task orders in all task areas released for the program be available for pool 1 awardees to submit a proposal at the task order level? For example, will small business IDIQ holders in pool 1 have the opportunity to bid on a task order RFQ that is best categories in task area 3 or will pool 1 awardees be precluded from bidding on task area 3?

No, Pool 1 IDIQ holder will not have opportunity to bid on TO for Pool 2 unless they are awarded under Pool2 as well.

Given that small business must bid on the three task areas 5, 6, and 9 to qualify for an IDIQ award, what does the following statement mean? (from RFP page 60 Section L, 4) “If there is only one contract award to any one type of small business concern, USACE may issue orders directly to the concern for work that it can perform”.

Wouldn’t all small businesses be qualified to be on the IDIQ also be qualified to perform on any task order in task areas 5, 6, and 9?

If there is only one SB was awarded under Pool 1, TO falls under task areas 5, 6, & 9 may be issued directly to the SB awarded under Pool 1.

Reference: TAB B – Factor 2 – Past Performance, Subsection (iv.)

(page 62 of 74) states: Only PPI under the same CAGE codes/DUNS numbers as the Offeror will be considered and evaluated. Any PPI under other-than the offeror’s CAGE codes/DUNS numbers will be disregarded. Lack of recent or relevant past performance information will result in an unknown or neutral rating.

Clarification requested: Please confirm this clause is only intended to exclude the possibility of using PPI from subcontractors. XXXXXX, like many large government contractors, has multiple CAGE codes and DUNS numbers for different XXXXXX entities that perform its contracts. When proposing and performing government contracts, XXXXX identifies one CAGE/DUNS number as the prime contractor, but XXXXX entities, each with their own CAGE/DUNS numbers, as all coming from XXXX and in compliance with the above referenced requirement, even though the proposal will be signed and submitted by one XXXXXX entity. Would you please confirm that this interpretation is correct?

The interpretation is correct. A primary DUNS/CAGE is required and any award will be made to that entity. Only past performance information for the prime offeror, as listed on page one of the SF33 will be evaluated. The offer can include all CAGE codes/DUNS numbers for entities of the same name.

TAB B – Factor 2 – Past Performance, Subsection (iv.) (page 62 of 74) will be updated to reflect this change.

Sheet1