Charleston IEPR Questions-Answers 3.docx

Charleston Peninsula IEPR Questions

1. On Page 10 of PWS, Task 1, it is stated that “The Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate Government-caused delays of up to three (3) months in delivering materials and information. After USACE and the Contractor agree on the schedule for a meeting date, the Contractor is responsible for any necessary contingencies to accommodate up to two (2) schedule changes requested by the USACE for each meeting.” There are a few questions here:

USACE Response: Please note the following statement in the PWS as context for these requirements: “The process to prepare Corps decision documents is complex and the coordination with the IEPR schedule involves many factors, some of which are outside of the control of the District Project Delivery Team and the Review Management Organization. The Government does not guarantee that it will provide materials and information or be available for meetings on the dates in the working schedule.” The Contractor should allow for these contingencies in their price proposal. The purpose of these requirements is to set expectations regarding proposal pricing and subsequent requests for cost modifications due to potential delays and rescheduling per the context noted above. USACE will work in good faith to meet the working schedule agreed to in the final work plan, but as noted, the scheduling is complex and may be impacted by factors outside of USACE’s control.

a. It is assumed that the referenced 3 months of delay for delivering materials and information is the cumulative total of all such delays as opposed to 3 months for each occurrence (e.g., providing review documents, providing response to panel comments). Please clarify.

USACE Response: No, the stated three months applies to each occurrence where the Contractor must receive information from USACE. Once the working schedule has been established in the final work plan, USACE expects the Contractor to accommodate delays of up to three months for each delivery without seeking a cost modification.

b. It is assumed that the 3-month delay in delivering materials and information is different and separate from the 2 schedule changes for each meeting. Otherwise, this could mean that the schedule for each meeting could be delayed twice and each time by as much as 3 months, which could result in a maximum delay of 9 months for each meeting. Please clarify.

USACE Response: The stated three months also applies to each meeting. USACE expects the Contractor to be prepared to work with USACE to coordinate up to two reschedulings, not to exceed a total of three months delay from the date agreed to in the working schedule, without seeking a cost modification.

c. It is assumed that there may be as many as two schedule changes for every single meeting. Considering 5 major meetings called out for this IEPR, the contractor seems to be responsible for as many as 10 changes in scheduling these meetings. Please clarify.

USACE Response: USACE expects the Contractor to be prepared to work with USACE to coordinate up to two reschedulings, not to exceed a total of three months delay for each meeting.

2. Page 19, Draft Schedule. The description of the requirements under IEPR Task 4 (top of Page 20) shows “Submit IEPR Final Report” as part of the effort under this task. On the other hand, the scope of Task 5 on Page 15 includes the effort to prepare and submit the final IEP report under this task. In addition, it appears that the activity listed under Task 5 on Page 20 may have to be included under Task 6 in order to ensure consistency with the scope of Task 6 on Page 15. Please clarify.

USACE Response: Please see the revised Performance Work Statement included with this amendment to the solicitation.

3. Page 34, File Packaging, requires “All price breakout information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format. Each file shall be externally labeled with the solicitation number, date, and the Offeror’s name.” [emphasis added]. However, on Page 37 of the solicitation, TAB G – Labor Rates Price Schedule, the offeror is required to “complete the pricing schedule located in Section B of the solicitation. The offeror shall fill in the rates columns for each of the base and option years. The remainder of the columns should auto populate; however, it is up to the offeror to ensure all calculations are correct. The hours per labor category are yearly estimates and should not be changed.” [emphasis added] We request the following clarification:

a. It appears the government requires an Excel file be provided following the format in Section B. If so, the offeror could develop a spreadsheet consistent with general USACE practices or the government could provide a standard excel file to be completed. Please clarify.

USACE Response: A spreadsheet indicating the amount of labor hours per labor category per each task is required. The template provided in the PWS is reflective of the expected format. The template only has a two of the six base tasks showing to save space on the solicitation; it is expected the offerors will input columns for each of the base tasks, and columns for each option task. As a reminder, there may be quantities greater than 1 for each option thus if there is a quantity of 4 the price schedule should show the amount per unit and the subtotal per option task. The text option year in the solicitation will be amended to state option task. There are no option years. There will be no auto-populating template provided. Extended pricing that details the price per hour of each labor category per base task, including the total base task and per option task is required.

a. The language implies that the government may be asking for an electronic Excel file with appropriate marking submitted as opposed to including an Excel table in the body of the proposal. Please clarify.

USACE Response: The Excel table must be included in the body of the proposal and a separate Excel file must be provided.

b. The reference to “option year” implies the period of performance for this Task Order Contract may be longer than one year although Section F of the solicitation, Deliveries or Performance, specifies 19-Jan-2021 as the delivery date. On the other hand, Clause 52.217-7 on Page 27 indicated the possibility of government exercising the optional tasks within “270 days of contract award” at the same rate in the base task unless the parties otherwise agree. Page 17 of the PWS indicated the period of performance (POP) to be through “19 January 2021”. Please clarify the POP for this contract and whether an optional year, included labor rates for the Option Year, should be considered.

USACE Response: Option Year has been removed from the solicitation and Option Tasks inserted where it formerly stated Option Year. The delivery date of 19 January 2021 as specified is the delivery date. The Options are for additional quantities of one or more of the following: review of public comments, or review documents or for an addendum to the final report, as necessary to complete the IEPR.

2. Page 35 of 40: INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OFFERORS, 3. Proposal Content, Factor 2 – Technical Experience, and Page 38 of 40: M2, FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED, Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Approach and Experience. The title for proposal content does not match the evaluation factor. One could assume that the proposal title for Factor 2 in the proposal should be Technical Approach and Experience and that the proposal content should describe both the technical approach to be used for the IEPR and the experience with the items called out in both the proposal content and factors to be evaluated sections of the solicitation. Please clarify.

USACE Response: Factor 2 proposal content should address both the Offeror’s technical approach and experience. As stated in Section M2, this factor will be evaluated based on:

· Offeror’s understanding of the credentials and experience required to adequately staff the required independent peer review panel.

· Offeror’s understanding of the process and requirements to successfully deliver the IEPR in accordance with the PWS and applicable directives.

· Offeror’s presentation of an approach that clearly shows how it will fulfill the task order requirement within the budget it proposes.

3. Page 38 of 40, M2, FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED, Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Approach and Experience. It is stated that the proposal will be evaluated for the “Offeror’s understanding of the credentials and experience required to adequately staff the required independent peer review panel.” It is not clear whose credentials and experience are referred to here. Is it the credentials and experience of the contractor staff, or the credentials and experience of the review panel members, or both? Please clarify.

USACE Response: USACE’s evaluation of Factor 2 will focus on the technical expertise of both Contractor staff and example review panel members. Key credentials and experience expected under Factor 2 include:

· evidence that proposed Contractor staff have provided technical briefings to senior federal agency officials (for example at the GS-15 and Senior Executive Service levels);

· evidence of technical work by proposed Contractor staff in the water resources field;

· evidence of proposed Contractor staff experience in establishing and administering independent peer review panels for federal studies and projects; and

· example one-page resumes of panel members.

Note that evaluation of Factor 1 will focus on proposed Contractor staff and their capability to manage the IEPR requirements as described in the PWS.

4. On Page 38, FACTOR TO BE EVALUATED, it is stated that “non-price factors being approximately equal to price.” However, on the last page of the proposal (last sentence) it is stated that “Non-Price factors are slightly more important than Price”. Please clarify.

USACE Response: Non-Price factors are slightly more important than Price. The last sentence in the solicitation is correct. Page 38 will be amended to match this.