Q and A 2020APR06.docx

Solicitation No. W912HQ20R0005 April 3, 2020 Q1: It is indicated that “HECSA intends to award a Firm Fixed-Price Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to an eligible organization whose offer represents the best value to the Government.” Please clarify if this will be a multi award BPA? This is in reference to Page 9, Paragraph H5.

A1: The Government intends to award multiple BPAs, subject to evaluation of proposals as discussed in Section M1 (pg. 30) of the solicitation. The intent of using BPAs for this requirement is to maintain a competitive pool of vendors for IEPR requirements.

Q2: Is the intent of rotating some calls non-competitively to try and give each BPA holder an equal share of work in terms of dollars awarded?

A2: No, the intent of rotating some work is to maintain a competitive pool of active vendors. The BPA vehicles are still intended to be competitive.

Q3: In regards to Page 10, Paragraph H6. It is stated that the government intends to rotate BPA Calls in order to ensure adequate participation by the selected Contractors. At the pre-proposal conference, USACE indicated that it did not intend to split equally among the contractor holders the approximately 10-15 IEPRs it is expecting annually. USACE specified the adequate level of engagement of a contractor as performing “no less than 2 IEPRs annually”. How does the Government intend to achieve this? Perhaps BPA Calls may be sent to a specific Contractor and not others? Please clarify.

A3: As stated in Section H6 (pg. 10) of the solicitation, the Government reserves the right to rotate some calls without competition. The intent of rotating some calls non-competitively is to maintain a pool of competitive, participating vendors. The actual number of calls rotated non-competitively will depend on a number of factors and cannot be determined at this time; however, the intent is to provide BPA holders with at least one non-competitive call per year as opposed to a monetary minimum guarantee. It is important to note that when BPA holders are offered a call non-competitively, the proposal will still be evaluated for price reasonableness (see discussion under Factor 5 on pg. 33 of the solicitation). Section F3 (pgs. 5-6) states one possible consideration for Off-ramping a BPA holder as: “If a contractor is fails to participate in at least two BPA Calls per year with each year being calculated from the date of award of the BPA, the Contractor may be subject to Off-Ramping.” This is a potential consideration, and not an absolute limit. The consideration will also depend on factors such as the total number of requirements in any given year. The intent is to consider whether or not a BPA holder is continuing to present acceptable and reasonable proposals for the work – considering both non-competitive and competitive calls.

Q4: Does the $250,000 limit for BPA calls include options?

A4: Yes, the $250,000 limit applies to all work under a call.

Q5: If you have recent and relevant PPQs that were submitted for a different solicitation, can they be resubmitted for this solicitation?

A5: Yes, all recent and relevant PPQs can be used for this solicitation.

Q6: The solicitation requires past performance information form provided in Attachment 1 to be completed and provided in the proposal. If an offeror has recently (in 2020) used the same exact form in Attachment 1 to collect past performance information for similar, if not identical, efforts as the USACE IEPRs, would the government accept the forms completed and dated in early 2020? This is in reference to Page 27, Factor 3.

A6: Yes, all recent and relevant PPQs can be used for this solicitation.

Q7: For the small business plan, is a GSA-approved plan acceptable?

A7: No, the GSA format does not meet DoD requirements. HECSA Contracting Office will send a DoD template for a Subcontracting Plan to Offerors as requested.

Q8: What is the approximate forecast for total work under these BPAs?

A8. The requirements are initiated by the Corps’ field offices and can be highly variable depending on policy interpretations and Congressional appropriations. Our best estimate at this time is approximately 10-15 calls per year with a total annual value of about $1,500,000. Once the BPAs are in place, IWR will provide and update a forecast of the number of expected calls to the best of our ability.

Q9: USACE has been conducting Type 1 IEPRs under IDIQ contracts since 2010. It would be helpful for the offerors to have information regarding the IEPRs conducted over the past couple of years, including the amount awarded for each. This information, which is available to the incumbent, would level the playing field. While Government databases, such as www.FPDS.Gov, are intended to provide such information for all awards, they are lagging and do not include the information for the past year or two.

A9: There are numerous awards since the IDIQ was established in FY2015. Given that the list of awards is too numerous to list each award with the corresponding amount, the following data is provided for the final 2 years of the IDIQ: Forty-three task orders were issued between 28 April 2018 and early April 2020, with a total awarded amount of approximately $4,757,139.00. The average order was for about $110K.

Q10: In Attachment 2 the dates to submit questions (1 April 2:30 pm ET) and the proposal (15 April 4:30 PM ET) do not match the overarching BPA RFP dates (2 April 2:30 PM and 20 April 4:30 PM). Do the dates provided in the BPA RFP take precedent (i.e., questions on all RFP content due by 2 April 2:30 PM and proposals in response to all BPA RFP content due by 20 April 4:30 PM)?

A10: Questions were to be submitted by 2 APR 2020. Proposals are due by 20 APR 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (ET). Yes, the dates provided in the BPA RFP are controlling as regards when proposals are due.

Q11: In Attachment 2, Page 2. Please indicate the number of calendar days for the contractor to provide a response to a BPA Call. From the dates on the example call in this attachment, it seems that there would be ~40 days (from 5 March 2020 to 15 April 2020).

A11: Attachment 2 is provided primarily as an example of a call for a competitive order under the BPAs. In the event dates in Attachment 2 conflict with the main solicitation or the draft schedule presented in Attachment 3, the dates in the main solicitation or Attachment 3 should be used for purposes of preparing a proposal. The number of calendar days for a contractor to provide a response to an actual BPA call may vary depending on the Government’s schedule requirements. Over the last five-year MATOC, the number of calendar days requested for a response to a task order has varied from about five days to 30, with a typical request of about 15 calendar days.

Q12: In Attachment 2, Page 2. It appears that the government’s BPA Call requires a response that consists of a Technical Proposal with a 25-page limit (excluding the resumes) and a Price proposal. It is not clear what the Government would like to be included in the Technical proposal. There is also a reference made to a “Technical work plan.” There is a hint that there are two factors of Management Approach and Technical Experience as noted in the following sentence: “Of the non-price factors: Management Approach and Technical Experience are approximately equal”. Please clarify what should specifically be included and discussed under these two Factors. Also, clarify who the “key personnel” are for whom a resume should be submitted. Finally, should the offerors submit a “work plan” with the proposal even though they may not be awarded a task? Pls. clarify.

A12: Attachment 2 is provided primarily as an example of a call for a competitive order under the BPAs. Please refer to the main solicitation, Instructions to Offerors, Factors 4 and 5 (pg. 28), and Section M2, Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors (pg. 30) for structuring and evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal response to the example BPA call. However, please adhere to the 25-page limit as stated in Attachment 2, as qualified in A13, below, in preparing the required proposal response under Factor 4. Each offeror must decide who the key personnel are for a particular proposal. Key personnel are typically essential to the successful execution of the project.

Q13: Attachment 2 states under the Format Section - “Resumes for key personnel do not count against the proposal page count. Resumes for key personnel are limited to 3 pages per key person.” Key personnel are not discussed in Attachment 2, 3, or in the other Solicitation documentation. Please clarify what is meant by key personnel.

A13: Per the Instructions to Offerors in the main solicitation, under Factor 4: “The sample BPA Call proposal response shall include evidence of the Offeror’s understanding of the sample IEPR requirements, the Offeror’s approach to fulfilling the requirements, their understanding and ability to utilize NAS’ policy for selecting committee members, and their understanding and ability to adhere to the BPA Call schedule.” Attachment 2, “REQUEST FOR BPA CALL PROPOSAL (RFBCP)” states: “Resumes for key personnel may be submitted with your proposal. Resume pages do not count against the proposal page count. Resumes for key personnel are limited to 3 pages per key person.” If the Offeror would like to provide resumes for key Offeror personnel as part of the evidence provided for Factor 4, those resumes will not count against the page count for the example proposal, but should be limited to 3 pages each. . Each offeror must decide who the key personnel are for a particular proposal. Key personnel are typically essential to the successful execution of the project.

Q14: The file named RFP for IEPR BPAs.pdf page 28, Factor 4 states – “2. Offerors shall provide a one-page example resume for each review panel discipline listed in Task 2 of the PWS for Example Call. See Attachment 3 for Example Call PWS.” However, Attachment 2 says resumes are limited to 3 pages. Please clarify the page limitation (1 page or 3 pages) to be included in response to the Example Call in order to be compliant with Factor 4.

A14: See answer, A13, above. The 3-page limit applies to key personnel. The 1-page limit applies to example resumes for expert panel members who meet the required discipline expertise specified in the example PWS.

Q15: Does this BPA allow for a 501(c) 3 organization to team up with another company (for-profit or another not-for-profit) to manage IEPRs?

A15: See Instructions to Offerors, Volume 3 (pg. 29). All members of a partnership submitting a proposal must certify eligibility as a 501(c)(3) entity. A joint venture submitting a proposal must certify its eligibility as a 501(c) (3) entity.

Q16: During previous contracts there has been a requirement that all peer reviewers must be subcontractors to the prime. Has that requirement been removed from this BPA’s expectations?

A16: Per section 3.1.2 of the BPA PWS: “The Contractor shall be solely responsible for establishing the review panel, ensuring the availability of review panel members for the duration of the work and managing the performance of the review panel independent of Government supervision or control.” In theory a member of a peer review panel could be an employee of the Outside Eligible Organization (the prime contractor), as long as the panel member does not present a conflict of interest under, and the overall panel meets the intent of the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) “Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest.” However, note also the requirement that: “The Contractor is also expected to provide programmatic balance in the use of individual reviewers across multiple calls. Continued use of the same reviewers across a majority of calls will not be considered balanced.”

Q17: Factor 3 – Past Performance (page 27) requires PPI for 3-5 “contracts or subcontracts”. Does “contracts or subcontracts” include all of the following: IDIQ/BPA-type contracts, task orders/projects issued under IDIQ/BPA-type contracts, and/or stand-alone projects?

A17: Yes.

Q18: The current situation caused by the COVID-19 may cause inadvertent delays in receiving the required PPI information, and that situation may continue for an indeterminate period of time. What does the Government want proposers to do under those circumstances?

A18: We need the PPI info by 20 APR 2020. We will make an adjustment in the due date only if most or all offerors are unable to comply with the due date.

Q19: Page 27 of 34 Factor 3b - b. The Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation (Section L, Attachment 1) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for “Factor IV” – Past Performance. Are we correct in assuming that should read Factor 3?

A19: Correct, Factor 3 is the Past Performance evaluation factor. Please disregard the reference to a Factor IV.

Q20: Attachment 3, Page 13 – The Notice to Proceed is listed as June 1, 2020, however in Attachment 2 it indicates that May 15, 2020 as the estimated start date. Which date is correct to use for scheduling in our BPA Call proposal response under Factor 4? If the start is May 15, 2020, should we still use July 1, 2020 for the receipt of the review documents and July 22, 2020 for the Public comment receipt or do we use the NTP plus calendar days?

A20: Attachment 2 is provided primarily as an example of a call for a competitive order under the BPAs. Please disregard the reference to “May 15, 2020” in Attachment 2 and base your example proposal response (Factor 4) on the draft schedule stated in Attachment 3.

Q21: Factor 5 – Price Factor: Will the Labor Rates used to price the Sample BPA Call be considered BPA-level rates upon award, and therefore will the Offeror be required to use those rates when pricing future BPA Calls under the awarded BPA? If so, will the BPA allow for annual escalation of those Labor Rates?

A21: The Offeror will NOT be required to use the labor rates used to price the sample BPA call when pricing actual calls. Please note the discussion of price evaluation in Section M2 of the solicitation. Regarding the sample BPA call: “The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the proposed prices are unreasonably high, unrealistically low, or significantly unbalanced.” Regarding actual future calls: “The Price Factor on individual BPA Calls will use price analysis to determine the total evaluated price in order to support the selection of the best-value proposal using a trade-off analysis. Price history will be maintained by the Government and may be used to conduct price analysis for BPA Calls that are no subject to competition (Calls that are rotated to a specific BPA holder). […]The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are unreasonably high, unrealistically low, or significantly unbalanced.”

There is no escalation, since we will keep record of rates submitted by each BPA holder each year, and most calls will be competed. That is, all BPA holders can adjust their rates on each competed call. Therefore, each BPA holder can adjust their rates as they want, while taking into consideration both escalation, and the economizing forces of competition. For rotated calls, we will have recent pricing history in our files.

Q22: On Page 2, Section B. Two Item Number 0001 and 0002 are listed. Does the Government expect an amount (e.g., $7m) for these items to be provided by the contractor or should they be left blank?

A22: Do not fill in amounts for Section B.

Q23: On Page 10, Paragraph H5. Several U.S. Army multi-year, multi-award procurements have considered performance of contractors’ on the contract (utilizing CPARs and stakeholders’ inputs) as the basis for awarding tasks in future years of those contracts. This has incentivized contractors to raise the quality of work. Please clarify.

A23: Question is unclear as Section H5 (pg. 9) of the main solicitation describes the contract type (BPA) and statutory requirements for eligibility. Note that under Section F3 (pgs. 5-6), documented poor performance is listed as a consideration in Off-ramping decisions.

Q24: Page 13, Clause 52.219-28. What is the purpose of including this clause? Does this mean that a 501(c) 3 organization that falls below the income limit under NAICS 541690 is considered to be a SB or is it relevant to SB subcontractors? Please clarify.

A24: See FAR 19.309(c) for the prescription “Insert the clause at 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation, in solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold when the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas.” Regarding purpose -This clause must be included in the contract and is relevant to the SB subcontractor. No, a 501(c) 3 organization is not considered a Small Business. Yes, this is relevant to SB subcontractors.