B08.03 Answers to Questions for W912HQ26RA002.docx
DOCX document 37 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W912HQ26RA002
About this file
This file is an Answers to Questions document for federal contract solicitation W912HQ26RA002, which addresses inquiries submitted by potential offerors regarding the Independent External Peer Reviews (IEPR) Blanket Purchase Agreement opportunity. The document provides clarifications and responses to questions posed during the proposal development phase, along with amendments to Sections L and M of the original solicitation. These amendments modify requirements related to proposal evaluation criteria, contract terms, and administrative procedures for the IEPR services being procured by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The Q&A responses assist 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations that are eligible to compete for this opportunity in understanding specific requirements for establishing expert panels, managing peer review processes for water resource projects and scientific assessments, and compliance with OMB Bulletin M-05-03 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007). As an amendment document, this file serves to clarify ambiguities in the original solicitation terms and conditions, ensuring all potential bidders have consistent information before submitting proposals for the BPA award administered by the USACE Mission Support Battalion on behalf of the Institute for Water Resources (IWR).
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions for Solicitation Number: W912HQ26RA002
Independent External Peer Reviews for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
| Question # |
| Page/ |
Section Contractor Question
| 1 |
| Solicitation, Page 5 |
Off-ramp participation requirement (F003).
Section F003 states a contractor may be subject to off ramping if it fails to participate in at least two orders per year. Please clarify how the Government will measure “participation” — specifically, does it mean (a) submission of a proposal, (b) receipt of an order award, (c) being invited to compete, or (d) another metric? Please also clarify whether a contractor may be off-ramped if the Government issues fewer than two relevant opportunities each year.
Answer: If a Contractor refuses to submit proposals in response to at least two RFOPs per year (assumes there are at least 2 in each year of the contract) they will be off-ramped.
| 2 |
| Solicitation Page 8 |
Invoicing basis and pricing structure (Section B / G006).
Section B establishes a single Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN, and G006(a) states the fixed price is inclusive of all costs and expenses. However, G006 also requires monthly invoices based on percentage complete, reporting of contractor personnel supporting the effort during the billing period, and separate invoicing of ODCs and travel at cost with no fee. These are generally not associated with a traditional Firm-Fixed-Price contract, where payment is tied to delivery and acceptance of deliverables rather than actual labor hours, personnel utilized, percentage complete, or reimbursement of incurred costs. Please clarify:
a. Is the Government’s intent that orders be administered as Firm-Fixed-Price efforts paid upon acceptance of defined deliverables and/or milestones, or through monthly percentage-of-completion invoicing?
b. Are the requirements to identify personnel and provide labor-hour/hourly-rate information in Attachment 4 intended for proposal evaluation and/or informational purposes only? If so, please confirm that orders will remain Firm-Fixed-Price and payments will not be adjusted, reconciled, or audited based on actual hours expended, labor mix, or staffing levels.
c. Given that G006(a) states the FFP includes all costs and expenses but also requires ODCs and travel to be invoiced separately at cost with no fee, please confirm whether orders will include separate cost-reimbursable CLINs for ODCs and travel. If so, will the solicitation and order templates be revised to reflect a hybrid pricing structure rather than a single FFP CLIN?
d. To the extent the Government intends to maintain a Firm-Fixed-Price ordering structure, does it anticipate revising the invoicing, labor-reporting, and ODC/travel reimbursement requirements to align with Firm-Fixed-Price administration principles?
Answer:
a. Payment for each task will be made in full upon completion of each task. Payments may be made each month based on reasonable proportion of services completed and accepted.
b. Answer here
c. ODCs and travel must be separately priced on separate CLINs. The overall contract type remains FFP. Cost CLINs are allowable for small amounts of ODCS and travel even with a FFP contract.
d. The contract is FFP with FFP labor rates so the labor rates are FFP, thus reporting the amount of hours expended is equivalent to FFP per unit. Accordingly, invoicing will remain the same in that context. The Government is not asking for wage information or indirect costs, etc. Those items would pertain to a Cost-Reimbursable contract.
| 3 |
| Solicitation Pages 12 |
Ordering methodology and order-award process (H006 / H007).
| Sections H006 and H007 reference order competition, rotation of orders, best-value tradeoff evaluations, and exceptions to competition. Please clarify the ordering methodology under the BPA, including: | |
| a. | Under what circumstances will orders be competed among all BPA holders versus awarded through rotation? |
| b. | Will all BPA holders be given a fair opportunity to submit proposals unless a specific exception applies? |
| c. | What evaluation criteria and relative importance will be used for future order competitions — will future RFOPs establish order-specific criteria, or will BPA-level evaluation concepts apply? |
Answer:
a. It is anticipated the first order will be competed, after that the orders will be rotated one per BPA holder until each has received an order; assumes the entity subject to the rotation submits an acceptable proposal at a fair and reasonable price. Once each offeror has received an order under rotation, the next order will be competed.
b. Fair opportunity will be given unless the BPA call is rotated or another exception applies in which case the exception will be provided to BPA holders not receiving the order.
c. Each order will have order-specific evaluation criteria.
| 4 |
| Solicitation Page 48 |
Future order pricing and FAR 52.215-20 Alternate IV.
Paragraph (b) of FAR 52.215-20 Alternate IV is left blank. Please identify the pricing and/or cost information offerors must submit with future order proposals to support the Government’s price-reasonableness determination. Please clarify whether:
a. BPA holders will propose fully burdened labor rates with each new order proposal; or
b. Labor rates proposed for the example order establish BPA rates for all future orders.
Answer:
a. BPA holders will propose fully burdened labor rates with each new order proposal.
b. See the answer to “a” above.
| 5 |
| BPA PWS Section 2.4 |
Cross-teaming and OCI restrictions (PWS Section 2.4).
PWS Section 2.4 states that “cross teaming may or may not be permitted.” Please clarify the circumstances under which cross-teaming between BPA holders and/or their subcontractors will be permitted or prohibited, and how OCI considerations will be evaluated and managed at the order level.
Answer: Cross-teaming is generally permitted under the BPA. However, because of the strict requirement for absolute independence in the IEPR process, any BPA holder or subcontractor that has participated in the preparation of the planning, engineering, design, or environmental documents for a specific project is prohibited in participating in the IEPR for that project as either a prime contractor or subcontractor. COI Questionnaires are completed by bidders and evaluated for each task order under the BPA.
| 6 |
| Section L.1.5; Volume 1 Factor 1 Management Approach, Page 3 |
| Offerors shall submit a “management plan” which includes the ability to obtain panel member subject matter experts; a single point of contact for contractual matters; ability to manage multiple task orders, each of which may vary in size and complexity (to include public comments / varying number of comments); ability to hire and retain key personnel; an organizational chart; and a recruitment plan. |
Please clarify if the “Management Approach” (title of Factor I) is the same as a “management plan.” How is “management plan” defined, and can these terms be used interchangeably?
Answer: The offeror’s management plan is their plan on how they will manage the contract. The plan should detail their approach to conducting IEPRs.
| 7 |
| Section L.1.5 Volume 1 Factor 3 Second Paragraph, Page 4 and B08.02 Attachment 2 – RFOP – Example Order |
| Section L states that the Review Panel resumes will be 1 page per panel member, however, the Attachment 2 RFOP – Example Order file states that resumes for key personnel are limited to 3 pages per person. Under previous BPA orders, a 2-page resume has been allowed for panel members covering more than one discipline (e.g., one engineer covering two disciplines, one engineering also covering SAR). We respectfully request a minimum 2- page resume be allowed if a panel member will cover more than one discipline or will also cover the SAR requirement. |
Answer: Section L was revised to correct this inconsistency.
| 8 |
| Section L.1.7 Volume 2 – Factor 5, Page 5 |
Small business subcontracting goal (Section L 1.7 / FAR 52.219-9).
The solicitation references a 10% small business subcontracting goal based on total contract value. Given the lack of a guaranteed minimum and that the ceiling value is shared among multiple BPA holders, please clarify the basis against which this goal will be measured. Please also confirm:
a. whether compliance will be evaluated at the BPA level, order level, or both;
For developing the Total Contract Goals used to calculate the small business dollar amounts in the small business plan, what should be used as the overall Contract Value since all contractors who receive an award will share a maximum capacity ceiling of $7,000,000.
Answer: The small business subcontracting goal should be based on total contract value. Assume $7M in contract value. Compliance will be measured against the dollar value of orders received.
| 9 |
| Section L.1.7 Volume 2 – Factor 5, Page 5 |
| In Section L, there are two sections numbered L.1.7. Should L.1.7- Volume 2 - Factor 5 be numbered L.1.6 Volume 2 - Factor 5? |
Answer: Section L was renumbered to make this correction.
| 10 |
| Section M Factor 4, Pg 10 |
Factor 4 – Past Performance. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on recent and relevant contracts completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature…
Does ‘same’ or ‘similar’ refer to task order/IDIQ contracts or individual orders similar to the sample task (i.e., conducting peer reviews)?
Answer: This is a decision for each offeror to make. You may cite a single order or an IDIQ.
| 11 |
| Multiple Documents |
| Throughout the documents there are references to older versions (EC and 2021 versions) of what is now ER 1167-2-217. Is it correct to assume that the ER version from September 2, 2024 (Civil Works Review Policy) should replace all of these references? |
Answer: All references to older review policies (including EC 1165-2-217 and the May 1, 2021 version of ER 1165-2-217) are superseded by the updated ER 1165-2-217, Civil Works Review Policy, dated September 2, 2024.
| 12 |
| B08.02 Attachment 3 Example Call Order PWS |
| For references to ER 1110-1-8159, Engineering and Design, DRCHECKs should the January 1, 2015 version be used instead of the 2001? |
Answer: References to ER 1110-1-8159 should utilize the January 1, 2015 version, which supersedes the May 10, 2001 version.
| 13 |
| B08.02 Attachment 3 Example Call Order PWS, Task 5 Prepare IEPR Final Report, Page 11 |
| “The Final IEPR Report, must be submitted no later than 45 days following the close of the public comment period. Is the 45 day deliverable date based on working days or calendar days? |
Answer: The 45-day deliverable date for the Final IEPR Report is based on calendar days.
| 14 |
| B08.02 Attachment 3 PWS Example IEPR Order |
| Section 7 states “Period of Performance: The performance period shall be from the date of the NTP to 30 January 2026. Should this be 2027? In addition, the dates in Appendix A start with June 01, 2025, as the NTP, and July 1, 2025 for review document availability and concurrent review period. Although it is understood this is just an example, should a NTP date of August 1, 2026, and a document receipt date of September 1, 2026 be used instead given the statement in Section L 1.8 “For proposal purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of the BPA order period is 01 AUG 2026.” |
Answer: Those dates can be used for the PWS for the Example IEPR Order. The PDF will not be amended because this is only an example order.
| 15 |
| USACE Type I IEPR SOP |
| Is USACE’s National Planning Centers of Expertise Type 1 IEPR Process Standard Operating Procedure Version 5.0 March 2022 still the most recent version of that document? If not, can the most recent version please be supplied. |
Answer: The March 2022 SOP Version 5.0 is the most recent and active version of the SOP document.
| 16 |
| Page Sizes Allowed |
| Will 11x17 size pages be allowed with a graphic on them, such as a table? |
Answer: 11x17 pages for graphical elements are permitted within submitted proposals in response to the BPA RFP.
| 17 |
| Proposal Reviews |
| Will artificial intelligence be used to review or score the proposals? |
Answer: Proposals will be reviewed and rated per the solicitation. There is no scoring of proposals.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .