Question_and_Answers_5 _48 _203 _ _213_-_221.docx

Question and Answers Solicitation W912P9-16-R-0002

Question 5: RFP Section M, p. 50 – Please clarify the underscored portion. “Past performance submittals regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement) will be considered less than equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Answer 5: The source selection board will not hold companies that submit past performance submittals regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement lower in comparison to principal contractor. Past performance submittals regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered less than equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Question 48: A Service Contract Act wage determination is provided in the solicitation. Is a Davis Bacon Act wage determination appropriate for this contract? This area is heavily unionized with wages and benefits more in line with Davis Bacon.

Answer 48:

USACE HQ Counsel Office determined that environmental remediation contracts are typically "services" - even when they include some construction work. FUSRAP clean-up work has been proceeding under the Corps' supervision since 1997 and there have been no past problems with the Wage Determination NOT being for Davis Bacon Construction work. Amendment 0003 added Davis Bacon Act.

Question 203: Attachment 2, Task Order Sample, Task 1: Will each location (SLDS and NORCO) require a dedicated, FTE SSHO?

Answer 203: See answer to answer 217.

Question 213: Are Missouri state taxes applicable for payment on this project or is it tax exempt?

Answer 213: Contractor shall request tax exempt form at task order.

Question 214: The Q&A published extends proposal due date by three days. However, given the extension is over a weekend, it actually gives us a one day extension as proposals will still have to ship on the 20th for receipt the 23rd. We respectfully request an extension that will actually give us more proposal working time.

Answer 214: Amendment 0004 extended proposal due date until 30 Nov 2015 at 2:00 PM Central.

Question 215: The government’s response to Question 103 indicates that “HTRW” would be relevant, however Section M of the RFP was not revised to include “HTRW” consistent with the government response. To ensure consistency and prevent possibility of a later dispute, consider amending the 4th sentence under Section M, 1. Evaluation Factors, d. Factor 3: Past Performance on page 22 of 25 of Amendment 1 to read “The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the HTRW and radiological effort described in the RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past capability.

Answer 215: Added HTRW with section M paragraph d.

Question 216: The government’s response to Question 121 indicates that a new PPQ which includes a cover sheet and 4 pages of PPQ for a total of 5 pages will be posted with Amendment 1. The PDF of the PPQ posted with amendment 1 consisted of only 4 pages and is missing the first sheet of the PPQ.

Answer 216: Amendment 0004 deleted cover page.

Question 217: The government answer to Question 203 states that a dedicated FTE SSHO for each site is not required however the answer to Question 211 states that the 1 year FTE referenced in General Sample Assumptions does apply to each location (NORCO and SLDS) for the personnel required in Tasks 1, 3, and 5. Please clarify by position for Tasks 1, 3, and 5 which site personnel are required to be a dedicated 1 year FTE for each site (NORCO and SLDS).

Answer 217: Correction to Question 203 a Site Safety Heath Officer is for each site, however; a Safety and Health Officer can be for the overall. The Period of Performance is 1 year; however, some positions may allow for an FTE to work a percentage of their time say 50% at SLDS and 50% at NORCO, it is according to the Offeror’s Technical Approach.

Question 218: The government’s response to Question 120 indicates that the PPQ should be submitted with the proposal, which is in conflict with the 1st page of the standard PPQ which states “questionnaires may be submitted directly to the USACE. Please verify that offerors should use the complete PPQ provided in Amendment 1. Please confirm that Pat Filer is now the contracting officer for this procurement as shown in the PPQ cover letter of Amendment 2. If so, please provide contact information. If not, please correct the PPQ cover letter issued with Amendment 2 and provide the updated file.

Answer 218: Amendment 0004 deleted the PPQ cover page. Contracting officer will either be Pat Filer or Brenda Wynne-George. Contact information for Pat file is 314-331-8521.

Question 219: Answer to Question 5 was revised, the new text added is underlined: “The source selection board will not hold companies that submit past performance submittals regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement lower in comparison to the principal contractor. Amendment 0001 changed to “Past performance submittals regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement) will be considered less than equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.” The new text states that subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be held lower in comparison to the principal contractor, but the amendment indicates that they will. Will the government consider the wording of this response and revise as applicable to delete the inconsistency in the response.

Answer 219: Changed answer to question five, highlighted in blue.

Question 220: Question 134 and 175 asks if Davis Bacon Act wages apply to the Task Order Sample, the government response is “yes”. This appears to be inconsistent with the following items and leads to uncertainty with regard to if Service Act Wages or Davis Bacon Act Wages should be used by the offerors in pricing the sample task order.

Government response to Question 48, in which the response states that “there have been no past problems with the Wage Determination NOT being for Davis Bacon Construction Work Davis Bacon Act Wages have not been provide/attached to the RFP.

Answer 220: Amendment 0004 added Davis Bacon Act changed answer to question 48.

Question 221: The amendment indicates that changes are indicated in blue, but we noted that in Section 1.6 of the SOW the following text was deleted “The Service Contract Act or the Davis Bacon Act wages will be incorporated, as applicable, depending on the type of work being performed in each Task Order”. This text has been referenced in Question 134, if this sentence was intentionally removed, suggest the government consider indicated by “striking out/redlining text” to document revision.

Answer 221: Amendment 0004 added “The Service Contract Act or the Davis Bacon Act wages will be incorporated, as applicable, depending on the type of work being performed in each Task Order”. Deleted as an error.