Question_and_Answers_for_Posting.docx

Question and Answers Solicitation W912P9-16-R-0002

Question 1: Would any of this soil be eligible for Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR)? We can offer "free" test cases on intermodals filled with soil. We run "test cases" all of the time with Department of Energy sites where they only pay for the freight on two or three shipments and we shot the container using ISOCS analysis to see if they pass through the system. If they containers pass we open up the shipping and if they fail we have them returned to origin. I know that the majority of this waste has traditional gone to US Ecology but I wanted to see if there was potential for another disposal option here.

Answer 1: This RFP is for Remedial Action and Remedial Design. The transportation and disposal contracts are separate and are in place for another 3 -4 years.

Question 2: RFP Section L.2.d, p. 43 “For the prime and any principle subcontractor(s) provide the Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division’s street address, CAGE code and DUNS code.”

Is this requirement to be included as a separate stand alone page designated for Team Subcontractors?

Answer 2: Yes

Question 3: RFP Section L, p. 43 – Please confirm that the “shall not exceed 30 pages” requirement for Volume I, Factors 1 and 2 means 30 double-sided pages (i.e., the equivalent of pages 1 through 60).

Answer 3: 30 pages is defined as 15 pages front and back or 30 pages on one side.

Question 4: RFP Section L, p. 43 – Are key management personnel for this contract required to be from the Prime Contractor (Offeror)?

Answer 4: No.

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: Forthcoming amendment 0001 changes to “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 6: RFP Section M, p. 50 – Please confirm that Team Subcontractor experience will be considered equal to the experience of the Prime Contractor (Offeror).

Answer 6: See answer to question 5.

Question 7: RFP Section M, p. 50 – "The Government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis when forming a rating."

Does this mean that the Government will consider Offerors’ IDIQ contracts with supporting Client PPQs, in addition to individual contracts and/or projects for Factor 3?

Answer 7: Yes, the evaluation will be in totality. Some submitted evaluations may be for a combinations of Task Orders for the same contract and some may be for an individual contract.

Question 8: There are a number of significant questions on the Solicitation, listed below. USACE answers to these questions, which will not be available for a period of time, will have a substantial impact on Offerors’ being able to start writing major portions of the proposal, making it very difficult to meet the proposal submittal deadline of November 20, 2015. Additionally, there is also a major annual USACE-sponsored Society of American Military Engineers small business conference scheduled for the week of November 2-6, which USACE encourages small business contractors to attend. Given these factors and with the Thanksgiving holiday weekend the week following the current due date, we request the District extend the deadline for the St. Louis PRAC proposal to the Friday after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, December 4. This should not have a material impact on USACE review and evaluation as proposals with many people taking a large part of the Thanksgiving week off anyway. As a point of reference, Offerors for other Fiscal Year 2016 USACE FUSRAP procurements (i.e., SLDA) are being afforded 45 days to submit proposals for similar large, complex radiological remediation contracts, and that’s after publishing and responding to questions on a draft Solicitation well before the final Solicitation.

Answer 8: Forthcoming amendment 0001 extended RFP closing to 23 November at 2:00 pm central time.

Question 9: There is no provision for a short Executive Summary/ Introduction. We request USACE allow an additional 2-page Executive Summary to introduce the team to the District to provide context before reading details on technical approach and staffing.

Answer 9: The contractor can provide his Executive Summary and Introduction in the Volume I, Section 1 – Business Proposal with the provided information in paragraph d (page 43)

Question 10: Are these positions the ”key personnel” referred to in Section 3.8.1 and elsewhere throughout the Solicitation? Please also confirm that positions listed in Section 3.9.9 are not considered “key personnel" as defined in the solicitation.

Answer 10: Yes. The key positions are referred to in C3 9.1-3.9.7. As stated in 3.9.9 the other disciplines may or may not be required, the individual Task Order will specify.

Question 11: Is the “Project Engineer” position the senior/lead engineer or field engineer on the project? Does this position require a Professional Engineer registration in Missouri?

Answer 11: The Project Engineer is a field engineer and is not required to have PE from Missouri.

Question 12: Section L (starting on pg. 40) requests information on capabilities for Factor 1 (Technical Capabilities). In contrast, Section M, Subsection 1.a (pg. 47) first requests Offerors’ technical approach and then their capabilities. In our view, approach is how (our plan) for executing the work, while capabilities present our resources, systems, expertise, and experience to successfully support work execution. Please clarify whether the District wants only capabilities presented as instructed in Section L or both technical approach and capabilities in accordance with Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award).

Answer 12: Offeror should present both their technical approach and capabilities.

Question 13: Please clarify whether the requirement for double-sided pages means one page equals both the front and back sides of a piece of paper combined, or each side of a piece of paper equals one page. For example, does the Solicitation’s current page count limit for Factors 1 & 2translate to 30 single-sided pages (i.e., one page equals one side of paper which are then printed to equal 15 physical pieces of double- sided paper) or 30 double-sided pages which are then printed to equal 30 physical pieces of double-sided paper)?

Answer 13: See answer to question 3.

Question 14: Please confirm 11x17 pages will be counted as a single page.

Answer 14: Yes. 11x17 are limited to five pages. Page limits are defined as five page printed on the front or two and half pages printed on both sides.

Question 15: Please provide further explanation/details of what the District expects to see under the “Construction Remediation” requirement. Is USACE looking for (a) an overview of our remediation approach here as an introduction to other remediation details that follow (e.g., deep excavation, demolition/decontamination, etc.), or (b) discussion of additional types of construction-related activities that support remediation in this section (e.g., supporting & relocating utilities, constructing or modifying rail spurs, construction-related site restoration activities, etc.)?

Answer 15: Construction Remediation includes the remedial action activities as specified in the Scope of work in Section C (p 7) paragraph 1.4.2.

Question 16: Please confirm that resumes for key and other personnel are excluded from the page count for Factor 2.

Answer 16: Yes resumes are excluded.

Question 17: A total of 30 pages for Factors 1 & 2 combined is overly restrictive for the information requested in this Solicitation. St. Louis District’s 2014 SB WERS Task Order (TO) solicitation (as amended) for St. Louis FUSRAP remediation allowed 30 pages for the equivalent of Factors 1 & 2 but resumes and graphics were excluded from the page count, plus that procurement was only for a TO instead of an IDIQ contract like the current solicitation. The District’s most recent (2010) Small Business PRAC IDIQ solicitation (as amended) for FUSRAP remediation allowed 100 pages for Factors 1 & 2 responses, reflecting USACE’s recognition of the need for adequate space to provide a meaningful response for the amount of information being requested. If resumes are not counted toward the page limit (see question above), we believe necessary information for Factors 1 & 2 can be accommodated in less than 100 pages to expedite District review. We respectfully request the District increase the allowable page count for Factors 1 & 2 combined (excluding resumes) to 50 pages.

Answer 17: 30 pages excluding resumes and 11x17 pages should be adequate for Factors 1 and 2.

Question 18: Please clarify that “contract” for the purpose of Factor 3 Past Performance information includes both contracts and TO for large, complex radiological projects.

Answer 18: Contracts information is for both contracts and TO for radiological experience

Question 19: Please clarify that prime contractor and major subcontractor past performance for “relevant services/efforts that are the same or similar to the effort (as compared to NAIC code 562910) required by the RFP” means radiological remediation projects/contracts performed by the Offeror (prime contractor or its primary subcontractor companies) for this solicitation.

Answer 19: Yes

Question 20: “Contract Descriptions” for Factor 3 may be best presented on 11x17 pages. We request that 11x17 pages be allowed for Contract Descriptions in this section without counting toward the overall proposal limit of five 11x17 pages.

Answer 20: Contract description can be presented on 11x17 however 11x17 pages are limited to 5. Past Performance questionnaire are not included in page count.

Question 21: The 1st paragraph of Section L.4.b requires past performance information to be organized into three sections – Section 1 (Contract Descriptions), Section 2 (Contract narratives), and Section 3 (Past Performance Questionnaires). The same paragraph allows up to 25 pages for the prime contractor and up 5 pages for each primary subcontractor for Sections 1 and 2 (Past Performance Questionnaires are excluded from the page count). Its clear Section 2 responses are to be presented in separate groups for the prime contractor (first) and then each primary subcontractor. Please clarify whether USACE wants Offerors to also include the Section 1 contract information for the prime contractor and primary subcontractors with the grouped Section 2 performance narrative grouped responses. If not, are Section 1 responses to be provided separate from Section 2, is there a separate page count limit for Section 1?

Answer 21: Section 1 shall include the primary and subcontractor information.

Question 22: Please clarify that small business prime contractors shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires describing their past performance as a prime contractor on large, complex radiological remediation contracts/projects similar to St. Louis FUSRAP, reflecting the same role they will have on the St. Louis PRAC.

Answer 22: Offeror (small business prime contractor) should submit PPQ describing past performance (prime or subcontractor see p44 contract description a. Section 1-i) of radiological remediation that is relevant to the RFP.

Question 23: Reflecting the importance of prime contractor capability to lead this contract and to avoid overreliance on subcontractors, the District may wish to consider requiring small business prime contractors provide at least 50% of the total number of Past Performance Questionnaires for large, complex radiological remediation contracts/projects similar to St. Louis FUSRAP for this proposal.

Answer 23: Award will be made to the offeror whose overall proposal is most beneficial to the Government based on the Factors in the RFP. A small business service contractor should demonstrate that they can perform 50% with own employees.

Question 24: Section L.4 requires information on prime contractor and primary team subcontractor (i.e., company) past performance. Section M.1.d, 2nd paragraph (pg. 50) notes that “past performance submittals for…key personnel who have relevant experience…will be considered equal as past performance for the principal offeror.” Experience of key personnel is the focus of resumes to be provided as required in Factor 2 but should not be a substitute for company past performance for Factor 3 as implied by the 2nd paragraph of Section M.1.d.iv as currently written. Please clarify that Factor 3 past performance information to be provided is specific to companies and that, while company past performance information can identify key personnel’s participation in companies’ performance, individual personnel experience is not a substitute for company past contract performance.

Answer 24: Past performance information provided is specific to companies.

Question 25: Please confirm that the awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendations, and other forms of performance recognition stated in this Subsection are (1) in the last five “years” (word apparently missing from solicitation) and are (2) excluded from page count limits? Will this also be added to the Section L, Instructions to Bidders?

Answer 25: Yes, last five years and excluded in count. The information provided should coincide with the 2 -5 best relevant projects

Question 26: indicates radioactive disposal will be performed under other USACE contracts and discusses coordination of radioactive waste transport via either an on-site rail loading facility or with another USACE contractor. Section 1.4.2.i indicates contractor will coordinate transportation with another transportation contractor. Is rail transport of radioactive waste also part of the scope of work for this contract to provide the District with operational flexibility?

Answer 26: No. Transportation is provided by others.

Question 27: Please identify what permits and licenses are currently in USACE’s name vs. current USACE contractor’s names, including but not limited to wastewater treatment/discharge, stormwater management, railcar sidings, etc.

Answer 27: Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) are in the Governments name. The railcar sidings agreement by others and not required for this contract. Other permit requirements will be per Task Order.

Question 28: Please clarify whether the remediation contractor or the District characterization & laboratory contractor (Leidos) is responsible for laboratory data validation and chemical quality assurance.

Answer 28: Yes

Question 29: This subsection of the Solicitation states that “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative Section. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.” Please clarify how we should present this “Summary Section” in the hard-copy proposal (e.g., separate page) and also confirm that it is excluded from the page count.

Answer 29: Table of Content is excluded. Summary or narrative should be a part of the file and is included in page count.

Question 30: The Solicitation requests that the Offeror indicate the type of work to be performed by each major subcontractor by citing the applicable PWS subparagraph number. Please confirm the PWS means the SOW and that we should reference subparagraph numbers provided under Paragraph 1.4 of the SOW (pgs. 6-8).

Answer 30: Yes, PWS means the SOW and it should be referenced. Forthcoming amendment 0001 replaced PWS and SOW.

Question 31: The CAGE Code and DUNS # are requested in both the Volume I, Section 1 (Business Proposal) and again in Section L, Subsection 4.a.i (pg. 44) for the Factor 3 Past Performance, Contract Descriptions. Can the latter section just reference that information in the business proposal? Likewise, letters of subcontractor commitment are required in the Business Proposal and Past Performance sections of the proposal. Can the latter section just reference the letters in the former section?

Answer 31: The CAGE Code and DUNS # should be listed in both. The letters of commitment and teaming agreement can be submitted in the Business Proposal and referenced in the Past Performance.

Question 32: What is meant by the Government contract administration agency’s “Pre-Award Monitor?” We are not familiar with this term.

Answer 32: Deleted in forthcoming amendment 0001.

Question 33: Please confirm that letters of consent from all major subcontractors as well as letters of commitment for major subcontractors to allow disclosure of past performance information are excluded from the page limit for Factor 3.

Answer 33: Letters of commitment for major subcontractors to allow disclosure of past performance can be submitted under the Business proposal and referenced in the Past Performance Factor 3.

Question 34: Please confirm that any Cure notices or Show Cause Letters for this subsection are not included in the page count limit for Factor 3.

Answer 34: Cure notice or Show Cause is not included in page Count.

Question 35: Please define more specifically what information on phase-in cost the District is looking for in this proposal. So Offerors can provide this cost, please also describe in detail the trailer complexes and facilities on the NORCO and SLDS sites; computer systems including servers; computer work stations and laptops for USACE and contractor use; software for general, data management, design and construction use; electronic data storage methods and software; printers and plotters; copiers; fax machines; hard copy and electronic data management; internet services; telephone systems, switches and telephones; security systems; record retention system & hard copy storage; etc. As part of this information, please identify what equipment, software, systems and licenses are Government owned equipment vs. owned by the District’s current remediation contractor.

Answer 35: Phase Costs (if any) are contractors internal costs. A map of the facilities will be furnished. For cost sample purposes use $5,000/month (NORCO) and $6,000/month for utilities based on historical data. Use the number as Assumptions in sample General Conditions. Utilities include (electric, water, sewer, phone, MSD, computer, trash).

Question 36: Please clarify that the small business prime contractor for this solicitation must provide at least two Past Performance Questionnaires for large, complex radiological remediation similar to St. Louis FUSRAP performed in the last 5 years where it has been the prime contractor to receive an “Acceptable” rating as defined in Table 1 (pg. 48).

Answer 36: Offeror must submit PPQ of relevant projects performed in the last 5 years that meets the requirement in the RFP.

Question 37: Please confirm that hourly base rates in this table should reflect tiered markups of both the prime contractor and subcontractors where applicable to reflect the true total cost of providing these personnel to USACE.

Answer 37: Yes, the hourly base rate should be the employees base rate and the fully burden rate should include any markups.

Question 38: We recommend the District take into account both fee on fee and shared fee arrangements in Offerors’ proposals to reflect the true total cost of various teaming arrangements to USACE.

Answer 38: The contractor should use true cost because cost will be capped for future Task Order Work.

Question 39: Please confirm that Offerors may modify this table to provide for multiple field and multiple office overhead rates.

Answer 39: The Offeror should make note in the Reference column and put total in table and explanation and subtotal on additional second sheet.

Question 40: Please provide work all plans, designs, reports, detailed site information, locations and availability of utilities and structures, fencing and available utility services relevant to the Ballfields and Frost Avenue sites to facilitate pricing development, including all data and information the District’s and its current remediation and AE services contractors have for these two areas.

Answer 40: Cannot provide all work plans. This is a sample and will provide assumptions. The RODs are viewable on website stated on page 6 of solicitation. The SAG and QAPP will be uploaded for viewing.

Question 41: Please clarify what type of truck(s) the 18 GSA trucks are (e.g., pick-ups trucks, tandems, trailers, etc.)? What kind of capacity does each of these trucks have to transport soil if they are tandems or trailers? Please also clarify the loading capacity loader buckets and if they contain bucket scales.

Answer 41: There are 16 pickup trucks (different sizes) and 2 vans used for transportation of personnel and crafts. Yes the loader has scales.

Question 42: Please clarify what is included in “water compliance” (pg. 57), and data and compliance (pgs. 62/63). These are general terms which could mean different things.

Answer 42: Water compliance is water management (i.e. surface water management, storm water runoff etc.

Question 43: Please provide a layout drawing for these complexes and list of associated facilities and equipment. Please identify the number and size (# square feet) of each trailer and Connex box. Please identify current utilities usage rates (electric, phone/internet, water, sanitary sewer for sewage). What is the current arrangement with MSD on sewer use fees for treated wastewater discharge to the POTW? What is the current average volume of treated wastewater discharged to the POTW? Please describe the existing security systems, security guard coverage and security methods currently employed at each of these two complexes. What is the size (# acres) of restored areas at these complexes that requires mowing? Please confirm that air monitoring for these tasks is just for these two complexes and not sites undergoing characterization and remediation. Please describe the type, size & number of air monitors and air monitor housings. Please clarify whether this task also includes receiving contaminated remediation waste from the NORCO and SLDS excavation sites and on-going stockpiles management. Please provide a copy of Pollution Prevention/ Sedimentation & Erosion Control Plans as well as stormwater permits. Does surface water and water in the SOW for this task (pg. 57) include excavation dewatering effluent or just storm and other wastewater? Does management of surface water and water pumping wastewater to MSD include active treatment, and does this task include compliance sampling development of discharge monitoring reports? If so, please provide a copy of the existing discharge permit(s). Please provide a process flow sheet and describe the existing surface water/water pumping & treatment systems in detail (unit operations, sizes/capacities, type/volume of treatment media and chemicals, electric usage, etc.). Please confirm this task includes managing hard lids atop railcars.

Answer 43: Will provide drawing of SLAPS and SLDS compound. Utilities $5,000 /month NORO and $6,000 SLDS.

Question 44: Task 4, Engineering During Construction, General Conditions (pgs. 58 & 68/69) – Please confirm that engineering (and supervision thereof) throughout remedial action is also included in this task.

Answer 44: Yes, EDC is required throughout remedial action. Sample Period of Performance, 1 year.

Question 45: Task 5, Radiological Support, General Conditions (pgs. 58 & 70) – Please clarify whether gamma walkover surveys and mapping for Final Status Survey (FSS) to confirm the limits of excavation meet cleanup goals purposes are included in this activity in addition to gamma surveys during remedial action and FSS soil sampling. Does the data report” identified in the SOW for this task (pg. 58) just a data report or does it meet the requirements for a complete MARSSIM FSS Report?

Answer 45: Yes. Gamma walkover, request for FSS is in contract. In addition, RAS is required in contract.

Question 46: Task 6, Ballfields Phase 3 NORCO Remedial Action (pgs. 58 & 72) – The Sample Project SOW indicates the average depth of excavation is 6 feet. To ensure cost realism and consistency among bidders’ responses, please identify the maximum depth of maximum excavated depth. Please identify non-radiological contaminants and concentrations at this site. Also, does the phrase “utilities have been cleared” in the worksheet (pg. 72) for this task mean this area has been cleared, including Missouri One-Call, for excavation, or that utilities have been confirmed to not/no longer be present at this location?

Answer 46: Sample maximum depth is 6 feet. The excavation is in open area and utilities have removed and do not affect the excavation. (Fiber optic runs along McDonnell Blvd right of way does not affect excavation. Water hydrant on Eva.

Question 47: Task 7, PDI Sampling of Frost Avenue (pgs. 58 & 73) – Please identify the location of the area to be characterized for this site; types, locations, diameters, materials of construction and depths subsurface utilities. Please identify what portion of the area to be characterized for this task is beneath Frost Avenue vs adjacent to the road, and what portions (if any) are stormwater drainage swales. Please also identify the thickness of cover material throughout the area for the PDI.

Answer 47: Will provide sample drawing. Sample along Frost is from Eva Rd to Hazelwood Rd.

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.

Question 49: Since the procurement incorporates FAR clauses 52.219-6 (Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside NOV 2011) and 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting NOV 2011), please define which of the contract performance requirements defined in FAR 52.219-14 applies to the small business offeror for this contract (>50% for Services, >15% for General Construction, or >25% for Specialty Construction).

Answer 49: The small business contractor is required to perform at least 50% of the cost of performance.

Question 50: Since FAR 52.219-14 prime contractor performance requirements are incorporated into this contract, how will the USACE evaluate an offeror’s ability to meet the minimum performance requirements?

Answer 50: Evaluation will be based on prime contractors organization outline and cost.

Question 51: Under solicitation Factor 2, Technical Staff Experience, we pose the following questions:

Will proposals with a higher percentage of key personnel from the prime SB offeror be rated higher since there is a lower risk of non-compliance with FAR 52.219-14 requirements?

Answer 51: Key personnel will be evaluated per qualification and experience as specified in RFP and SOW.

Question 52: Under solicitation Factor 2, Technical Staff Experience, we pose the following questions:

Since many key personnel are in management or supervisor positions, are management/supervisory key position required to be held by the prime SB offeror to avoid affiliation under 13 CFR part 121?

Answer 52: Answer forthcoming.

Question 53: Under solicitation Factor 2, Technical Staff Experience, we pose the following questions:

Since longevity of key personnel with a company shows greater knowledge of company practices/policies and avoids affiliation concerns under 13 CFR part 121 (e.g., a SB offeror hiring a principal LB subcontractor for a key management position for proposal evaluation purposes only), will the USACE rate proposals higher that show key personnel with longer employment durations with the prime SB offeror?

Answer 53: Evaluation based on personnel qualifications.

Question 54: Under solicitation Factor 3, Past Performance, we pose the following questions:

Since the prime SB offeror is likely required to perform at least 50% of the labor under FAR clause 52.219-14, will the prime SB offeror’s past performance be rated higher than the major subcontractors?

Answer 54: SB performance is higher and but major subs performance will be considered. See answer to question 5.

Question 55: Under solicitation Factor 3, Past Performance, we pose the following questions:

Will equally relevant past performance be evaluated equally from non-USACE or non-federal clients as compared with the MVS District or other USACE clients?

Answer 55: Understandably similar work will be evaluated equally; however, USACE work may be more relevant to RFP.

Question 56: Under solicitation Factor 3, Past Performance, we pose the following questions:

Will MVS District FUSRAP past performance be rated higher than non-MVS District FUSRAP past performance?

Answer 56: Performance will be rated on relevance to the RFP and SOW.

Question 57: Under solicitation Factor 3, Past Performance, we pose the following questions:

Will a proposal with more past performance examples for the prime SB offeror (up to 5) receive a higher rating than an equivalent proposal with fewer than five past performance examples?

Answer 57: This is dependent upon the relevancy and ratings and not the number received.

Question 58: Under the Performance Confidence Assessment (section M, 1.d.iv), there is a statement that reads, “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 equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.”

Can we interpret this statement to mean that all past performance from subcontractors will be evaluated equally to past performance from the principal offeror?

Answer 58: See answer to question 5.

Question 59: Under the Performance Confidence Assessment (section M, 1.d.iv), there is a statement that reads, “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 equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.”

If so, how will the USACE evaluate the ability of the prime SB offeror to meet the FAR 52.219-14 requirements?

Answer 59: Contract oversight.

Question 60: Under the Performance Confidence Assessment (section M, 1.d.iv), there is a statement that reads, “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 equal as past performance information for the principal offeror.”

Does the above statement only apply to the “performance confidence assessment” rating and not to the “relevancy” rating implying that only 50% of the Past Performance rating will be equally applied with regards to the prime offeror vs. major subcontractors?

Answer 60: Relevancy is determined for each past performance submittal. Performance confidence assessment is a single consensus for the offeror.

Question 61: RFP Section L.1.a, p. 41 How will 11 by 17 pages be counted (e.g., as 1 or 2 pages and, when printed double sided)?

Answer 61: As one page.

Question 62: RFP Section L.1.b, p. 42

Please confirm that a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and Narrative Discussion is required in each file instead of in each Volume or Factor.

Answer 62: Summary should be for each section.

Question 63: RFP Section M.1.d.iv., p. 50

Are performance recognition documents (received within the last 5 years) included as part of the 25-page maximum for the prime offeror’s Past Performance or as a separate section that follows PPQs?

Answer 63: Separate after PPQs

Question 64: Should we send our questions to you and Treniece Stith and cc Brenda Wynne-George?

Answer 64: All three shall be included. The Government will not take any questions past 4 November 2015.

Question 65: 1. Page 45 of 51, Section L 5. Volume II Cost/Price Paragraph a. General states: “The offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.” Question: Since this is an ID/IQ contract what pricing data is to be included on the SF 33 and continuation sheets?

Answer 65: Deleted. Will be added at time of award by Government.

Question 66: For key personnel resumes, would it be permissible to use a smaller font size (e.g., 10 point) to facilitate page formatting so that we can minimize the length of resumes?

Answer 66: Yes. Limited to no smaller than 10 point.

Question 67: 3. Can you please confirm that 11x17 pages (that are limited to five per the RFP) are excluded from the 30-page limitation?

Answer 67: Yes.

Question 68: As the St. Louis District has done on previous PRACs and other similar RFPs in the past, please confirm that resumes are excluded from the 30-page limitation.

Answer 68: Yes

Question 69: Because this contract is being procured as a radiological (FUSRAP) remedial action contract under 562910 (remediation) NAICS code, please confirm that USACE will evaluate prime contractor relevance under Factor 3 more highly for large/complex FUSRAP and radiological remedial action projects involving construction remediation (which has been defined as shoring, dewatering, excavation and handling of radiologically impacted soils on similar FUSRAP projects).

Answer 69: The evaluation will be based on the type of work and scope of FUSRAP project to the similar work in the RFP.

Question 70: On page 50 of the RFP, Section M.1.d.iv indicates: “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 equal as past performance information for the principal offeror. Can you please confirm that a “large business” who is a major team member will be able to provide past performance information that will be considered equal to a small business prime contractor? If this is accurate, this seems to violate every tenant of USACE’s commitment to the small business community...in other words, a LB contractor would be able to have equal scores to a SB prime contractor without an SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement in place? Also, the subcontractor’s past performance would be considered equal to the prime contractor even though the subcontractor has no privity of contract with the government? This could lead to many firms not bidding this contract and limiting competition (which is not in alignment with USACE’s mission) and could very likely lead to another protest on this contract, considering it will allow the incumbent contractor (CB&I) to basically be evaluated as a prime contractor (at least in terms of past performance scoring). Moreover, this statement further indicates that key personnel from CB&I who will likely transition to the new SB prime contractor will also be considered equal to the prime contractor…this is just as disconcerting as the above issue…please consider removing this very contentious statement that seems to clearly favor the prime contractor aligned with CB&I.

Answer 70: See answer to question 5.

Question 71: Please consider extending the proposal due date to allow sufficient time for the offeror to respond to this complex RFP.

Answer 71: See answer to question 8.

Question 72: Section L.3 states that Volume I, Section 2 – Technical Proposal is “not to exceed 30 pages.” This section includes two Factors – Technical Capabilities and Technical Staff Experience.

Please confirm that the 30-page limit is inclusive of both Factors.

Answer 72: Yes

Question 73: Section L.3 requires Offerors to submit “resumes of key management personnel.” Key personnel are not defined in Section L, but Section C.3.9 lists multiple positions and qualifications of “HTRW-type personnel’ and states that key personnel cannot be replaced without permission.

Will the Government explicitly define the positions it wishes to see as key personnel? Or does the Government wish us to define who is key?

Answer 73: Key positions described in Section C.

Question 74: Section L.3 requires us to submit resumes for key management personnel.

We request that the government exclude resumes from the 30-page limit so that we have sufficient space to adequately address Section L and M requirements.

Answer 74: Resume excluded.

Question 75: Section L.5 Vol II – Cost/Price requires submission of two items – Fully Burdened Labor Rates under Attachment 1 and completion of Labor Hours and Price for a Sample Project in Attachment 2. There is no clear correlation between Section L.5 and Section B – Cost/Price.

Does the Government want us to fill in Section B – Cost/Price?

Answer 75: Section B will be filled in by the Government at time of award, this is for IDIQ value only.

Question 76: Section L.5.a.iv of Vol II – Cost/Price states that “Direct labor hours and rates shall be delineated by labor category by contract year for the offeror and each subcontractor. The labor hour delineation must be directly traceable to the same information proposed in the Technical Volume.”

Request the government remove this requirement as labor categories and descriptions are not called for in the Technical Volume.

Answer 76: They are factor 2 as for flow chart.

Question 77: 5. Attachment 2 – Task Order Sample requires that we utilize and complete 14 different worksheets.

Will the government please provide these worksheets in MS Word to facilitate using them for this proposal?

Answer 77: Yes

Question 78: Section M – Factor 4: Cost/Price – can the government clarify how it will be evaluating cost/price? We understand that the proposed rates will be reviewed for reasonableness, but how will the Sample Project be evaluated for cost realism? Will the costs for each task and project element be totaled to arrive at a total price? Or will some other method be utilized?

Answer 78: Per FAR 15.305 When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror’s understanding of the work, and the offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

Question 79: Section L.5.a requires the Cost/Price volume to comply with FAR 14.408, Table 15-2. Does the Government want both Sections I (Labor Category Pricing) and Section II (Sample Task Pricing) to comply with Table 15-2?

If the labor category pricing in Section I is already compliant with Table 15-2, restating it for Section II would be unnecessarily redundant.

Alternatively, we could instead only comply with Table 15-2 for Section II Sample Task Pricing – which would make more sense overall.

Answer 79: Answering forthcoming.

Question 80: RFP Section J, Attachment 4. We did not see page 1 of the PPQ that contains blocks 1 through 8 (1 – 4 to be filled out by offerors; 5 – 8 to be completed by the Client POCs). Please confirm that there is a missing page.

Answer 80: Forthcoming amendment 0001 added page one of the PPQ.

Question 81: Does St. Louis District consider radiological experience on DOE sites equivalent to radiological experience on FUSRAP sites?

Answer 81: Experience will be evaluated to see how similar work of DOE sites is to RFP.

Question 82: What is the approximate task order dollar value of a “similar size” project (e.g., $2 to $5M; $5 to $10M; etc.)?

Answer 82: Task order dollar value cannot be predicted at this time only the minimum/maximum quantity and order value as stated on page 5. The minimum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not be less than the minimum quantity and order value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and order value for each Delivery/Task Order issued shall not exceed the maximum quantity and order value stated in the following table. MINIMUM AMOUNT $2,500.00. MAXIMUM AMOUNT $50,000,000.00.

Question 83: Past Performance – Provide at least 2, but no more than 5 project examples for the Prime. Please confirm that Joint Venture Prime Offerors are to submit no more than 5 projects / contracts, not 2 to 5 examples per Joint Venture Partner.

Answer 83: The Joint Venture should submit 2 to 5 of each to demonstrate their past performance.

Question 84: RFP Section M, d. Factor 3: Past Performance, pgs. 48-49. “Evaluation will be based on performance on previous contracts with radiological experience with the last five years using past performance questionnaires submitted by the offerors’ POCs…”i. Recency – The government will evaluate the recency (completed with 3 years prior to solicitation closing date) and then the relevancy.

Will offerors’ projects completed within 3 years be evaluated more favorably than projects completed within 5 years?

Answer 84: Forthcoming Amendment 0001 changes to read: Recency – The government will evaluate the recency (completed with 5 years prior to solicitation closing date) and then the relevancy. Amended paragraph d.i. to read 5.

Question 85: Section L.4.c (pg. 45) and Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaires – USACE routinely allows use of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) on multiple proposals to avoid the need for clients (including USACE as a client) to prepare separate version for each proposal. Please confirm that previous PPQs for relevant projects can be used for Offeror’s responses on this procurement provided they are the same form included in Attachment 4 of the Solicitation.

Answer 85: Yes as long as they are in the same time frame.

Question 86: Section L.4.c (pg. 45) – In the past, USACE has allowed existing CPARS in lieu of PPQs when client points of contact for past performance on relevant projects to a solicitation are no longer employed by that client or are not available (e.g., on overseas assignment, etc.). Will USACE allow CPARS to be used in lieu of PPQs in those instances for this Solicitation as well?

Answer 86: No.

Question 87: Attachment 2, Cost Table & Sample Project Worksheets – Please confirm that Offerors may modify these table to provide for multiple categories of field overhead rates and office overhead rates authorized by DCAA.

Answer 87: Answers forthcoming.

Question 88: Reference Volume I Section 3, 4.c Past Performance (Attachment 4). In order to minimize the impact on Government personnel of repeatedly completing Past Performance Questionnaires in support of RFP requirements/contractor requests, is it acceptable to utilize a previously completed questionnaire by the client in our proposal vs. requesting a new one be completed? If yes, please specify acceptable formats, i.e. PPQ-0, CPARS, previous questionnaire with slightly different format than the one included in the RFP, etc.

Answer 88: Yes; however, the PPQ should be relevant to the SOW in the RFP.

Question 89: Is there a deadline for submission of questions, and to whom should questions be directed?

Answer 89: No. However, questions need to be submitted in a reasonable time manner to allow the time the Government to answer without extending the RFP due date.

Question 90: Section L States that “Offeror shall provide resumes of key management personnel.” Does the Government define “Key Management Personnel” as all 7 Key Personnel positions listed in Section 3.9 of the Scope of Work? If so, please consider adding additional page count allotment to Section 2 or removing Key Personnel Resumes from the page count limitation as the resume requirement would be over 14 pages for information required.

Answer 90: Resumes not included in page count.

Question 91: Section C states that for each task order, the Contractor shall have a designated PM or SS. Should we submit multiple resumes for these positions?

Answer 91: The same PM can work on several Task Orders. Contractors should decide their Technical Approach and organization and present in proposal.

Question 92: Please confirm that Key Personnel Resumes are excluded from the page count for the technical volume, as a 30 Page limit to also comprehensively discuss Factor 1 (Technical Capabilities) and Factor 2 (Technical Staff Experience) seems unrealistic, especially with formatting requirements of 12-point Times New Roman font and 1” page margins. The resumes at a minimum would take up 14 pages of the 30 required.

Answer 92: Resumes are excluded from page count.

Question 93: Are the letters of commitment and consent of disclosure of past performance information from subcontractors excluded from the page count limitations for this section?

Answer 93: Yes.

Question 94: Are both letters of commitment and teaming agreements required for the major subcontractors, or either one?

Answer 94: Contractor should submit the agreement whether JV, Teaming Agreement or Letter of Commitment according to relationship with subcontractor.

Question 95: Section L instructs offerors to complete boxes 1-4 of the PPQ form, but Boxes 1-8 of the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form seems to be missing from Attachment 4. Can the Government revise Attachment 4 accordingly?

Answer 95: See answer to question 80.

Question 96: Since offerors are limited to submitting only five 11x17 foldouts, are the 11x17 pages to be counted as one page each during evaluation?

Answer 96: Yes.

Question 97: Are commendations, awards, etc to be excluded from the page count?

Answer 97: Yes.

Question 98: Should offerors complete Section K and return it as letter “f” within Section 1 – Business Proposal?

Answer 98: Provision 52.204-7 is included in solicitation; therefore, paragraph (d) of 52.204-8 applies. Paragraph (d): The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM Web site accessed through https://www.acquisition.gov . After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph (c) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the changes identified below [offeror to insert changes, identifying change by clause number, title, date]. These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted on SAM.

Question 99: Are offerors invited to submit CPARS in lieu of, or in addition to, to PPQs?

Answer 99: CPARS can be submitted in addition to PPQ.

Question 100: Regarding the submittal deadline, can it be extended to 2:00PM on the 20th in order to guarantee on-time, overnight delivery?

Answer 100: See answer to question 8.

Question 101: Should offerors provide specific narrative explanations of each contract listed in Section 1 in Box 4 of the PPQs, or should these narratives be submitted in addition to the PPQs?

Answer 101: Yes provide narrative.

Question 102: Are offerors allowed to re-submit PPQs that have been signed and dated by respective clients within 365 days from issuance of RFP?

Answer 102: Yes, if PPQ are relevant and within the time frame.

Question 103: Since the scope of this contract will provide for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste, would the Government consider amending Section M relevancy factors to include “HTRW and radiological experience?”

Answer 103: Answer forthcoming.

Question 104: Please define “subparagraph” as it relates to the SOW. Should offerors stop at the third level, ie 1.4.1 Field Engineering? Or, would the Government like only subparagraphs of SOW Section 1.4 “Contractor Capability, Technical Expertise,” to be mirrored in the approach for Factor 2, Technical Staff Experience?

Answer 104: The paragraph should be detailed closely to the work that is being performed (i.e. 1.4.1 Field Engineering)

Question 105: The USACE has referenced PWS when identifying performance assignments. We assume this to be the Statement of Work in Section C. Is this a correct assumption?

Answer 105: Yes

Question 106: There are several elements of scope that are necessary for the successful completion of work (ie air monitoring, etc) but are not included in the SOW subparagraphs. Should offerors simply add those missing elements into our approach, or would offerors be deemed noncompliant for assigning work without citations linking back to the SOW? If the latter, please advise how offerors should reference assignments in the technical approach that do not directly tie back to a SOW subparagraph.

Answer 106: The offeror should develop his technical approach and include items that he deems necessary to accomplish the work in the RFP.

Question 107: Please clarify this statement. Are offerors invited to submit past performance for Factor 3 on projects managed by key personnel during their tenure at predecessor companies? Or will experience listed in key personnel resumes be evaluated equal to past performance for the principal offeror?

Answer 107: No. You cannot submit past performance for key personnel that…