A22._Questions_&_Answers_-_4_April_2017.pdf

Services in Support of Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Investigations and Environmental Remediation Programs and Projects Managed by the St. Louis District

W912P9-17-R-0012

1. REFERENCE Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 4: Cost, Item 1. Loaded Labor Rates: ….These labor rates will become binding under the awarded contract and will be used by the contractor in the development of price proposals for individual task orders. The solicitation will advise offerors that these rates will be binding, with the stipulation that contractors may offer lower than the binding rates within the task order proposals, if they so desire

QUESTION: We understand that the loaded labor rates will serve as the basis for developing price proposals for individual cost reimbursable task orders. Are the loaded rates intended to serve as maximum rates the contractor will be allowed to bill the Government under individual task orders?

Example: The loaded labor rate for the Scientist Jr. category in our proposal would be based on the average loaded labor rate for a pool of individuals where the minimum rate is $50.00 per hour, the maximum rate is $60.00 per hour, and the average rate is $55.00 per hour. For purposes of this proposal, we would enter $55.00 as the loaded labor rate for the Base Year for this labor category. This rate would be used in any price proposals for individual task orders during the Base Year. For task orders, we would bill the Government the actual loaded labor rate for individuals in this category who work on the project. The individual cost reimbursable loaded labor rate for some individuals would be lower than the contract rate and some would be higher; however, the average rate for all individuals in the category would be less than or equal to the contract rate for the task order period of performance. Please confirm that the loaded labor rates will be used for proposal pricing only and that the rates are not intended to serve as maximum cost reimbursable labor rates for billing purposes.

ANSWER: After evaluating the offerors proposed cost using cost realism analysis, the Government will determine the probable cost and will have the discretion to renegotiate the proposed loaded labor rates. The negotiated labor rates will become binding under the awarded contract for the initial task order and will be used by the contractor in the development of price proposals for individual out year task orders.

Contractors may offer lower than the binding rates within the task order proposals, if they so desire. However, the negotiated rates are binding and are essentially maximum cost reimbursable labor rates for billing purposes.

2. REFERENCE PWS Section 2.1.1.1 (and others)

QUESTION: Does “Class 2 samples” refer to the assumption that the total investigation area will be divided into Class 2 Survey Units per

MARSSIM?

ANSWER: Yes, for estimating purposes, the assumption is that the total investigation area will be divided into Class 2 Survey Units per MARSSIM. However, actually sampling will be determined on a case-by-case basis during execution of the task order.

3. REFERENCE PWS Section 2.1.2.1 (and others)

QUESTION: Please provide the Government’s definition of a “verification attempt.” Is it assumed that the level of effort for a “verification attempt” is limited to a single Survey Unit?

ANSWER: A "verification attempt" is a confirmatory survey conducted in accordance with the MARSSIM to provide data to substantiate a final status survey. Please refer to the MARSSIM for additional information. Yes, normally a “verification attempt” is limited to a single Survey Unit. A Survey Unit may include an excavation, consolidated materials, structures, etc.

4. REFERENCE Attachment 9 - includes an inventory of field equipment.

QUESTION: Is the intent to use this equipment at the St. Louis North County Sites, St. Louis Downtown Site, and the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant?

ANSWER: Yes, the equipment is for use at all of the St. Louis District FUSRAP Sites.

5. REFERENCE: Proposal Due Date: In light of the recent 8-month extension of the existing contract, would St. Louis District consider a 2-week extension to the current April 10th due date? Also, to amend the due date to not fall on a Monday to avoid potential weekend shipping issues?

ANSWER: The proposal due date will be revised to Tuesday 11 April 2017, at 3 PM CST to allow for shipping – See Amendment 0004. At this time the Government does not feel a two week extension is necessary in order to obtain adequate competition.

6. REFERENCE: ORIG. RFP PAGE 89/AMEND. 3 PAGE 14, SECTION L, VOLUME VI, SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS, PARAGRAPH (b): The RFP states “Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP…

Section A – Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award

Section G – Contract Administration Data

Section K – Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors”

QUESTIONS:

1) Section G and Section K were not included in the RFP. Are we to assume the Annual Representations and Certifications clause (FAR 52.204-8 [OCT 2016]) found in Section I – Contract Clauses applies?

ANSWER: Correct, the Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses apply to these sections.

2) If the Annual Representations and Certifications clause in Section I – Contract Clauses applies, please confirm those would only need to be completed if the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications on the System for Award Management website?

ANSWER: Correct, if the offeror has completed the Annual Representations and Certifications through the System for Award Management, they do not need to complete the Solicitation provision, and/or Contract Clause.

3) Will the Government be providing Section G or will that requirement be removed?

ANSWER: This section is related to award. No action required for Proposal Submission.

7. REFERENCE: Volume III – Past Performance (3) Section 3 – New Corporate Entities.

QUESTION: Please clarify what the Government intends by this requirement. Does this section only apply to offerors who may be submitting as joint venture partners? If so, what is the purpose for requiring employee Letters of Commitment?

ANSWER: This section applies to offerors who are utilizing past performance executed under a different entity name than the current offeror.

For instance: Offeror ABC is proposing, but they are utilizing past performance that was executed under the name Offeror XYZ.