AMENDMENT 2.pdf

AMENDMENT 2

1) RFP Section B CLIN 0001 Labor states “FFP”, but CLIN 0002 Travel and CLIN 0003 ODCs state “COST”, Please confirm all CLINs should be FFP.

ANSWER: No CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0004 are “FFP”.

CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 are “COST”; based on actual cost that can be billed towards those

CLINS.

2) RFP Section H, subsection 8 states “The offeror’s entire proposal shall be incorporated in the contract award…”. The RFP requires proprietary rate information, that would harm offerors should it be made publicly available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Contractor respectfully requests the Government not incorporate the Tables in Section B into the resultant contract award.

ANSWER: Yes offeror’s proposal is incorporated however proprietary information will not be shared.

3) Page 5 of 155, Table 1, Hourly Labor Rates, Firm Fixed Price, Bullet 2: States that “Assume base year 1 labor rates cover period October 2015 through September 2016. Please confirm Offerors should assume the dates from RFP Section F for Year 1, 08 April 2020 to 07 April 2021.

ANSWER: The dates October 2015 through September 2016 are example dates, but the actual dates are 08 April 2020 to 07 April 2021.

4) Page 5 of 155, Table 1, Hourly Labor Rates, Firm Fixed Price, Bullet 4: States that “Offerors are to provide an example of how mark-ups are applied to the labor rates.” Please clarify where the offeror is to provide this example.

ANSWER: Please provide examples of mark-ups in Table 2

5) Page 31 of 155, Note that the “Regulatory Specialist” should be identified as 3.7.11. and “Multi- Disciplined Technical Staff” as 3.7.12.

ANSWER: Regulatory Specialist should be Section 3.7.11 and Multi-Disciplined Technical Staff should be Section 3.7.12.

6) Page 35 of 155, Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, CLAUSES INCORPROATED BY REFERENCE: Includes FAR Clause “52.246-4 Inspection of Services Cost-Reimbursement.” Please confirm that only FFP Task Orders will be issued under this contract per Section 6.1.

ANSWER: FAR 52.246 Inspection of Services Cost-Reimbursement on page 34 will be removed above award.

7) Page 37 of 155, Section G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA, Item 4 Profit/Fee Determination: States that “However, profit/fee shall not exceed the maximum rates proposed in Table 3 of Section B.” Section B only contains Table 1 and Table 2. Please provide Table 3 as referenced.

ANSWER: We apologize there is not a Table 3; Sentence referencing Table 3 will be deleted.

8) Page 101 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 2 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: To ensure consistent pricing among all offerors for mobilization and per diem costs for the sample project scope of work, please provide the city and state in Region 7 that the offeror should assume for the project location.

ANSWER: Offerors should assume site is located in Pulaski County, MO.

9) Page 101 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 3 OPERATIONAL HISTORY: States that “The site is zoned commercial/industrial and covers 132 acres, about 30 acres of which are covered by former buildings and various structures.” Please confirm that the offeror can assume they have unrestricted access to the site and no coordination with onsite stakeholders or commercial operations is required.

ANSWER: Offerors should assume unrestricted access to site and stockpile and no further coordination required.

10) Page 101 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 3 OPERATIONAL HISTORY: States that “The site is zoned commercial/industrial and covers 132 acres, about 30 acres of which are covered by former buildings and various structures.” Please confirm that the offeror can assume that stockpiles contained within this scope of work are not within close proximity to any buildings or structures that will require shoring.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 9.

11) Page 102 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 4 REMEDIAL ACTION SCOPE OF WORK: First bullet states “Prepare a brief work plan (2-5 pages) that documents means and methods being proposed for completion of the work.” Please confirm that as this

“work plan” is not listed in Section L or M and that it is not part of a proposal submission requirement for this solicitation.

ANSWER: All requirements of the sample project will be used to evaluate Factors in Section M.

12) Page 102 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 4 REMEDIAL ACTION SCOPE OF WORK: First bullet states “Prepare a brief work plan (2-5 pages) that documents means and methods being proposed for completion of the work.” Please confirm that this work plan falls within the $75,000 assumed costs for Item 1 Pre-Work Submittals within the

PROPOSAL BID SCHEDULE.

ANSWER: Yes, this work plan does fall within the $75,000 assumed costs for Item 1 Pre-Work submittals within the proposal bid schedule

13) Page 102 of 155, Appendix K, PRAC Sample Project Scope of Work, Item 7 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT: 7.3 includes “work plan preparation” as part of General Conditions, Bid Item 3. This appears to be duplicative with Bid Item 1, Pre-Work Submittals. Please clarify if the offeror is to assume that “work plan preparation” is contained under Bid Item 1 or Bid Item 3.

ANSWER: It is contained under Bid Item 1

14) Page 135 of 155, Section L, Item b: States that “A standard 12-point minimum font size applies.”

This appears to be in contradiction with Page 137 of 155, PROPOSAL FILES, Item d, which states that “…font size shall be no less than 10 point.” Please clarify minimum font size for text outside of tables and illustrations is 10 point.

ANSWER: Please use 12-point font minimum

15) Page 135 of 155, Section L, Item b states that Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.” We request that this requirement be replaced with a requirement for 6-point spacing between paragraphs, which provides for good readability by reviewers while providing more opportunity for offerors to provide meaningful proposal narrative.

ANSWER: Yes, 6-point spacing will be accepted.

16) Page 140 of 155, Section L, Factor 1, Subfactor A: Corporate /Company Experience: Item vii references a “Box B.” please clarify if “Box B” should be replaced by “item ii”.

ANSWER: Correct, “Box b” should be replaced by “item ii”

17) Page 140 of 155, Section L, Factor 1, Subfactor A: Corporate /Company Experience: Item viii references a “Box D.” please clarify if “Box D” should be replaced by “item iv”.

ANSWER: Correct, “Box D” should be replaced by “item iv”

18) Page 141 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1 Subfactor B: Key Personnel: States that “The offeror shall provide the resumes of the key personnel for this contract listed in Section 3.7 of the PWS.” Section C.3.7 lists eleven (11) key personnel; however, Section L only lists five positions. Please confirm that the key positions that the offeror should provide resumes for in Volume 1, Factor 1, Subfactor B of their proposal are the five listed in Section L, and that a single resume is desired for each of these five positions.

ANSWER: Yes, resumes should be provided for the five positions listed in Section L and a single resume is desired for each of these five positions.

19) Page 141 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1 Subfactor B: Key Personnel: States “A resume template is provided included (sic) in Section J, Attachment #3.” Please clarify if the Appendix L, Resume Template labeled as Section J, Attachment 4 is provided as a reference or if the Offerors are required to use this Resume Template for submission of resumes. If required, please confirm that the offerors can modify this template by removing the second line of Projects (6-

10) in the box to free up unused space.

ANSWER: Resume Template in Section J, Appendix L is provided as reference and can be modified.

20) Page 141 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1 Subfactor B: Key Personnel: States for the Program Manager that “The individual proposed as the Program Manager shall have a professional registration in their respective field, where applicable or available.” As the role of the Program Manager as described is management of cost, schedule and technical quality, we respectively request that text be revised to include “or PMP certification” which is the nationally recognized certification for program/project management of cost, schedule and quality.

ANSWER: Yes the wording on page 141 of 155 will change to “The individual proposed as the Program Manager shall have a professional registration or PMP certification in their respective field, where applicable or available”.

Please note that the PMP Certification cannot be used in lieu of a college degree for Program Manager

21) Page 143 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2 – Past Performance, a. Past Performance Questionnaires: States that “the offeror should provide a PPQ to a representative of the client that can provide the client’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project.” Due to the large number of government solicitations that now require submittal of PPQs and to reduce the burden on government employees with regard to responding to repetitive PPQ requests, many USACE solicitations have stated that previously completed PPQs for a project may be submitted. Please clarify if offerors may submit a previously completed PPQ for a project.

ANSWER: No, however the government can use previously used PPQ information as part of evaluating performance confidence

22) Page 144 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2 – Past Performance, a. Past Performance Questionnaires: States that “the PPQ form be completed and returned to the offeror before the date the proposal is due. If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Contracting Division …” Page 150 of 155, Section M, Factor 2, Past Performance states that “Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted directly to the St Louis District Contracting Office to the Government’s POC, Jessica Hicks. The offeror shall complete and submit with his/her proposal the first page of each PPQ.” Should completed PPQs be submitted in full in the offeror’s proposal and only the first page of the PPQ be submitted if clients submit the completed form directly back to the Government? Please advise what PPQ protocol offerors should follow.

ANSWER: Yes, statement will be revised to read that offers shall submit a completed PPQ with their proposal.

23) Page 144 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2 – Past Performance, a. Past Performance Questionnaires: States that “Offerors shall compile PPQs and CPARS for each project submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor A.” further states that “NOTE: PPQs are not included in the Volume 1 page count”. Please confirm that in addition to PPQs, CPARS will not be included in the Volume 1 page count.

ANSWER: PPQs and CPARs will not be included in the Volume 1 page count.

24) Page 144 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 2 – Past Performance, a. Past Performance Questionnaires: States “In addition to PPQs, offerors are responsible for submitting CPARs information in their proposals for the projects submitted under Factor 1, Sub factor A.” Please clarify if the offerors are to submit only the last CPAR or all CPARs for projects submitted under Factor 1, Sub factor A.

ANSWER: There is no requirement to submit CPARS. Per page 150 of 155, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance, where other sources may include CPARS.

25) Page 144 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 3 – Corporate Technical Plans, Practices and Procedures. As Noted in the proposal instructions, Volume 1, Factor 3 is limited to 25 pages, which results in approximately 12.5 pages each for the QA/QC Program, QA/QC Plan for the sample task order, Health and Safety Plan, and Health and Safety Plan for the sample task order.

It is not possible for offerors to develop these four (4) plans compliant with the PWS, USACE QC requirements and EM-385 within this page limitation. A typical compliant QC Plan for a remedial action would be over 50 pages without tables, figures and appendices, and a typical compliant H&S plan would be over 85 pages without tables, figures and appendices. We respectfully request that the government revise this to require offerors to submit the Table of Contents (TOC) for its existing corporate/program QC and H&S Programs and TOCs for the sample task QC and H&S Plans.

ANSWER: Per Section L, Item c, “…Corporate Technical Plans, Practices and Procedures Information will NOT count toward the page limitation.” Page limit shown in table on page 135 of 155 for Factor 3 should be revised to N/A.

26) Page 137 of 155, Section L. Item c: States that “…Corporate Technical Plans, Practices and Procedures Information will NOT count toward the page limitation.” Please clarify which information provided for Factor 3 – Corporate Technical Plans, Practices and Procedures is exempt from the 80-page limit.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 25.

27) The RFP requests labor pricing for the following positions; Engineering Technician, Field Technician and Clerical, but it doesn't provide any definition or guidance as to qualification requirements for these positions. Will USACE provide additional information concerning the qualification of these individuals/positions?

ANSWER: Only the disciplines provided under Factor 2 are required qualifications

28) The RFP provides position descriptions for Site Superintendent/Construction Manager, Civil Engineer, and Regulatory Specialist, but does not request labor rates. Please confirm labor rates for these positions are not required.

ANSWER: The additional disciplines outlined in the PWS will be added to Table 1, please include these disciplines in the labor rates

29) Section J, Appendix K – PRAC Sample Project, Item 4. Remedial Action Scope of Work, First Bullet suggests a Brief Work Plan. Please confirm that this is merely an item to consider costs to develop in Volume II and that the contractor is not to prepare this Work Plan for evaluation in Volume I or Volume II?

ANSWER: Brief Work Plan should be submitted under Volume I, Factor 3 and be considered Subfactor C as follows.

3. Volume 1, Subfactor C: - Sample Project Work Plan

Prepare a brief Work Plan (2 to 5 pages) that documents means and methods being proposed for completion of the work. Include any assumptions that are in addition to the government-provided parameters of this project. At a minimum, the work plan should include

• Pile delineation requirements and procedures for any additional sampling deemed to be required.

• Details to mix small scale pilot tests to determine correct mix ratios if required.

• Detail full scale treatment means and methods.

• Process monitoring (performed during the treatment)

30) Volume I, Factor 3 requires Offeror’s to provide a corporate level QA/Q Program and Health and Safety Plan, as well as, Sample Task Order specific QA/QC and Health and Safety Plans. The RFP only allows 25 pages for all of this information.

Our Corporate level QA/QC and Health and Safety Plans are each hundreds of pages long. Due to the size of these documents, please consider exempting the corporate level plans from the page requirement. Alternatively would USACE consider an abbreviated version of the corporate plans such as just the Table of Contents or they could be submitted as Appendixes to the proposal?

31) Past Performance requirements include both PPQ’s and CPAR ratings. Many of our government clients are reluctant to complete PPQ’s when they have already completed a detailed CPAR evaluation. Please consider accepting either a PPQ or CPAR as an acceptable Past Performance evaluation factor.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 24.

32) As reference, page 141 of the RFP states “The offeror shall provide the resumes of the key personnel for this contract listed in Section 3.7 of the PWS. Can you please confirm that they only required resumes are those listed in Section L?

ANSWER: Please see response to question 18.

33) Can more than one resume be provided for a Site Superintendent / Construction Manager?

ANSWER: Minimum of 1 resume per key personnel meeting the requirements outlined in Section L.

34) Please define the number of resumes required for the Project Manager discipline.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 18.

35) Factor 2 Past Performance is allocated 25 pages. PPQs are excluded from page count and only PPQs and CPARs are requested in the section? Is the intent to allow up to 25 pages of CPARs? Is there any other information requested in the allocated page count?

ANSWER: Page limit shown in table on page 135 of 155 for Factor 2 should be revised to N/A.

36) Factor 3 Corporate Technical Plans are allocated 25 pages. All requested plans are defined as outside of page count, as per page 137, paragraph C. What is the intention of the 25 pages as allocated?

37) Within Section L (page 139), directions for the Executive Summary, the following directions appear:

Content Requirement: All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Are these directions specific to the Executive Summary?

ANSWER: Content Requirement directions are applicable to Volume 1.

38) As reference, see RFP Section L Volume 1, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Subfactor A:

Corporate/Company Experience (Page 139 of 155). Following the definition of a project, there is a section labeled ‘a. Presentation of Company Experience’. Are these directions specific to the requested 2-5 projects, or is this an independent section of the proposal? If the intention is a separate section can the page allocation be expanded in the section to accommodate the request?

ANSWER: Directions within the ‘Presentation of Company Experience’ section are specific to the requested 2-5 projects.

39) Section L of the RFP states that ‘The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed PPQs are signed and submitted by the solicitation closing date and should follow up with clients to ensure timely submittal of the PPQs.’

Many Federal Agencies carrying out remediation, including USEPA, a prime client to the USACE St. Louis District PRAC, will not, by rule provide PPQs for Task Orders carried out under IDIQ HTRW Contracts. Likewise, the same agency will not provide CPARs for individual Task Orders and only provide CPARs for the IDIQ contracts. Additional information, including Contracting Officer contact information can be provided to validate the agencies position if requested.

To penalize the contractor for another federal agency’s policy/position creates an uneven playing feel during proposal evaluation and is biased and unfair. We respectfully request the language be removed and replaced with language that allows for fair evaluation of federal agency HTRW work that is compliant with the SOW within the RFP. An option could be to allow for IDIQ contracts in their entirety to be submitted as ‘projects’ and allow CPARS in lieu of PPQs.

Another option would be to require the contractors to provide the federal contact information for the Task Order specific to a submitted project, but not penalize the contractors for the agencies lack of participation.

ANSWER: Offerors shall compile PPQs and/or CPARs for each project submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor A. PPQ’s are not limited to just for individual tasks orders.

40) For Company Experience the RFP allows for submittal of multiple contracts and Task Orders on the same project. For a single project encompassing multiple contracts and clients, would it be acceptable for offerors to submit the PPQ for the most recent contract in which work was done?

Pursuing multiple PPQs from multiple clients on the same project may be problematic.

ANSWER: Offerors shall submit PPQs that are relevant and recent as explained in Factor 2, however the government will give additional consideration to the company experience in HTRW remedial projects based on criteria listed in Factor 2.

41) Historically, five years is constraining on large projects to provide numerous projects that directly match the SOW. Would USACE consider a seven year look back for projects?

ANSWER: Yes, we agree to adjust the language at Page 139 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Page 148 of 155, Section M, Factor 1-Techncial approach to replace the requirement of the last five (5) years to the last seven (7) years.

42) RFP Requires projects to be 100% Complete. If a project is 100% field complete, but still has time remaining on the period of performance, can it be used?

ANSWER: Yes, we agree to adjust the language at Page 139 of 155, Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Page 148 of 155, Section M, Factor 1-Technical approach to replace the requirement of 100% completion to 90% completion.

43) In regard to the sample work plan:

a. Where within the Volume II should we provide the pricing page for the sample task order?

ANSWER: Volume 1, Factor 4 on page 145 of 155.

b. On page 102, it states “Prepare a brief Work Plan (2 to 5 pages) that documents means and methods being proposed for completion of the work.” Please confirm that this request is just provided as pricing backup of the sample task order and no Work Plan or work assumptions are required for this sample task order.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 29.

44) In Section L, Volume 1, Factor 1, Subfactor A (Page 140 of 155) states:

a. “vi. The total contract obligation amount including all modifications, award date of original contract, and contract period of performance”. Should this state “project” instead of “contract” in this sentence?

ANSWER: No, the word “contract” is the correct wording for the referenced sentence.

b. “vii. The percentage of the contract amount performed by the prime offeror, JV partner, or team subcontractor identified in Box B.” Should this state “project” instead of “contract” in this sentence and should “Box B” be changed to reference “ii” above?

ANSWER: It should state “percentage of contract amount performed by the prime offeror”… identified in item ii.”

c. viii. Please include the following for the contract identified in Box D above”. Should this state “project” instead of “contract” in this sentence and should “Box D” be changed to reference “iv” above?

ANSWER: No, the word “contract’ is the correct wording for the referenced sentence.

45) Given the RFP clarifications necessary, can the proposal due date be extended?

ANSWER: Proposal due date will be extended to 21 APR 2020, 2:00pm (CST).

46) Page 137, paragraph d states “font size shall be no less than 10 point”, but page 135, paragraph b states “a standard, 12-point minimum font size applies”. Please clarify which font size is required.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 14.

47) Appendix L, Resume Template says “Worked on Projects in Company Experience in Same Role

(check appropriate projects)” and lists Projects #1 - #10, but only five projects are requested for Corporate / Company Experience. Should this only be Projects #1 - #5?

ANSWER: The government is only requiring 1 to 5 projects

48) Section L (page 132 of 155) Factors and Relative Order of Importance table says “Factors 1, 2 and 3 “when combined” are approximately equal to Factor 4”, but Section M (page 148) states “All non-priced factors combined are significantly more important than price”. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Page 148 will be revised to state “All non-priced factors combined are approximately equal to price.

49) Within the RFP, Section L requirements for Volume 1, Factor 3 – Corporate Technical Plans, will USACE clarify if:

a. The overarching quality assurance/ quality control program is requiring submission of a Quality Management Plan for the program.

ANSWER: Yes, correct

b. The specific QA/QC plan for the sample task order is requiring a site Contractor Quality Control Plan and does not include a UFP-QAPP.

ANSWER: Yes, correct

50) Can PPQs that were previously completed within the last year (or other defined timeframe) on

Form PPQ-0 be submitted in lieu of new PPQs for the same project?

ANSWER: Please see question 21

51) Can a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification be used in lieu of a college degree for the Project Manager discipline?

ANSWER: No, a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification will not be accepted

52) In Section L, page 144 of 155, it states “In addition to PPQs, offerors are responsible for submitting CPARS information in their proposals for the projects submitted under Factor 1, Sub factor A.”. If a task order specific CPAR is unavailable, should the offeror provide a contract

CPAR?

ANSWER: Please see response to question 39.

53) Table 1 – Hourly Rates, Firm Fixed Price lists an Engineering Technician, Field Technician and

Clerical disciplines, but no personnel specification is listed for these in Section C- SOW. Please provide requirements for these disciplines.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 27.

54) Civil Engineer discipline is provided in Section C – SOW but is not included in Table 1 – Hourly

Rates, Firm Fixed Price. Please clarify if pricing is necessary for this discipline.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 28.

55) Can you please provide Appendix L – Resume Template in Microsoft Word format?

ANSWER: Please see response to question 19.

56) Page 5, Section B, Table 2, Second bullet – Please provide corrected dates for Base Year Rate assumptions.

ANSWER: Base year is starting from award in 2020 and carried through for 3 years.

57) Pages 7-11 Section B CLIN Order Value – The CLIN structure provided seems to be geared towards the task order level (eg., separate CLINS for labor, travel, other direct costs) AND the contract level (CLINS 0001 through 0004 for base award and 0005 through 0008 for the option period). Was this the Government’s intent?

ANSWER: Yes, this was the government’s CLIN structure intent

58) Page 102 Section J Appendix K.4 Remedial Action Scope of Work First Bullet – Did the Government intend that the stated requirement for a brief work plan (2-5 pages) summarizing approach, means and methods be included in Vol I Factor 1 Technical Approach? The requirement as stated does not seem realistic for the scope or line Item price of the sample project. In addition, the requirements for Vol I does not appear to include a requirement for a Sample Project Work Plan, although Factor 3 appears to require a Quality Control Plan and a Safety Plan specific to the Sample Project.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 29.

59) Page 135 Section L Proposal Submission Requirements Item c. - The stated maximum page allotments for Vol I Factors 1 (30 pgs.), 2 (25 pgs.), and 3(25 pgs.) do not align with requirements or page limits as stated elsewhere in the solicitation. For example, if Factor 1 requirements are maximum 5 project descriptions (one 11x17 page counted as two pages each) for a total of 10 pages and minimum required 5 resumes (limited to two pages each) for an additional 10 pages (20 pages total).

ANSWER: Page limit shown in table on page 135 of 155 for Factor 1 is the maximum allowed and page limit for Factor 2 and Factor 3 should be revised to N/A.

60) Page 137 Section L Proposal Files Item c. – States that Vol I Factors 2 and 3 (Past Performance and Corporate technical Plans, Practices, and Procedures) are not included in the page count.

Please confirm, as this contradicts page count information provided elsewhere. This does not align with Page 135 Section L Proposal Submission Requirements Item c. where the stated maximum page allotments for Vol I are Factors 1 (30 pgs.), 2 (25 pgs.), and 3(25 pgs.).

ANSWER: Please see response to question 59.

61) Page 135 Section L Proposal Submission Requirements Item b. - States that 12 point font size is the minimum requirement. Page 137 Section L Proposal Files Item d. Paper Size states a minimum 10 point font requirement. Please confirm minimum font size requirement.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 14.

62) Pages 148-150 Section M Evaluation Factors – The evaluation criteria identified for additional consideration (particularly remediation technologies/methods) are not consistent between Factor 1 Subfactor A Corporate Experience and Factor 2 Past Performance. If these are both tied to the projects posted to demonstrate corporate experience, shouldn’t the evaluation factors be aligned? Similarly, the criteria for additional consideration for Subfactors A and B seem to highlight different remediation experience. Please confirm that Evaluation Criteria as listed are correct for this solicitation.

ANSWER: Factor 1 Sub factor A and Factor 2 should not be aligned because Factor 1 evaluates corporate/company experience based on project challenges from risk etc. with giving additional consideration to HTRW remedial action projects. Whereas Factor 2, Past Performance evaluates based on relevancy and recent efforts outlined in the PWS

63) Page 139 Section L Volume I Contents 3. – States requirement for projects to be 100% complete within the past five years. While we understand the Government has revised this requirement in Amendment 001 to include “90% financially complete” and “7 years” would the Government entertain expanding the definition of “complete” to “construction complete”?

ANSWER: As stated on page 139, projects should be 100% complete within the past five years

64) Page 143 Section L Vol.I Factor 2 Past Performance - It appears the government is requesting Offeror to obtain both new PPQs and copies of existing CPARs. This requirement is not stated consistently throughout the solicitation. Please confirm the requirement to address this Factor.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 39.

65) In order to minimize disruption to our clients, would the government entertain only CPARs for Past Performance, or submittal of recently completed PPQs gathered for other recent proposals in lieu of requesting new PPQs for this solicitation?

ANSWER: Please see question 21

66) Page 148 states that All Non-Priced Factors When Combined are Significantly More Important than price. However, the Table on Page 132 states that Factors 1, 2, and 3 are approximately equal to price.

ANSWER: Please see response to question 48.

67) Please consider changing percent complete for ongoing projects from 90% to 75% to allow small business contractors to sufficiently present their qualifications.

ANSWER: No, unfortunately we will not be changing the percentage complete.

68) Can previously completed PPQs be used instead of getting new ones?

ANSWER: Please see response to question 65.

69) If a contractor has both a PPQ and a CPARS for a project, does the government want both or only the PPQ?

ANSWER: Please see response to question 40.

70) It is our understanding that an offeror can submit maximum of five projects with a maximum page limit of up to 25 pages. Per the RFP page 139, “one side of one 11”x17” sheet of paper shall be used for each project.” What other specific info does the government want in past performance? Do all the pages in this section have to be 11x17?

ANSWER: Factor 1, Subfactor A requires minimum of two and maximum of 5 projects. One side of one 11”x17” sheet of paper shall be used for each project. Factor 1 has a page limit of 30 pages. Factor 2 requires a PPQ and/or CPAR to be provided for each project submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor A. Page limit for Factor 2 has been revised to N/A.