A07.14.01__W9132T18R0003_Q_AND_A.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SMS Engineering Research and Development IDIQ W9132T18R0003

Question 1. Is there an incumbent contractor for this effort or is this a new requirement?

Government Response: No there is no incumbent, this is considered a new requirement.

Question 2. Is there any additional information concerning the potential location of work?

Government Response: As an IDIQ, the place of performance would be specified on the individual task orders. Most will likely be at the contractor’s location although some work may be required to be performed at the CERL lab or at another government installation.

Question 3. Is this the same effort as the pre-solicitation notice from spring 2017?

Government Response: Yes, this is the follow-on to the Request for Information W9132T-17-I-0001.

Question 4. Can you confirm if there would be any conflicts of interest if the firm that was awarded this IDIQ in support of providing information to be used in SMS systems primarily for utilities would be precluded from any future work/new contracts that would require the use of the new SMS utility tool?

Government Response: Regarding the conflict of interest, the solicitation includes a paragraph regarding this subject. As it states, we will specify in the individual task orders if we feel it will lead to a potential conflict. The primary intent of this solicitation will be for the contractors to provide content for a future SMS system and, therefore, it is believed there is very little chance that a conflict will exist since the content provided under our contract should not dictate that a particular contractor would have an advantage in developing the system itself or from using the new system after it is developed. In addition, if the RFQ for an individual task order states that a potential exists for a conflict of interest, the vendor could always choose not to respond to that particular task order, but that would not preclude them from receiving an award for other task orders.

Question 5. Would CERL be interested in a direct award?

Government Response: An 8(a) direct award is not possible because the dollar value of the action would require us to compete the action. Our market research was inconclusive to determine if two or more small business vendors were capable of meeting our requirements, therefore our intent is a full and open competition with a small business participation evaluation factor. The Government intends to make multiple awards as a result of this solicitation to ensure competition at the task order level.

Question 6. Does the modification posted as solicitation number W9132T18R0003 on FBO contain requirements similar to an existing contract or will this be a new requirement?

Government Response: This will be a new requirement.

Question 7. When I try to go to the SMS page at the link provided in the RFP Announcement (https://www.sms.erdc.dren.mil/) I get a message that the website’s security certification has been revoked and I should close the site immediately. Can you provide another link to the BUILDER training modules?

Government Response: The certificate is probably not revoked, but it is issued by DoD and the vendor’s computer may not be configured to accept these. See https://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/getting_started/Pages/index.aspx for more information on the right certificate install steps (and downloads).

Question 8. Please provide a WORD file or fillable PDF of SF 33 (the scanned document does not allow inserts of data).

Government Response: A file has been added to the FBO announcement titled “Word Version SF33”.

Question 9. Please confirm that an Offeror may opt to submit on one or all nine of the scope of work items listed as C.2.a through C.2.i

Government Response: Yes, an offeror may submit a proposal for one or any number of work items or technical areas listed as C.2.a through C.2.i.

Question 10. In light of the paperwork reduction act, may we send to ERDC-CERL, previously received ACASS and CPARS ratings from federal agencies?

Government Response: No. ERDC-CERL has or can obtain access to information in other Government systems, so there is no need to send these ratings as part of the proposal. Reference is made to Section L.2.a. regarding past performance proposal page limitations and L.3.b. regarding the past performance documentation to be submitted for this proposal.

Question 11. May a previously submitted USACE/NAVFAC standardized Past Performance Questionnaire be submitted to ERDC/CERL in lieu of Attachment 3?

Government Response: No. Reference Paragraph L.2.a. and L.3.b which both state no completed past performance questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal.

Question 12. I am going to put something together for (technical area). Do you think that I can package it as a 2-year project or should it be longer? It needs to address inventory, condition assessment and prioritizing remedial actions. Maybe 2 years is too optimistic?

Government Response: This solicitation is for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. This type of contract is a general contract that will allow us to issue task orders for a period of five (5) years with the successful companies as specific projects are developed by the Government. Please refer to Section L – Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions, and Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, for further information on the information that should be provided in your proposal and how the Government will evaluate that proposal. As stated in the solicitation, you may submit a proposal for only one of the technical areas or more, at your discretion. However, this is not a request for a specific project to be developed and delivered at this time. Multiple awards are anticipated to ensure that competition will be available for the individual task orders.

Question 13. Per RFP Section L Instructions, if our team submits our Volume I electronically via email by the closing date and time, must the 4 hard copies and 2 CDs also arrive by that same date and time?

Government Response: Yes. Reference Amendment 0001 where it was clarified in Paragraph L.1.a that all copies (hard copy and electronic) must be received not later than the proposal due date specified.

Question 14. Please clarify that Volume II only requires 1 electronic copy via email only by closing date and time and with no required hard copies.

Government Response: You are correct that no hard copies are required for this volume. Volume II, to include the Small Business Participation Proposal and the Price Proposal, is only required to be submitted in electronic copy. However, please note that in accordance with L.2.a, the “electronic” copy can be either via CD-RW format or via email.

Question 15. Per RFP Attachment 2, Labor Descriptions, will USACE consider a science degree in geology equivalent to the other discipline areas listed for the Principal Engineer category?

Government Response: Yes. Please reference Amendment 0001 with a revised Attachment 2, Labor Descriptions. The amendment revised the description for both the Principal Engineer and Assistant Engineer to be consistent with the Engineer/Research Associate category which states degrees in “physics and other sciences” to be considered equivalent.

Question 16. Regarding key personnel requirements for the subject solicitation: Will offerors be more highly rated if we propose one each of the Engineer/Research Associate and Assistant Engineer for each technical factor proposed; or are the Engineer/Research Associate and Assistant Engineer considered positions that will provide multi-disciplined/multi-faceted support to all technical factors proposed, regardless of subject matter?

Government Response: In general, the Engineer/Research Associate and Assistant Engineer are considered positions that will provide multi-disciplined/multi-faceted support to all technical factors proposed, regardless of subject matter. However, please reference Section M.3.a of the solicitation regarding the evaluation of personnel qualifications which states that the focus will primarily be on the quality of the personnel identified as Subject Matter Expert (SME) 1 and 2 for each technical area proposed. It is presumed that if the SMEs are highly qualified, it would be unlikely that the expertise of the Engineer/Research Associate or Assistant Engineer would significantly affect the ratings. However, if the SMEs have gaps in expertise, the Engineer/Research Associate or Assistant Engineer could help to fill those gaps along with the Principal Engineer to a greater extent, although the primary importance would remain on the SMEs. Please note that all evaluations are subjective in nature and it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit their most valuable proposal to the Government.