Geological and Terrain Characterization for Test and Evaluation

Added: Nov 08, 2016 6:31 pm Amendment - 0006 This amendment is being issued to provide a response to questions received from the industry.

(1) According to Amendment 0005, added at Nov 07:
Signed sponsor consent letters are in PDF form (scanned), and cannot inserted into Word with signatures unless the letters are copied as PNG image into the Word file (with reduced clarity). Is this acceptable? Alternately Vol 3 can be submitted as a single complete PDF.

A: The proposal should be submitted as indicated in the RFP on page 37 (Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel). The method described within the question will meet the requirements within the RFP.

(2) Should supporting document text for Vol 4 (e.g. table of contents, list of acronyms, budget description) be added into a single excel workbook file (e.g. as separate worksheets with embedded text) with only a single excel file submitted OR should volume 4 have a word doc for supporting documentation and a separate excel file with budget information?

A: The proposal should be submitted as indicated in the RFP on page 37 (Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel). Both methods described in the question will meet the requirements within the RFP

Added: Nov 07, 2016 5:53 pm Amendment 0005- This amendment is issued to provide a response to questions received from the industry.

(1) Is this proposal to be uploaded as a single PDF on the SAFE site (page 36) or as Word, Powerpoint, Excel as indicated in the RFP page 37?

A: The proposal should be submitted as indicated in the RFP on page 37 (Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel).

(2) Are we to submit the full proposal both electronically and have 3 hard copies delivered by the deadline time/date?

A: You are required to submit the full proposal both electronically and have 3 hard copies delivered by the deadline time/date.

(3) Where would a budget description/narrative be included and is this required?

A: You can submit your budget description within the pricing volume of the proposal.

Added: Nov 01, 2016 5:16 pm Amendment 0004 - This amendment is issued to provide a response to questions received from the industry. 


(1) Text for PRS #1 (in Technical Exhibit 1) states 'contractor shall provide workshops'; however, under Section 5. Specific Tasks, Task 5.2.1 suggests only 1 workshop be proposed ('a workshop'). Should proposed activities account for only one workshop, or multiple workshops?
 

Response to question # 1: The proposed activities should account for multiple workshops.

(2) On page 84 of the RFP document, there is a list of Submission Requirements for the Past Performance Volume:

For number (4), Client Authorization Letters, are you requiring official letters from us, the Offeror, giving authorization to the U.S. government to contact our previous clients? Not letters from the clients themselves? Do you have a specific format for these letters? If the letter is from us we are assuming the letter should contain the specific contact information of the previous clients?

Response to questions # 2: Yes, we are requiring official letters from the offeror. The Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance (PROPOSAL SUBMISSION c. Volume III - Past Performance (i)). We do not have a specific letter type or format for these letters. Yes, the letter should contain the specific contact information of previous clients.

(3) Past Performance: text: 'the offeror shall not go back any further than 3 years from the issue date ...... for submitted data'. We read this as that if any project that was active during this 3 year interval is eligible to be included. In other words any project started BEFORE 11/13 and that is currently active or was completed after 11/13 can be provided as an example of past- performance. The alternative interpretation is that only projects that fully started AFTER 11/13 are eligible for examples of past performance. Please advise as to the correct interpretation.

Response to question # 3: If it was an ongoing effort that fell within the 3 years from the date of RFP issued the past performance should be adequate.

Added: Oct 19, 2016 12:31 pm

Amendment 0003-  This amendment is issued to provide a response to questions received from the industy as followed:

1) I never did receive an answer from you as to why this was not now posted as a Small Business project. Was our prior submittal not adequate? Were there not enough submittals? I am just looking for information so as to better prepare ourselves for the next opportunity. Any info appreciated.

Response: 1) We cannot disclose information regarding the acquisition planning stage of this acquisition.

2) Is (was) there an existing contractor for this type of project for the US Army (Yuma) in the past couple of years? I should think this would be public information, though perhaps not all of the particular task assignments. If so, are they allowed to bid again for this contract? I ask because perhaps I could contact them for teaming opportunities.

Response: 2) The prior contractor was Desert Research Institute under contract number W9124R-11-D-0211. You must submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain more information.

3) In our prior submittal, I pointed out that the Task Descriptions were really too broadly presented to allow us to formulate a specific scope and cost proposal for each Task. I was hoping that in this actual solicitation they would be better defined and specific priorities assigned. Unfortunately, the document is essentially identical with respect to the tasks. Is there any expectation that a more defined and prioritized research program will be forthcoming?

Response: 3) The Army's intent is for an offeror to provide the government with the latest technology in the characterization of soils and how they affect military material. It is the offeror's responsibility to come up with the specifics for the government to evaluate.

4) There is discussion of support for the Test Center's facilities other than Yuma, but there is nothing specific enough from which to develop a cost for such tasks. How would one budget for such visits, meetings, or actual work programs?

Response: 4) It is an offeror's responsibility to develop and propose an estimate or processes.

5) Is there any plan for an on-site presentation/discussion of the scope of work by the Army at Yuma, i.e. a pre-proposal meeting before the submittal?

Response 5) No, there is not.

Added: Oct 12, 2016 10:30 am This amendment is to provide a response date of 10 November 2016.

Added: Sep 22, 2016 12:34 pm Mission and Installation Contracting Command - Yuma Proving Ground, AZ anticipates issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Contractor to provide Geological and Terrain Characterization Service in support of the United States Army Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The Contractor will be required to provide non-personal support services for the following areas: Terrain Analysis needs to support Test and Evaluation, Degraded Visual Environment Technology, Develop Digital Map Data for Selected Vehicle Test Courses, Test Site Comprehensive Characterization of soil and Terrain Processes, Environmental Effects Characterization for Counter Improvised Explosive Device(C-IED) and buried Munition Systems Evaluation, and Catalog of Analogs for Global Military Environments. Procurement will be solicited as unrestricted. The Government anticipates a Firm-Fixed-Price contract award. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 541380 - Laboratory Testing, with a size standard of $15M. Prospective contractors shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to be eligible to receive an award from solicitation. For more information, visit the website at https://www.sam.gov/index.html/. The anticipated posting date of the solicitation is no sooner than 15 days after the publication of this notice. Upon release to the public, the solicitation as well as any amendments will be available on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at: https://www.fbo.gov. The solicitation will specify the actual date and time for proposal receipt. The primary point of contact is Ms. Latasha Isaac, email: latasha.a.isaac.civ@mail.mil or 928-328-6162. The secondary point of contact is Ms. Tejae Craig, e-mail:tejae.craig.civ@mail.mil or 928-328-6903. Telephone inquiries will NOT be entertained.