Frequent Questions from RAF Contractors

The following are frequent questions from Remedial Acquisition Framework (RAF) contractors.

1. What is Fair Opportunity?
   Fair opportunity is the process by which EPA allows contractors to compete for the work it requires. Under Fair Opportunity the CO must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be consider for each order.
    
2. How does EPA decide which contract vehicle to use?
   We view our contract vehicles and strategy options as tools in our toolbelt.  The team decides together what is the best strategy and/or vehicle to procure the requirement under, whether that be RAF, an IA with USACE, a site-specific contract, or something else.
    
3. What is the plan regarding the RAF Options?
   EPA plans on exercising the RAF Options, and Contractors will be notified in accordance with FAR 17.207, Exercise of Options.
    
4. How do Requests for Equitable Adjustments work under RAF?
   There is a framework for requesting equitable adjustments (REA) within each RAF contract. Contracting Officers will review any submitted REAs in accordance with FAR Part 43 and in accordance with the terms of the contract.
    
5. What is EPA doing to ensure consistency under RAF?
   The EPA strives to be consistent when appropriate and when it make sense. We also need to remain flexible to meet Regional-specific requirements. The following are some ways in which we have made improvements in our consistency.
   • ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Focusing selection criteria on the most critical elements of the project, in accordance with FAR 36.602-1, for DES only.
   • Building repositories for key acquisition documents (e.g., SOWs, IGCEs and other).
   • Asking contractors via a capacity questionnaire if they can meet key personnel and staff requirements.
   • Identifying opportunities to simplify price schedule/contract line-item number (CLIN) structure to the extent possible.
      
6. How does EPA decide when to use LPTA?
   The decision to potentially use LPTA is based on many factors such as: the complexity of the procurement, the expected price/cost competition, period of performance, and historical factors.
    
7. What is EPA’s decision process when choosing between ESO and RES on Remedial Action projects?
   The acquisition planning team reviews the task order requirements in conjunction with a review of the contract level SOW for the ESO and RES suite of contracts and selects the contract that aligns the best with the task order SOW.
    
8. Has EPA reconsidered their stance on providing debriefs on task order procurements (win or lose)?
   In accordance with FAR Part 16.505(b), the Agency is not required to provide a debriefing to offerors for orders under $5.5M. Individual Contracting Officers can determine whether to conduct a debriefing if not required by FAR.
    
9. We are aware that EPA intends to transition all Superfund Program work under the RAF suite of contracts; however, specific EPA regions have had long-standing relationships with various US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) districts supporting them with RA (RES-type) work under the RACs. Does EPA intend to use USACE to continue to support Superfund work?
   As set forth in FAR Part 7, Acquisition Planning, FAR Part 8, Required Sources of Supplies, FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, etc., the acquisition planning team has a number of considerations in determining the best acquisition approach for a particular requirement. The use of the USACE is one of the options that can be considered in determining the best acquisition approach for Agency requirements.
    
10. Could EPA discuss the SF 330 review process with contractors? Other than a pdf word search, is there a software that EPA uses for evaluating SF 330s? Also, for the word searches, does EPA use spelled out terms like Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study or their commonly known acronyms (RI/FS)? Is there any additional guidance EPA could provide to contractors to help us improve our SF 330 updates to assist the EPA?
    The updated SF330s are stored in a database. The PDFs are word searchable. Regions conduct both acronyms and full word searches.
     
11. Does EPA have an obligation to respond to all contractor questions? On more than one occasion, EPA has not responded to all of the questions we have submitted on an RFO despite the questions being submitted within the specified timeframe. It seems that answering all of the questions of some contractors and not others would create an unfair advantage.
    EPA will provide a response to all questions; however, we may not provide an answer to each. Questions will be acknowledged with at least a statement of "EPA will clarify assumption at time of RFTOP." All questions and responses will be shared, without authorship, to all contractors.
     
12. Communication on Fair Opportunity Requests - We have been asked to submit additional information on numerous opportunities and we are happy to do so; however, we have only heard back on the sites for which we were selected. In the spirit of partnership with EPA, we request EPA increase communication with contractors who have submitted on fair opportunities requests. Because we are investing our time and dollars to compete for these task orders we are, at a minimum, requesting notification when we are not selected. If we were to receive debriefs, as was promised in the initial DES kick-off meeting, it would specifically help us be more competitive on future opportunities, thereby increasing the overall competition on the contract, which is EPA’s goal.
    Award notifications are provided in accordance with FAR 36.6. If you are not receiving this notification, reach out to the Contracting Officer for the task order. Per FAR Part 36.607, a debriefing is not required for task orders issued but may be considered when practicable. Individual Contracting Officers can determine whether to conduct a debriefing if not required by FAR.
     
13. Fed Connect and Need for Redundancy- Notifications of fair opportunities are sometimes by email and sometimes by Fed Connect. Also, as was noted in the last RAF contractor partnership meeting, there are continuing issues with the Fed Connect system in terms of accepting transmission of completed proposals from the contractor to EPA as well as communication from EPA to the contractor. This is not an issue with the RAF contractor’s or EPA’s ability to use Fed Connect, but a system issue with Fed Connect. We would like to suggest that EPA and the contractors use both email and Fed Connect to transmit the required information. This will provide redundancy and ensure that the requested information is transmitted in a timely fashion to the contracting officer and the contractor. Is EPA willing to implement this type of redundancy?
    It is a requirement of the EPA Acquisition Guide Part 4.5.2.5 that Contracting Officers use FedConnect as the communications portal for its current and potential contractors, and FedConnect is required for use for all procurement actions (including sole source) over the micropurchase threshold (see 4.5.2.7 for solicitation exemptions). Use of email will not be considered, as it is duplicative and additional work for the Contracting Officers. If a contractor is experiencing technical issues with FedConnect, they should contact the FedConnect help desk to resolve the issue.
     
14. Appropriate use of RAF contracts- Many of the ESO RFOs that have been issued involve providing technical oversight support and other highly-qualified professional services and not operational/maintenance or other long-term field remedial action type services. In addition, when we were preparing our ESO contract wide proposals in 2016, it was indicated to us that the ESO contract would be used for non-complex/straightforward PRP oversight task orders and that the more complicated PRP oversight task orders would be procured under DES. As further evidence of this, the pricing categories under ESO did not allow for the pricing for the highly qualified professionals (experts) being required now under many ESO solicitations. For example, a recent RFO indicated that the Government would need technical oversight services including "producing site documents to support discovery activities; preparing for the provision of expert testimony during litigation; attending and assisting in negotiation sessions and meetings" as well as the need for other experts in speciation and fate and transport. These types of highly specialized technical skills at clearly complex sites we believe were intended to be procured under the DES suite of contracts. Unlike the ESO contract, the DES contracts were clearly designed for technical experts to be utilized to support EPA for expert testimony and high-end analysis at complex Superfund sites. Can you please explain the process that EPA implements when deciding which suite of RAF contracts are to be utilized for varying task orders and is EPA using the complexity of the site as a criterion?
    The acquisition planning team reviews the task order requirements in conjunction with a review of the contract level SOW for the ESO and DES suite of contracts and selects the contract that aligns the best with the task order SOW. This feedback will be shared with the Regions for consideration as appropriate.
     
15. Communication- Under the RES program, we have responded to a couple of RFI requests with our own funds. It would be appreciated if EPA would communicate back to contractors who have responded to RFIs with status updated regarding the potential opportunity. Is EPA willing to do this?
    EPA may provide updates from time to time for all contractors. When clarity in project dates becomes apparent, EPA will share that information.
     
16. RAF is a new contracting strategy for EPA and many of the contractors. What process will EPA apply to determine what constitutes a reasonable price? How will innovative solutions be considered and/or quantified?
    Price Analysis and Realism are defined in the FAR. RAF does not change how EPA evaluates price proposals or innovative solutions.
     
17. Is it recommended that oversight TOs be awarded as Time and Materials (T&M) rather than Fixed Price contracts because of the highly variable nature of the work requested, inherent uncertainty of the project schedules due to reliance on PRP schedules and deliverables, and other cost drivers that are unknown at the time of the RFO?
    The acquisition planning team reviews the task order requirements in order to determine the most appropriate contract type for the task order. The solicitation issued reflects the type of contract determined to be most appropriate for the task order. During the solicitation phase of the task order, the contractors may ask questions about the structure of the solicitation if needed.
     
18. Since many of the contracts were not utilized in the first year, can the contracts be extended one year?
    No, the Contracts will remain with a 5-year base period and 5-year option period.
     
19. Could EPA discuss the SF 330 review process with contractors? Other than a pdf word search, is there a software that EPA uses for evaluating SF 330s? Also, for the word searches, does EPA use spelled out terms like Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study or their commonly known acronyms (RI/FS)? Is there any additional guidance EPA could provide to contractors to help us improve our SF 330 updates to assist the EPA?
    The evaluation team will review the firm’s key capabilities and qualification in the SF330s and make the determination if additional questions are necessary. The evaluation team reserves its right to only evaluate the information in the SF330s and not ask for additional information.