U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Request for Information (RFI) Regarding the Next Generation of EPA’s Superfund Remediation Acquisition Framework (RAF) Contracts Attachment, "RFI - Body" includes identical information as found below, however may be more easily read from a formatting standpoint. Request for Information (RFI) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is posting these draft requirements (see attachments) and questions to obtain feedback from industry to help shape the next generation of contracts supporting the Superfund Remedial Program. EPA’s goal is to increase the performance-based aspects of the requirements, providing more flexibility to contractors in how work is performed while ensuring EPA receives the necessary services/deliverables. Contractors are welcome to make Track Changes within the attached draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) and resubmit recommendations back to the agency for consideration. Additionally, EPA has included a list of questions below on specific topics for feedback. It is the Government’s intent to use the recommendations and feedback received from industry to help better inform the strategic direction of the procurement process (e.g. requirement refinement, improvement, or clarification), but is under no obligation to incorporate any proposed changes into the final PWS. All information and documentation posted under this notice is preliminary in nature and may be updated or amended prior to the release of the formal solicitation. The agency intends to post draft solicitations for each requirement at a later date for industry questions and/or feedback. Additionally, EPA is developing an external-facing website to enable future posting of information and facilitate communication. It is EPA’s hope the website will be used not only to facilitate communication between EPA and industry regarding the next generation of contracts, but also be a useful resource for intra-industry communication for Prime/Sub relationship building. A future notification will be posted when the external website is operational. This notice does not constitute a formal solicitation. Once a solicitation is posted, all responsible sources may submit a proposal which will be considered by the agency. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay any cost incurred in response to this notice; all costs associated with responding to this notice will solely be at the interested parties’ expense. Any information provided by industry to the Government as a result of this notice is voluntary. Not responding to this notice does not preclude participation in any future solicitation(s). The questions in this RFI are for market research and information-gathering purposes only. They do not reflect final agency requirements, preferences, or decisions, and shall not be construed as a commitment by the Agency to any particular acquisition strategy, scope, contract type, or solicitation content. Basic information on the current Remedial Acquisition Framework (RAF) program and contracts is located at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/remedial-acquisition-framework. EPA will not post any of the responses received for these questions. Only submissions made via FedConnect by the closing date/time are permitted. NO EMAILS. NO PHONE CALLS. NO OTHER SUBMISSION METHODS AUTHORIZED. The Agency may use Super Intelligence (SI) tools to analyze or summarize industry responses; however, Government personnel will review all submissions and make all decisions. Point of Contact (POC) by Suite: Design and Engineering Services (DES) Contracting Officer – Zachary Slater, slater.zachary@epa.gov Environmental Services and Operations (ESO) Contracting Officer – Megan Wallace, wallace.megan@epa.gov Remediation Environmental Services (RES) Contracting Officer – Tiffany Cooper, cooper.tiffanyd@epa.gov Codes for services: Primary Service Code- F108, Principal NAICS Code 562910 (1,000 employees) Description: See attached Draft Performance Work Statements (PWSs) SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: • Use track changes directly in the respective suite PWS. • Use the attached template to submit responses in a uniform format. o Where applicable to responses, provide a clear crosswalk reference to the exact suite PWS (e.g., DES Task 1, Subtask 1.3) o Do not change the font style or size, margins o Do not rearrange the order or numbering of the topics and questions • Please limit responses to the topics identified in this RFI. The Agency is seeking industry input on these topics only at this time; additional opportunities to ask questions will be provided later in the acquisition process. QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY: Topic 1: Geographic Structure & Competition EPA is considering awarding multiple award contracts based upon four (4) geographic zones (Regions 1–3; 4+6; 5+7; 8–10) based on regional profiles and programmatic needs. Vendor pools may be limited per suite and per zone to ensure meaningful participation and reduce task order award cycle time. 1. If broken out into these four zones, what zone(s) would your firm compete for award? 2. How will this 4-zone structure impact your firm’s ability to staff, compete, and price work compared to the current 3-zone structure (1-3, 4-7, 8-10)? 3. If awarded a contract, would limiting the number of awards within each zone to five contracts increase your firm’s likelihood of competing for task orders (versus if the pool were larger)? 4. If you were awarded a contract, what contract structures, incentives, or support measures would encourage you to actively compete in all task orders for which you are qualified? Topic 2: Contract Pricing Structure & Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA) As demonstrated by the draft PWSs, EPA is exploring broader use of performance-based services and opportunities to leverage fixed-price components where tasks areas can be sufficiently defined. 1. Which, if any, task(s)/subtask(s) are suitable to fixed price? 2. How should EPA structure fixed priced units of measure (e.g., per meeting, per permit, per deliverable)? 3. Are the Results, Context, and Performance standards, as currently written within the draft PWSs, would improve your firm’s ability to execute the work? 4. What assumptions should EPA provide to enable accurate pricing on early stage tasks? Topic 3: Discrete Investigation and Site Cleanup Operations (DISCO) Suite The Agency is considering the addition of another suite of acquisition vehicles, DISCO, to provide rapid response services to support urgent, discrete, and short-term field needs (e.g., single sampling events, installing security fencing, etc.) with the goal of awarding competitively placed task orders within 30-calendar days. EPA acknowledges there is a substantial amount of overlap in scope between ESO and DISCO. 1. If offered, would your company compete for only DISCO, or would it compete for DISCO and ESO? Briefly explain why. 2. From industry’s perspective, what barriers in the current RAF suites make it difficult to compete for urgent task orders and to mobilize into the field after task order award? 3. Have you experienced other contract vehicles that accommodate a 30-calendar day award timeframe? What type of vehicle where they (BOA, BPA, IDIQ, SATOC)? Topic 4: Permits & Access Agreements 1. How do you normally handle permit equivalence, infrequent permits, and routine site access agreements? 2. Which elements of permitting and access should EPA standardize vs. leave to regional discretion? Topic 5: Data Validation Responsibilities 1. How should contractor responsibilities for regional lab/Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data validation be scoped to avoid redundant cost? 2. Do you have any recommendations as to how the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) development could be sped up or standardized to enable quicker deployment to sites? Topic 6: General 1. Is there any other relevant, PWS related information not pertaining to acquisition award timeframe that you'd like share? 2. Do you have any concerns or recommendations on the use of super intelligence (SI) in the administration of the contracts (either by EPA or the contractor)?
