1)  Will Filter Packs be provided by EPA in addition to the GFE list
    provide in the RFP?

> [Response:]{.underline} Yes. There is a current inventory of an
> estimated 500 filterpacks; however, the filterpacks are considered
> Contractor Acquired Government Property. Also see response to Question
> #90.
>
> The filter pack is available from SAVILLEX and consists of the
> following assembled parts:
>
> 1\. Inlet "A" on page 31 P/N 410-10-47 which is a 1-^1^/~2~" open
> inlet 47mm
>
> 2\. Outlet "K" on page 32 P/N 411-31-47 which is ^1^/~4~\" MNPT
> fitting 47mm
>
> 3\. Clamp "I"  on page 32 P/N 412-22-47 Gray, PFA, extended 47mm
>
> 4\. Grids "F" on page 32 P/N 414-47 47mm (four each is used)
>
> 5\. Support Ring "D" on page 31 P/N 413-47 47 mm filter support ring
> (three each is used)
>
> 6\. A ¼" low flow brass fitting P/N 50785K92 from McMaster Carr is
> attached to Outlet "K" using Teflon tape and a stainless steel
> Swagelok quick connect (SS-QC6-54PM-K6) from Georgia Valve & Fitting
> is attached to it.

2)  Are the OCI and Property Management Plans to be included in the Cost
    Proposal Volume?

> [Response:]{.underline} Yes.

3)  Referring to Section M.4.4 of the RFP, Proposed Quality Management
    Plan (QMP), should subfactors A-C be addressed in an attachment to
    the QMP? If not, then which section(s) of the QMP should include the
    required discussions of these subfactors?

> [Response]{.underline}: The decision is left to the offeror. However,
> M.4.4 states:
>
> The Quality Management Plan shall comply with "EPA Requirements for
> Quality Management Plans," EPA QA/R-2 \[EPA/240/B-01/002\]. The EPA
> will utilize the checklist for reviewing Quality Management Plans
> available at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/qmp/checklist.pdf

4)  Section M.4 of the Evaluation Criteria, 1. D Technical Approach
    item (D) indicates that some portion of the SOW will be Level of
    Effort. Please identify which tasks are level of effort.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to add the
> appropriate Level of Effort clauses to the solicitation. Please see
> revised Statement of Work, Task 18 for more details.

5)  The PM-related tasks, the NADP and IMPROVE Tasks are not clearly
    delineated in the evaluation criteria as the dry deposition, ozone
    and NCore tasks are. Please clarify.

> [Response]{.underline}: The PM-related tasks are included within
> subfactor (C) of the evaluation factors on Page M-2 of 6. The NADP and
> IMPROVE tasks will not be evaluated as they are considered relatively
> minor portions of the work.

6)  Referring to Attachment 8, Section D.4, of the RFP, should
    subcontractor Quality Management Plans (QMPs) be included as
    attachments to the prime contractor's QMP?

> [Response]{.underline}: This is a business decision left to the
> offeror's discretion.

7)  Are the prime contractor QMP and subcontractor QMPs included in the
    technical proposal page count?

> [Response]{.underline}: No. The solicitation has been amended to
> exclude the QMP from the technical proposal's 200 page limit.

8)  Referring to Section M.4.6 of the RFP, are offerors required to
    submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) with the proposal?
    Section E.1, page E-2, B. Post Award Documentation states that a
    QAPP is due after contract award. Please clarify.

> [Response]{.underline}: No. Contractors are directed to Page 1-7 and
> 1-8 of 32 of the Statement of Work for full details of the QAAP.

9)  There are over 3000 items on the GFP/GFE list. Although some are
    located at current CASTNet sampling sites, many items are not. Where
    are the items not listed at current CASTNet sites located?

> [Response]{.underline}: The unlisted items are currently stored at the
> incumbent's warehouse in Newberry, FL.

10) How does the Government intend to transfer items that are not at the
    CASTNet sites to the successful bidder?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors are directed to Page M-4 of 6,
> evaluation criteria number four, Proposed Quality Management,
> subfactor (c), which includes the evaluation of the offeror's
> transition plan. Offerors are expected to include transfer of those
> items in their transition plan.

11) Please provide an estimate of square footage or cubic footage needed
    to store the items not at CASTNet sites?

> [Response]{.underline}: The indoor storage required to store items not
> at CASTNET sites is approximately 2000 sq ft. The outdoor storage
> required to store items not at CASTNET sites is approximately 5000 sq
> ft.

12) The GFP/GFE list provided does not show any EPA property tag
    numbers, original costs, or current condition codes as is the case
    with other EPA property lists. Please provide the official CASTNet
    property list that includes the needed information.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to attach an
> updated GFP/GFE list, including EPA property tag numbers, original
> costs, and current condition codes where available, is provided in
> Attachment 2.

13) The first bulleted item in Section 1.1.1 of Attachment 1 of the RFP
    states that the contractor must provide "data security in compliance
    with the EPA requirements for external data systems." Please provide
    offerors with the document that contains these specific
    requirements.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to include
> Data security guidance for external data systems, contained in
> Attachment 9 (EPA Information Security Manual) and 10 (Agency Network
> Security Policy).

14) Please provide the user manual, software requirements and other
    documentation for the Visual Basic data management application
    mentioned in Section 1.1.1 of the Statement of Work.

> [Response]{.underline}: The System Application user manual and any
> software requirements are contained in Appendix 6 of the CASTNET QAPP.

15) With respect to the third party audits mentioned in Section 1.9 of
    the RFP, please describe how these are planned, scheduled with the
    offeror and executed.

> [Response]{.underline}: The audit program is documented in the CASTNET
> Audit Program QAPP available at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs

16) *(Revised)* In order to estimate the labor hour demands for the
    administration, modification, and management of the CASTNET
    database, does the EPA have existing documentation available for the
    following items: (QUAAP references, where applicable, are noted in
    the parentheses.)

    a.  Functional Requirements (1.3.1.4 and 1.5.1) --request modified
        to the following

> Section 1.3.1.4 states:
>
> "The CASTNET data are managed and analyzed using Microsoft® (MS)
> structured query language (SQL) Server™ 7.0, a fully relational
> database management system (RDBMS). [Defined SQL tables are used to
> archive all measurements and supporting data.]{.underline}"
>
> *The specific request is to get copies of the SQL statements that are
> user to generate the daily reports and to archive the measurement and
> supporting data.*

b.  Verification and Validation procedures (1.3.1.4.1 - Levels 1, 2, and
    3 ; 4.3, ) no longer required -- alternative reference to be used

c.  Database Schema (4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, and 4.2.1.3) -- EPA response
    expected

d.  Data Dictionary (4.2.1.1) -- EPA response expected

e.  Design documents (4.2.1.1)

    i.  page layout, -- no longer required

    ii. report layout, (4.6.1) - covered in section a

    iii. queries, - covered in section a

    iv. table layout, -- no longer required

    v.  error handling, and -- no longer required

    vi. reference tables -- no longer required

f.  Source Code (4.2.2.2) - -- no longer required

g.  Test Plan ( 1.3.1.5, 4.3.4.1 and 4.3.7.1 ) no longer required --
    alternative reference to be used

h.  Configuration Management Plan (4.2.2.2.1 and 4.2.3) -- no longer
    required -- alternative reference to be used

i.  User Manuals (4.3.7.4) -- EPA response expected

All references are from the

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

Revision 4.0 June 2007

(prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.)

Section 1.3.1.4 -- page 9 of 21 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 1.3.4.1 -- page 9 of 21 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 1.5.1 -- page 15 of 21 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June 2007

Section 4.2.1.1 -- page 3 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 4.2.1.2 -- page 4 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 4.2.1.3 -- page 4 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 4.2.2.2 -- page 6 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 4.2.3 -- page 7 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June 2007

Section 4.3.7.1 -- page 33 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

Section 4.3.7.4 -- page 34 of 47 Revision 4.0 Section Number 1.0 June
2007

> [Response]{.underline}: EPA does not require the offeror to manage
> their data in a specific schema or data base management system (DBMS),
> so long as it conforms to accepted good data management practices.
> Likewise, EPA does not require the daily reports to be in any specific
> format or structure, so long as the data transmission is documented,
> consistent, complete (i.e., all data collected in the previous day is
> transferrred) and compatible with EPA\'s DBMS. EPA has provided the
> existing schema as SQL defined tables and functional code used by the
> incumbent contractor in their data management application.
>
> Because the SQL statements used to generate the daily reports and
> archive data are dependent on the configuration of the offeror\'s
> proposed DBMS and their proposed vehicle for transmission (e.g. FTP of
> ASCII data, binary exports or SQL\*NET), EPA cannot provide SQL
> statements that would be appropriate for all proposed systems. For
> example, the table structure of the existing CASTNET data tables are
> in a semi-relational form. The offeror may propose a more efficient
> relational organization of the tables and the SQL statements for the
> daily reports would be entirely different from those used in the
> existing schema.
>
> The solicitation has been amended to include the database schema and
> data dictionary of the current EPA CASTNET database, described in
> Attachments 11 and 12. Furthermore, the solicitation has been amended
> to include the source code of the System Application is contained in
> Attachment 13. The other available supporting documents pertaining to
> these topics are contained in Appendix 6 of the CASTNET QAPP.

17) Are offerors required to populate Section B of the solicitation,
    including clause B.1 with the proposed labor categories and
    corresponding fixed hourly rates for each term of the contract?

> [Response:]{.underline} The information will be entered at the time of
> contract award.

18) Will the second sentence in clause B.2 be populated with the
    successful offeror's total proposed contract cost for the base
    period? How will option periods be addressed?

> [Response]{.underline}: To answer both questions, the information will
> be entered at the time of contract award based upon the successful
> offeror's proposal.

19) With respect to clause B.3, what are the categories of other direct
    costs that are intended to be listed under this clause?

> [Response]{.underline}: The information will be entered at the time of
> contract award based upon the successful offeror's proposal.

20) Will the monetary amounts to be listed under clause B.3 for each
    category of other direct costs be derived from information found in
    the successful offeror's cost proposal? If so, please explain what
    offerors are to provide.

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, the information will be entered at the
> time of contract award based upon the successful offeror's proposal.
> Offerors shall provide their estimated Other Direct Costs.

21) Will the EPA consider removing clause G.4 in its entirety from the
    solicitation, recognizing the nature of this fixed rate Indefinite
    Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract? Alternatively, will the
    Government consider refraining from including in this clause, the
    table found under paragraph (b) that identities the contractor's
    proprietary provisional indirect billing rates and the table found
    under paragraph (c) that identifies the ceilings established on the
    contractor's indirect rates for use on this contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, the EPA will not consider removing clause
> G.4 and, alternatively, the EPA will not consider removing the
> portions of (b) and (c) mentioned above. However, it should be noted
> that information received in a proposal is considered
>
> confidential business information.

22) With regard to clause H.7, will the maximum dollar amount column of
    information be populated with the successful offeror's total
    proposed cost for each option period?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, it will be populated with the successful
> offeror's total proposed cost for each option period.

23) Are offerors required to complete H.8 that addresses small
    disadvantaged business targets?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, offerors do not complete the government's
> clauses, but, as a reminder, SB & SDB utilization is included as an
> evaluation factor for award.

24) What is the applicable NAICS code for this solicitation?

> [Response]{.underline}: The applicable NAICS code for this
> solicitation is 541620, Environmental Consulting Services.

25) With regard to clause H.17, are offerors required to populate the
    names of its key personnel corresponding to the specified labor
    category positions found in this clause?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, offerors are not expected to complete EPA
> clauses. The clause will be completed with information obtained from
> the successful offeror's proposal.

26) With respect to clause I.10, what are the classes of service
    employees who are expected to be employed under the contract? Please
    identify the employee class and monetary wage/fringe benefits for
    each of these positions.

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors are expected to submit a proposal
> that adheres to the minimums of the Service Contract Act, applicable
> to the classes of service employees which the offeror proposes.

27) For use in pricing the non-exempt labor category positions on the
    CASTNET Program which will be covered by the Service Contract Act,
    what are the applicable Wage Determinations for the work
    contemplated to be performed under this contract? Will these Wage
    Determinations be incorporated into the attachments to the
    solicitation?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to include
> the geographic regions that the work will be performed in by either
> the successful contractor or their subcontractor and a link to the DOL
> website where wage determinations for those regions can be obtained.

28) What are the maximum dollar amounts for ODCs corresponding to each
    term of the contract that offerors are to include in their cost
    proposals per section L.14? Are offerors required to price in the
    cost proposal (Attachment 8, Table 3 ) the ODC minimum as well as
    the ODC maximum amounts set forth in this provision?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> the provided estimated ODC figure of \$97,298. The offerors are
> expected to provide both minimum and maximum ODC amounts in their cost
> proposal. Furthermore, the solicitation has also been amended to
> remove Table 3 in attachment 8.

29) Are there any maximum amounts applicable to the estimated costs for
    land leases and/or utilities? If so, what are they?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, the total cost for utilities is \$35,000
> per year and the total cost for land leases is \$55,000 per year.

30) In Attachment 1, SOW, should the Task 16 entitled "Acquisition and
    Management of NPS Data" be renumbered as Task 17, since there is
    another Task 16 that corresponds to the "Operation of IMPROVE Site"
    and it is referred to as Task 17 in Table 1, page 8-3 of Attachment
    8? If so, will the remaining tasks be renumbered accordingly?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Task 16 "Acquisition and Management of NPS Data" to be renumbered as
> Task 17. In addition, Task 17 "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and
> Deployment Support" will be renumbered as Task 18.

31) Table 1 on page 8-3 of Attachment 8 is missing the Task entitled
    "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and Deployment Support" -- should
    this task be included in Table 1? Will Table 1 be revised based on
    these corrections?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, Task 18 is a Level of Effort task,
> separate from the Fixed-Rate Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
> tasks listed in Table 1 "Assumed Number of Units for Solicitation."

32) Table 1 on page 8-3 of Attachment 8 indicates a number of CLINs. How
    do these CLINS relate to the CLINS (Labor Categories) listed in
    section B.1 of the RFP? How are these CLINs to be incorporated into
    Table 3 of Attachment 8?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8. Furthermore, the solicitation has been
> amended to link the CLINs in B.1 of the RFP to Table 1 of Attachment
> 8.

33) Should the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be included in both
    the technical proposal and the cost proposal, or should it be
    included in the cost proposal only?

> [Response]{.underline}: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should
> be included in both the technical proposal and the cost proposal.
> Offerors are reminded to include only the percentage involvement of
> SBs and SDBs in the plan submitted with the technical proposal and to
> insure that dollar figures are left out of that plan.

34) The technical proposal instructions appear to contain pricing
    assumptions in paragraphs B. and C. that are directly related to the
    cost proposal. Will the Government consider restructuring the
    proposal preparation instructions such that the assumptions
    applicable to the cost proposal are provided as part of the cost
    proposal instructions?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to transfer
> those portions of (b) and (c) of the technical proposal instructions
> related to cost to the cost proposal.

35) What does the Government require offerors to provide in its pricing
    information included in the cost proposal to satisfy the stated
    requirements concerning the following statement found in paragraph
    B: "The Contractor shall provide a proposal for the Core operations
    of the CASTNET Program (Task 1) with the additional Required Tasks
    proposed and priced individually. In preparing costs estimates for
    the additional tasks, the Contractor shall compensate for any
    additional costs to the Core program (Task 1) incurred by adding the
    additional task at one site."?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to change
> the phrasing in section B. Statement of Work Organization to:
>
> The Contractor shall provide a proposal for the Core operations of the
> CASTNET Program (Task 1) with Tasks 2-17 proposed and priced
> individually. In preparing cost estimates for Tasks 2-17, the
> Contractor is reminded that they shall compensate for any additional
> cost incurred to the Core operations, by the addition of Tasks 2-17,
> in the individual cost estimates of Tasks 2-17.

36) Will the 90 day transition period need to be priced? If so, will the
    12 month base period actually consist of the 90 day transition
    period and a 9 month performance period?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, to both questions.

37) Do offerors need to price both the minimum and maximum number of
    units provided in Attachment 8, Table 1, page 8-3 entitled "Assumed
    Number of Units for Solicitation"? If so, does the pricing need to
    be broken down on a task by task basis with an overall summary for
    each term of the contract using the cost model provided in Table 3
    on page 8-10 of the Section II Cost Proposal -- Specific
    Instructions?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation.

38) Should a separate Table 3 be completed for the Core and each task,
    as well as for each contract year?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation.

39) Should a separate Table 3 be completed for each subcontractor (for
    the Core Task and each additional task)?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation.

40) Table 3 of the proposal instructions indicate that offerors are to
    price 174,000 hours for the base year and 600,500 hours or each
    option year. If the same tasks are to be priced each year, why is
    there such a large difference in the hours for the base year versus
    each option year?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation.

41) If the offeror's estimate of the hours required to perform the work
    are significantly different from the hours estimated in Table 3, how
    should these hours be priced?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation.

42) Section L.15 indicates that the total evaluated quantities (plus
    other direct costs) will represent the maximum that may be ordered
    under a resulting contract. The total hours to be used to price
    these quantities are being prescribed in Table 3 of Attachment 8,
    which indicates that the hours are being used for Source Evaluation
    and Selection purposes only. How will the Maximum Amount in Section
    B.2 be calculated?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation, which included the reference to hours
> used for source evaluation and selection purposes. B.2 will be
> calculated using information from the successful offeror's proposal.

43) For evaluation purposes, why has the Government only elected to
    provide in the specific instructions for the cost proposal found in
    Section II to Attachment 8 the total number of labor hours to be
    priced for the base and option periods without providing prospective
    offerors with labor category positions to be staffed, labor category
    qualification requirements and hours allocated to each labor
    category position? Without providing this additional information,
    how does the Government plan to evaluate bids submitted by offerors
    recognizing that it is highly likely that each bid will contain a
    completely different staffing mix and different labor qualification
    requirements which will make the Government's evaluation and
    comparison of bids extremely difficult if not impossible? Without
    uniformity between the bids in terms of the staffing mix and labor
    category qualifications, how will the Government compare and
    evaluate the fixed hourly rates proposed by each offeror?

> [Response]{.underline}: It is the government's policy to allow
> offerors the freedom and ability to devise innovative approaches in
> their proposals, rather than dictating business decisions and business
> strategies. The offeror shall submit a staffing mix that supports
> their unique technical approach.

44) Will the Government consider providing offerors with labor category
    positions to be priced, the labor hours for each position and the
    minimum qualification requirements for staffing the labor category
    positions? Restructuring of the solicitation will provide the
    Government with a means of comparing and evaluating the fixed hourly
    labor rates proposed by each offeror on an apples to apples basis.
    This approach will also greatly reduce the likelihood for bid
    protests due to ambiguous pricing instructions.

> [Response]{.underline}: See response to Question #43.

45) If Government's stated min and max quantities of samples are to be
    priced in accordance with Section I, paragraph C to the Attachment 8
    Proposal Instructions, the labor hours required to perform the
    analyses of the min and max sample quantities will be considerably
    different for performance of the min and max quantities. The
    specific instructions for the cost proposal found in Section II to
    Attachment 8 only require offerors to price 174,000 hours for the
    base period and the 600,500 hours for each option period. If
    offerors are required to price min and max quantities, does the
    174,000 hours for the base period and the 600,500 hours for each
    option period represent the minimum quantity of labor hours or the
    maximum quantity of labor hours to be priced? Assuming the 174,000
    hour and 600,500 hour represents the minimum quantity of hours to be
    priced, what are the maximum number of hours to be priced for the
    base and option periods? Conversely, if the 174,000 hour and 600,500
    hour represents the maximum quantity of hours to be priced, what is
    the minimum number of hours to be priced for the base and option
    periods?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation which contained the references
> instructing offerors to use 174,000 hours and 600,500 hours to price
> their cost proposals.

46) Are laboratory analytical costs included in the Government's total
    estimated labor hours for the base and option periods that are found
    in the specific instructions for the cost proposal in Section II to
    Attachment 8 or are laboratory analytical costs included in the
    Government's stated ODC amounts that are to be priced for evaluation
    purpose in accordance with Section L.14 of the solicitation? Based
    on our past experience, laboratory analytical costs can be priced as
    an ODC based on a fixed unit cost (that is inclusive of labor
    charges) x number of units (samples) or can be based on labor hours
    required to carry out the required analyses plus any purchased
    materials and ODCs for supplies needed to conduct laboratory
    analyses. Depending on how an offeror chooses to price laboratory
    analytical costs, the number of labor hours and ODCs may differ from
    one contractor to the next. Accordingly, one contractor may have
    higher labor hours/costs and correspondingly lower ODC costs with
    another contractor having lower labor costs but higher ODCs for
    satisfying the same requirement. If an offeror proposes to include
    laboratory analytical costs in its ODCs can corresponding a downward
    adjustment be made to the total labor hours to account for the labor
    included in the priced ODCs?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to instruct
> that laboratory analytical costs shall be priced as an ODC based on a
> fixed unit cost that is inclusive of labor and other incidental costs.
> Internal laboratory quality assurance costs (e.g., method blanks,
> replicate runs, and end of run internal standards) shall be
> incorporated into the unit cost. We are looking for (2) unique unit
> costs. The unit bases for these analytical costs shall be 1) one
> filterpack assembly prepared, shipped, received and analyzed from the
> field and 2) one audit sample received and analyzed.

47) Will the EPA extend the proposal submission deadline to 30 days
    after its release of an amendment to the RFP that addresses all
    submitted questions?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to extend
> the proposal due date.

48) Page G-3 of 13 section G.3(b)(2) appears to indicate that if the
    subcontracted effort is not included in the hourly rate, it may be
    reimbursed as an other direct cost (ODC). Page 8-8 of 11 in the
    proposal instructions indicates that "Subcontractors proposed as
    part of the team arrangement shall be billed at the rates specified
    for the prime contractor and not placed under Specialized Labor.
    Only one rate will be utilized for a specified category whether it
    is performed by the prime or a team subcontractor." However the Cost
    Model in Table 3 on page 8-10 of 11 indicates for Line C- Other
    Direct Costs, that CLIN 0006 should include specialized
    Labor/Subcontracts, Misc. ODCs, etc." We have several questions on
    this. A) Can subcontractor costs be placed in ODCs for the purposes
    of providing a cost estimate? B) If the answer to A) is yes, should
    we then use the values listed for evaluation purposes in Section
    L.14 for all subcontractors on the team? C) If the answer to A) is
    no, how will an auditor effectively audit and verify the rates used
    for each labor category since they will be a composite of both the
    prime and all subcontractors rates?

> [Response]{.underline}: G-3 of 13 Section (G.3(b)(2) is part of EPAAR
> clause 1552.232-73). The clause reads, "Subcontracted effort may be
> included in the fixed hourly rates discussed in paragraph (a)(1) of
> this clause and will be reimbursed as discussed in that paragraph."
> Page 8-8 of 11 in the proposal instructions asks that particular
> subcontractor effort, proposed as part of the team arrangement is to
> be billed at fixed hourly rates and not included in ODCs. Thus, the
> subcontracted effort may be included in ODCs, so long as they are not
> part of the team arrangement.

49) Section B.1 indicates that "The Government shall pay the Contractor
    for the life of a delivery order at rates in effect when the
    delivery order was issued, even if performance under the delivery
    order crosses into another period." We are concerned that since the
    contract period is 12 months with options to add additional years,
    it is possible that EPA could modify the delivery date of a delivery
    order originally issued in the base period after the exercise of
    each option year to extend that delivery order from the base period
    until the end of the last option period and thus maintaining the use
    of the base year rate for the entire contract period. We are sure
    that this is not EPA's intent with this clause. What mechanism is
    available to ensure that EPA will not handle delivery orders in this
    manner?

> [Response]{.underline}: FAR 52.216-22 states, "any order issued during
> the effective period of this contract and not completed within that
> period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified
> in that order." The clause places a 180 day ceiling on deliveries
> under the contract after the end of the effective period. Therefore,
> the effective period of an order would be the effective period when
> the order was issued, thus, limiting any order to an additional 180
> day ceiling. New work ordered will always be at the rates in effect at
> the time of ordering.

50) There are a number of places, Page B-2 of 2 and Section L.14, where
    a "to be determined" (TBD) number is indicated. Will these
    quantities be determined by EPA, if so when, or are they to be
    determined by the contractor in the course of his estimate?

> [Response]{.underline}: Portions of the solicitation where TBD or "to
> be determined" appears will be filled in at time of contract award,
> based on the winning proposal.

51) Section L.14 indicates the amounts that offerors should use for
    other direct costs in their proposals for evaluation purposes. It
    also indicates an amount for land leases and utility costs. Should
    the ODC amounts used in the proposal add the land lease and utility
    costs to the ODC minimum values (e.g., \$97,298 + \$55,000 +
    \$35,000) or does the ODC minimum value already include the utility
    and land lease costs? Also does the \$97,298 figure apply to all
    tasks or to each task individually?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> the provided estimated ODC figure of \$97,298. Offerors are expected
> to provide both minimum and maximum ODC amounts in their cost
> proposal.

52) Item 1(D) on page M-2 of 6 indicates that one of the Technical
    Approach evaluation criteria is "Responding to technical direction
    under the Level of Effort Portion of the SOW." In the SOW on page
    1-3 of 32, last sentence of the first paragraph of Task 1 it
    indicates that "Management and costs of the site utilities,
    telemetry (e.g., phone or internet service) and the site land lease
    shall be included as a Level of Effort task and shall not be
    included in costs of this task." We did not see any mention of a
    Level of Effort component in the RFP. Is there also going to be a
    LOE component of the contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, the solicitation has been amended to add
> the appropriate Level of Effort clauses to the solicitation in support
> of Task 18.

53) If there is no LOE component, in order to provide a level playing
    field for all offerors, will EPA be providing specific values for
    things like equipment, travel and other undefined costs for current
    Task 17: Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and Deployment Support?
    For example, one of the potential subtasks in that area is "select,
    evaluate, and install equipment at candidate monitoring sites
    according to network requirements and criteria". How much should be
    assumed for equipment costs since the type(s) of equipment are not
    specified? Similarly another subtask discusses training and
    conducting workshops. How many training/workshop sessions should be
    assumed? Where would they be located and what travel costs should be
    assumed?

> [Response]{.underline}: See response to Question #52 above.

54) Please confirm information on page 8-5 of 11 in the proposal
    preparation instruction that all resumes must be "signed by the
    individual and a corporate official certifying the accuracy of the
    information contained therein." If this is confirmed and
    subcontractor personnel are included as key personnel should their
    resumes be signed by the subcontractor's corporate personnel or the
    prime contractor's corporate personnel? Finally if signatures are
    required can a signature page listing all individuals considered key
    and including their and their corporate official's signature be
    placed on that page in lieu of signatures on the resumes themselves?

> [Response]{.underline}: Subcontractors are not in privity of contract
> with the EPA. A signature by their corporate personnel would have less
> bearing on a potential award than would be that of a contractor making
> a proposal. Therefore, the signature should be from the corporate
> personnel of the offeror submitting a proposal. The EPA allows
> offerors to devise a method to clearly indicate signatures attest to
> the accuracy of the information contained in resumes submitted.

55) Our corporate QMP is almost 90 pages long. We are certain that it is
    not EPA's intent to include such a document in the page limit of the
    proposal. Can large items (such a corporate QMP) be incorporated by
    reference in the appropriate section of the technical approach and
    then included as an attachment/appendix and not count against the
    page limitation?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to exclude
> the QMP from the 200 page limitation. Furthermore, the QMP should be
> included as an attachment.

56) Item L.11(b) indicates that offerors should submit a list of all or
    at least 5 contracts and subcontracts completed in the last three
    years for past performance. Should the submittal be all or at least
    5 from each of the prime and any qualifying subcontractors (e.g.,
    those expected to exceed \$500,000) or should it be 5 total that
    includes both the prime and any qualifying subcontractors? Is the
    \$500,000 limit for qualifying subcontractors over the life of the
    contract or just the base year?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to change
> L.11 to: "... for subcontractors expected to exceed \$500,000 in the
> base period or any subsequent option year." Furthermore, the
> solicitation has been amended to change L.11.b to, "Offerors shall
> submit a list of at least five contracts or subcontracts completed in
> the last three years."

57) Do we need to request a past performance questionnaire from someone
    that we know to be a competitor for this contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: A responsive contractor should include all
> information requested in the solicitation based upon the guidelines
> given for inclusion of that information. However, to note, EPAAR
> 1552.215-75 instructs:

1.  \(d\) If negative feedback is received from an offeror\'s reference,
    the Government will compare the negative response to the responses
    from the offeror\'s other references to note differences. A score
    will be assigned appropriately to the offeror based on the
    information. The offeror will be given the opportunity to address
    adverse past performance information obtained from references on
    which the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment, if
    that information makes a difference in the Government\'s decision to
    include the offeror in or exclude the offeror from the competitive
    range. Any past performance deficiency or significant weakness will
    be discussed with offerors in the competitive range during
    discussions

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
58) What does a CLIN represent? In certain places (e.g., Table 1.
    Assumed Number of Units for Solicitation) it appears to represent an
    entire task in the SOW. In other places (Table 3 -- Cost Model) it
    appears to represent subcomponents of SOW tasks (travel, ODCs,
    labor, etc).

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8. Furthermore, the solicitation has been
> amended to link the CLINs in B.1 of the RFP to Table 1 of Attachment
> 8.

59) Section G.3 (b) states the G&A expense may be allocated to direct
    material in accordance with the contractor's usual accounting
    practices. Will G&A allocation be allowed on all Other Direct Cost
    (ODC) equipment purchases, travel, rentals, and subcontracts?

> [Response]{.underline}: The clause in question reads, "The
> allowability of direct materials and other direct costs shall be
> determined by the Contracting Officer in accordance with Subpart 31.2
> of the Federal Acquisition Regulation in effect on the date of this
> contract. Reasonable and allocable material handling costs or indirect
> costs may be included in the charge for material or other direct costs
> to the extent they are clearly excluded from the hourly rate." Thus,
> they will be allowed if a) they are reasonable and allocable and b)
> they are clearly excluded from the hourly rate.

60) Will an offeror who has been awarded an audit support contract such
    as EP-D-08-047 by the EPA be eligible to bid on solicitation
    PR-HQ-08-10055 and be considered for award of the CastNet contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation is a full and open
> competition with no restriction on award. However, conflict of
> interest clauses are included with the onus placed on the offeror to
> provide any information required by the solicitation.

61) Page 1 of 6 indicates that an original and 5 copies are due. Page
    8-2 of 11 indicates an original and six copies are to be provided.
    What is the correct number?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended changing the
> number of copies requested on Page 1 of 6 to an original copy plus 6
> copies.

62) Section G.3(a)(2) indicates that EPA will withhold 5% of the amounts
    due the Contractor with a maximum amount withheld of \$50,000. In
    the past EPA has waived this requirement. We feel that the
    requirement should be waived for this procurement as well. If EPA
    does not plan to waive this requirement is it applicable on a per
    delivery order basis or contract basis?

> [Response]{.underline}: The decision to withhold a percentage of
> amounts due is done at time of contract award and is only done when
> the contracting officer determines that conditions are such that
> subsequent recovery of unallowable costs from a contractor would be
> difficult.

63) Pages H-7 and H-8 of 17 indicate that EPA has the option to extend
    the contract for up to four (4) periods. Option period IV indicates
    that the start date is Award Date + 4 weeks. Should this be Award
    Date + 4 Years consistent with the other option periods?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended on Pages H-7
> and H-8 to change the 'Award Date + 4 weeks' to 'Award Date + 4
> years.'

64) In the Statement of Work -- Pages 1-18 and 1-19 of 32, Task 16 is
    listed twice. We assume that the tasks should be Task 16 = IMPROVE,
    Task 17 = NADP, and Task 18 = Infrastructure. Please confirm.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Task 16 "Acquisition and Management of NPS Data" to be renumbered as
> Task 17. In addition, Task 17 "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and
> Deployment Support" will be renumbered as Task 18.

65) In the Statement of Work -- Section 15.1 - Page 1-17 of 32, the
    seventh bullet listed is no longer a protocol according to the NADP
    SOP. We assume that EPA wants the seventh bulleted item removed.
    Please confirm.

[Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove the
seventh bullet from Section 15.1 Page 1-17 of 32.

66) In the Statement of Work -- Section 15.2 - Page 1-18 of 32 it
    indicates that \"The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining
    six NADP sites as listed in Table 7." Table 7 (Page 1-30 of 32)
    lists five sites (NY52 is not listed). We assume that NY52 will be
    added to Table 7. Please confirm.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to add NY52
> to Table 8 of Section 15.2 Page 1-18 of 32:

67) In the Statement of Work -- Section 15.1 - Page 1-17 of 32 indicates
    \"The primary purpose of Task 15 is to provide for the operation and
    maintenance of EPA-sponsored NADP sites collocated with CASTNET
    sites (Table 6).\" Table 6 on Page 1-29 of 32 does not have Site
    KY03 -- Mackville, KY listed. We assume that KY03 will be added to
    Table 6. Please confirm.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to add KY03
> to Table 6 of Section 15.1 Page 1-17 of 32.

68) In the Statement of Work -- Table 2 - Page 1-24 of 32, \"List of
    Equipment deployed at CASTNET Sites\" we have noted what we believe
    are a few discrepancies. The discrepancies noted are as follows:

    a.  Wind Speed and Direction - AIO weather stations are not
        currently deployed in the CASTNET network.

    b.  Relative Humidity -- should include Vaisala RH Sensor, Model \#
        102425 in the list

    c.  Flow Control -- should include Mykrolis Mass Flow Controller,
        Model \# FC 280 SAV in the list

    d.  Data Acquisition -- should include H2NS Data Logger, Model \#
        CPP-4794 in the list

    e.  3-Stage Filter Pack - See Application -- List of Cations
        measured are not included

> Please confirm these changes.
>
> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to change
> Table 2 -- Page 1-24 of as follows: b. Relative Humidity, c. Flow
> Control, and e. 3-Stage Filter Pack have been added to the table,
> while a. Wind Speed and Direction, has been deleted. In regards to d.
> Data Acquisition, EPA expects all H2NS will be replaced by Campbell
> SCI CR3000 prior to award.

69) Section L. 14 -- Page L-11 of 17 -- Evaluation of Other Direct
    Costs, please confirm that a single value should be used and that no
    other components of ODC should be given (ex: travel, subcontractors,
    miscellaneous operations, expenses, shipping and postage, field
    supplies).

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> the provided estimate ODC figure of \$97,298. The offerors are
> expected to provide both minimum and maximum ODC amounts in their cost
> proposal for each option period. No specific breakout of ODCs has been
> requested in the solicitation, but a travel estimate has been provided
> to assist offerors with their proposal.

70) Section L.14 indicates an amount for land leases and utility costs
    of \$55,000 and \$35,000 respectively. However that section seems to
    indicate that those costs include telemetry/phone costs. We believe
    those amounts only cover land leases and utility (power) costs and
    not telemetry/phone costs. Please confirm.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to clarify
> that providing land leases and utilities for sites will be tasked
> through the Level Of Effort portion of the contract. Utilities include
> electrical power, telemetry and communications to the site. Any other
> cost shall be included in the unit cost for the appropriate task.
> However, offerors are reminded that the estimated amounts located in
> L.14 are for proposal purposes only.

71) Attachment 8 -- Proposal Instructions -- Page 8-3 of 11 -- Paragraph
    3 indicates \"For the purposes of the solicitation, . .assume 59-EPA
    sites ...25 NPS-sponsored sites\" however this is not in agreement
    with Table 1. Assumed Number of Units for Solicitation on Page 8-3
    and 8-4 of 11. Table 1. lists maximum number of units as 60-EPA
    sites and 30 NPS sites in the Base Period. What is the correct value
    to assume?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Table 1 Page 8-3 of 11. Offerors should assume, for purposes of
> creating their proposal, the following 57 EPA sites and 25 NPS sites.

  ---------- ------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **CLIN**   **Description**          **Number of                               
                                      Sites**                                   

                                      **Base                      **Option      
                                      Period**                    Periods 1-4** 

                                      **Minimum**   **Maximum**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**

  1          Core Operations          1             12            1             12

  2.1        Dry deposition           552           612           0             1200
             Filterpack - w/ operator                                           

  2.2        Dry deposition           96            96            0             1200
             Filterpack - w/o                                                   
             operator                                                           

  3.1        Ozone Monitoring - w/    456           516           0             1200
             operator                                                           

  3.2        Ozone Monitoring - w/o   60            60            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  4.1        Ozone monitoring AQS -   96            96            0             1200
             w/ operator                                                        

  4.2        Ozone monitoring AQS -   36            36            0             1200
             w/o operator                                                       

  5.1        Meteorology - w/         552           612           0             1200
             operator                                                           

  5.2        Meteorology - w/o        96            96            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  6.1        Trace gas NOy - w/       12            48            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  6.2        Trace gas NOy - w/o      12            72            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  7.1        Trace gas SO2 - w/       12            48            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  7.2        Trace gas SO2 - w/o      12            72            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  8.1        Trace gas CO - w/        12            48            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  8.2        Trace gas CO - w/o       12            72            0             1200
             operator                                                           

  9.1        PM2.5 FRM mass - w/      0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  9.2        PM2.5 FRM mass - w/o     0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  10.1       PM2.5 speciation - w/    0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  10.2       PM2.5 speciation - w/o   0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  11.1       PM10-2.5 FRM mass - w/   0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  11.2       PM10-2.5 FRM mass - w/o  0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  12.1       PM10-2.5 speciation - w/ 0             0             0             1200
             operator                                                           

  12.2       PM10-2.5 speciation -    0             0             0             1200
             w/o operator                                                       

  13.1       Continuous PM2.5 mass -  0             0             0             1200
             w/ operator                                                        

  13.2       Continuous PM2.5 mass -  0             0             0             1200
             w/o operator                                                       

  14         Filterpack prep &        4244          4826          0             7476
             analysis                                                           

             Filterpack field samples 3848          4368          0             6760

             Filterpack field blanks  193           219           0             338

             Laboratory blanks        193           219           0             338

             Artificial precipitation 10            20            0             40
             audit sample                                                       

  15.1       Operation of NADP        144           240           0             360
             sampler - Collocated w/                                            
             filterpack                                                         

  15.2       Operation of NADP        36            120           0             360
             sampler - Not collocated                                           
             w/ filterpack                                                      

  16.1       Operation of IMPROVE     24            60            0             120
             sampler - Collocated w/                                            
             filterpack                                                         

  16.2       Operation of IMPROVE     24            60            0             120
             sampler - Not collocated                                           
             w/ filterpack                                                      

  17         Acquisition and          240           300           0             360
             Management of NPS data -                                           
  ---------- ------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

72) Offeror understands the maximum number of sites in Option Periods
    I-IV will be 100 EPA sites and 30-NPS sites. Please confirm.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to clarify
> the assumed number of units for the solicitation in Table 1 Page 8-3
> of 11. The maximum number of sites in Option Periods I-IV shall be 100
> EPA sites and 30 NPS sites.

73) Section L.14 indicates an amount for land leases and utility costs
    of \$55,000 and \$35,000 respectively should be used for all years.
    If the maximum number of sites in Option Periods I-IV is confirmed
    to be 100 EPA and 30-NPS is it realistic to assume that no
    additional land lease or utility costs will be incurred?

> [Response]{.underline}: See response to Question #70.

74) The first sentence of I.(1) at the top of page 8-2 says to submit an
    original and six (6) copies of the technical proposal; however, the
    Solicitation, Offer and Award cover page states an original and 5
    copies are to be submitted. Which is correct?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended changing the
> number of copies requested on Page 1 of 6 to an original copy plus 6
> copies.

75) There seems to be an inconsistency on the potential hours for this
    contract. The abstract
    (http://www.epa.gov/oamhpod1/admin_placement/0810055/index.htm )
    says "The total labor hours estimated for this effort is
    approximately 678,000 hours for the base and all options. The
    minimum amount of labor hours for each year is approximately 4,700".
    However, in the discussion of Table 3 on page 8-9 of the Request for
    Proposals, it says use 174,000 hours for base year and 600,500 hours
    per year for each option year (implying a total of 2,576,000 hours
    total). We expected the requirements of the RFP to be different than
    those in the abstract, but the hours listed in the RFP are
    significantly higher than those in the abstract and significantly
    higher than those in the current contract; what are the correct
    numbers of hours for this bid?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation which contained the references
> instructing offerors to use 174,000 hours and 600,500 hours to price
> their cost proposals.

76) What cost components make up the \$97,298 ODC minimum listed in
    section L.14? Are the cost of land leases (\$55,000) and utilities
    for sites (\$35,000) included or in addition to the \$97,298? What
    is included in the utilities cost (both power and telemetry)?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> the provided estimated ODC figure of \$97,298. The offerors are
> expected to provide both minimum and maximum ODC amounts in their cost
> proposal. For further information about the costs of telemetry, please
> see response to Question #70.

77) Section L.10 states that the contract start date is assumed to be
    July 30, 2009. Does that mean that the 90-day transition period must
    start within 15 days after July 30, 2009 or will the transition
    period be completed by July 30, 2009? Is this contract start date
    (from L.10) the same or different from the contract award date
    discussed in the last paragraph of section I.B. on page 8-3?

> [Response]{.underline}: The 90-day transition period must start within
> 15 days after the actual contract award date. July 30, 2009 is the
> assumed award date given for proposal preparation purposes. Section B
> on 8-3 states that the transition period will be, "beginning no later
> than 15- calendar days after the contract award date." Furthermore, EP
> 52.212-155 states that, "the effective period of this contract is from
> date of contract award through 12 months."

78) Where are the costs for the 90-day transition period to be included?
    In each task?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors shall to provide their cost estimate
> to support their transition plan. The cost proposal shall support the
> technical approach.

79) Will follow-up questions be allowed based on the answers to the
    first set of questions?

> [Response]{.underline}: No.

80) How many NADP sites are included? Text on page 1-18, section 15.2,
    says 6 sites, but Table 7 only lists 5 sites. If there are 6, what
    is the additional site?

> [Response]{.underline}: There are six NADP sites. See response to
> Question #66.

81) The CASTNET schema mentioned in section 1.1.1 on page 1-4 is not
    included in the RFP; please provide this (or a link to it on the
    web).

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to include
> the database schema and data dictionary of the current EPA CASTNET
> database, described in Attachments 11 and 12.

82) Several recent quality assurance reports (none available since the
    2002 QA annual report) and the 2007 CASTNET annual report are not
    available on the CASTNET web site; can these be made available?

> [Response]{.underline}: Quality assurance reports for 2007 and 2008
> are available at <http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs>. These reports
> contain any significant events which will be included in the Annual
> Report. The 2007 CASTNET Annual Report has not yet been produced.

83) If we are a small business, do we have to submit an acceptable
    subcontracting plan, since according to EPAAR 1552.219-74, small
    disadvantaged business participation, "The successful offeror must
    submit an acceptable subcontracting plan utilizing small and
    disadvantaged businesses unless the offeror is a small business
    firm."

> [Response]{.underline}: No, as the EPAAR clause mentioned above
> clearly excludes SBs from that requirement.

84) Are evaluations available for performance of the current site
    operators?

> [Response]{.underline}: Summary evaluations of site operators are
> available in the CASTNET Site Audit Program's annual reports available
> at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs.

85) On the current Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) attachment,
    there are no quantities, tag number, description, manufacturer,
    model, serial number, condition code (please define condition code),
    and acquisition date. In addition, the location code information is
    not complete for all items and a number of location codes are not
    defined. Much of this information was included in the previous
    version of the GFE. Some of this information is critical for a
    realistic response to the RFP, so please provide a version of the
    GFE with this information.

> [Response]{.underline}: See the response to Question #12.

86) Numerous new pieces of equipment (ozone monitors and Campbell data
    loggers, for example) have been purchased, but not yet installed per
    the GFE attachment. Should we assume that the current contractor
    will install all of these by the start date of the new contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors should assume that all listed
> recently purchased equipment will be installed prior to the award of
> the contract.

87) Please clarify the number, location, and contractor requirements
    (equipment, calibration, repair, etc.) for the Tribal sites.

> [Response]{.underline}: The three tribal CASTNET sites are Cherokee
> Nation (CHE185), Alabama-Coushatta (ALC188) and Santee Sioux (SAN189);
> see Table 1 page 1-21 of 32 for locations. All tribal sites provide
> site operators, maintenance of site infrastructure, and utilities.

88) We do not see any filterpack assemblies on the GFE list, although we
    assume these are government equipment. Please clarify the
    descriptions and quantities of these government-owned assemblies. If
    these are not government-owned, what is the manufacturer, catalog
    number, and distributor for the parts used to construct the
    filterpacks?

> [Response]{.underline}: See the response to Question #1.

89) Should laboratory costs for the EPA-run NADP sites be included? If
    so, where should they be included? We assume that the quoted
    proposal should include analytical costs for non-EPA funded CASTNET
    sites; i.e., those supported by NPS. Should we assume additional
    costs for these sites (sample shipping, operator training travel,
    site equipment, etc.)?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, laboratory costs for NADP sites should not
> be included in the cost proposal. For the NPS-supported CASTNET sites,
> offerors shall include analytical costs, shipping costs from the
> laboratory to the site, and costs for data transfers and maintenance
> of data integrity constraints. Costs for sample shipping from the site
> to the laboratory, operator training, and site equipment should not be
> included in the cost proposal.

90) What is the manufacturer, catalog number, and distributor of the
    Teflon, nylon, and impregnated cellulose filters currently used by
    CASTNET? Such information was not stated in the RFP. This
    information is critical for the proposal, as it will ensure sample
    consistency.

> [Response]{.underline}: The following filters are used in the CASTNET
> filterpack:
>
> 1\) Teflon filter is manufactured by Whatman® (catalog number 7590
> 004); it is 47mm PTFE (polypropylene backed) membrane with a 1.0µm
> pore size.
>
> 2\) Nylasorb™ is manufactured by PALL Life Sciences (P/N 66509); it is
> a 47mm nylon membrane filter with a 1.0µm pore size.
>
> 3\) Whatman® paper filter is an ashless 47mm cellulose filter
> manufactured by Whatman (catalog number 1441 047), and identified with
> 41 on the box.

91) Can the laboratory costs be included as ODC via a cost per sample
    basis (e.g., for a subcontracted laboratory), rather than specific
    labor, material, and other costs that would make up the per-sample
    costs? If laboratory costs are expressed on a cost per sample, what
    constitutes the sample basis for charges?

> [Response]{.underline}: See the response to Question #46.

92) There appears to be internal inconsistencies in the quantities
    quoted in Table 1, page 8-4, Task 14. For example, quarterly
    filterpack field blanks implies that one blank will be done for
    every 13 filterpack field samples. However, looking at the base
    period minimum, 3848/13 = 296 field blanks, yet 193 are quoted.
    Also, the Statement of Work implies that weekly laboratory blanks
    are to be performed; yet Table 1 indicates that 193 laboratory
    blanks are to be prepared, which is not evenly divisible by 52.
    Please clarify the required numbers/quantities.

> [Response]{.underline}: Table 1, page 8-4, Task 14 of the solicitation
> has been amended. See the response to Question 71. The solicitation
> has been amended to correct Task 14.2.1 (page 1-15 of 32) as follows:
>
> The Contractor shall ship filter packs to field sites for sampling.
> Filters shall not be used more than 30 calendar days after
> preparation. Laboratory blank samples shall be prepared as the filter
> packs are prepared. In addition, 5 percent of all field samples sent
> to the field shall be filter blank samples in order to evaluate the
> effects of preparation and shipping on sample media.

93) Does this contract allow mark-up on ODC and subcontractors; if not,
    are subcontractors allowed mark-up on ODC?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors should submit a proposal using their
> normal accounting procedures.

94) Please clarify how L.23 "Property Management Plan" requirements mesh
    with clause G.6 "Government Property". L.23 talks about "voluntary
    consensus standards (VCS)" and "industry leading practices (ILP)"
    and G.6 talks about property records in accordance with FAR 45.505
    and 45.505-1. The December 2007 revision to FAR requiring VCS and
    ILP for property does not talk about property records in FAR 45.505
    and 45.505-1. Could you please clarify?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> EPAAR clause 1552.245-73 and replace that clause with updated FAR
> clause 52.245-1. The EPA expects, by time of contract award, that a
> revised version of the EPAAR version of that clause, EPAAR 1552.245-73
> "Government Property" will be ready for inclusion in the finalized
> contract to replace FAR clause 52.245-1.

95) In Section M.4.(b).7, the RFP appears to require the Offeror to
    submit a Small Business Utilization Subcontracting Plan and a Small
    Disadvantaged Business Utilization Subcontracting Plan in both the
    Technical and Cost Volumes. In our experience with recent
    submittals, EPA has required that the full and complete Small
    Business Utilization Subcontracting and Small Disadvantaged Business
    Utilization Subcontracting Plans be included in a separate Plans and
    Procedures Volume that was excluded from the Technical Volume page
    limitations. The Technical Volume has included only a narrative
    discussion of the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business
    plans that reference the full and complete plans in the Plans and
    Procedures Volume. Please clarify where the Small Business
    Utilization Subcontracting Plan, and Small Disadvantaged Business
    Utilization Subcontracting Plan should be included in the submittal,
    and if these plans are excluded from Technical Volume page
    limitations?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors shall include SMB and SDB Utilization
> Subcontracting Plans in both the technical and the cost proposal.
> However, no cost information, only the percentage involvement of SB
> and SDBs should appear in the plan included in the technical proposal.

96) Sections L.23 and M.1 -- The RFP requires the Offeror to submit a
    Property Management Plan as part of the initial offer. In our
    experience with recent submittals, EPA has required that all "Plans"
    be included in a separate Plans and Procedures Volume that is
    excluded from the Technical Volume page limitations. Please clarify
    where the Property Management Plan should be included in the
    submittal, and if it is excluded from Technical Volume page
    limitations?

> [Response]{.underline}: The Property Management Plan is not part of
> the technical proposal. M.1 states" The contractor's Property
> Management Plan will be evaluated as part of the contractor's
> responsibility determination."

97) In our experience with recent submittals, EPA has required that all
    "Plans" be included in a separate Plans and Procedures Volume that
    is excluded from the Technical Volume page limitations. Please
    clarify whether the required Proposed Quality Management Plans
    (QMPs) should be included in a separate Plans and Procedures Volume
    and if it is excluded from Technical Volume page limitations?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to exclude
> the Quality Management Plan from the page limitation of the technical
> proposal. However, the plan should still be included as an attachment
> to the technical proposal.

98) Section M.4.(b).2 references a Past Performance Questionnaire and
    cites Section J, which lists the "NIH Past Performance Database" in
    Attachment 4. Is the Offeror responsible for sending the NIH
    Contractor Performance Report form to each client reference
    identified in the lists of completed and current contracts included
    in our response to Evaluation Factor 2, or is the Client
    Authorization Letter the only documentation that the Offeror is
    responsible for sending to their client reference(s)?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, EPAAR Clause 1552.215-75 describes what
> offerors are required to submit in terms of past performance
> information. The EPA will submit the Past Performance Questionnaire to
> parties identified by offerors in response to 1552.215-75.

99) Section B.1 Fixed Rates for Services - The proposal states, \"the
    rate, or rates, set forth above cover all expenses\", please
    elaborate on what types of costs should be included to cover all
    expenses.

> [Response]{.underline}: The rates to be listed in the Schedule in B.1
> -- at time of award - reflect the fully loaded direct labor rates
> contained in the successful offeror's response to the cost
> instructions in the solicitation.

100) Section H.17 Key Personnel - Will a program management task order
     be issued to capture those activities that support the entire
     contract?

> [Response]{.underline}: No, an additional program management task
> order will not be issued.

101) Section L.14 Evaluation of ODCs - What amounts get plugged into
     Table 3, Line C? Are the costs for land leases (\$55k) and
     utilities (\$35k) included in the ODC minimum of \$97,298 per year?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8. Furthermore, the estimated minimum ODC number
> of \$97,298 has also been removed. The land lease and utilities
> figures remain to assist offerors with their proposals.

102) Section L.19 Compliance with FAR 52.222-43 - As the scope of work
     includes locations throughout the CONUS, should location or
     region-specific labor rates be proposed to reflect the successful
     offeror\'s actual increase or decrease in applicable wages and
     fringe benefits per region, or should one labor rate per labor
     category be proposed to cover the entire CONUS?

> [Response]{.underline}: See response to Question #27.

103) Attachment 8.I.C Assumptions -- this section indicates that the
     Offeror should assume 10 annual travel days for meetings and
     conferences. Please provide additional details on the assumptions
     the Offeror should use for these travel days during the development
     of Table 3 -- Cost Model, Line C -- Other Direct Costs, CLIN 0005
     -- Travel.

> [Response:]{.underline} Attachment 8.I.C of the solicitation has been
> amended as follows:
>
> [Travel]{.underline}
>
> For the purposes of this solicitation, the Offeror should assume
> meeting with EPA project management staff twice per year for a length
> of one day. The successful offeror will determine the appropriate
> number of their staff to attend the meeting with EPA project
> management.
>
> All other travel will be tasked as a Level of Effort activity.

104) Attachment 8.II General Instructions - Does the Fixed Rates for
     Services table in Section B.1 go into Section 5 (Cost or Pricing
     Information) of the Cost Proposal?

> [Response]{.underline}: B.1 will be completed at time of award based
> upon the successful offeror's proposal.

105) Attachment 8.II Specific Instructions - Can Table 2 be modified to
     include a column representing all costs associated with program
     management activities and preparation of work plans for individual
     task orders?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes, the solicitation has been amended to add
> the following note to Table 2:
>
> Note\*\*The following table is a TEMPLATE for 'Labor, Fully Burdened
> Hourly Rate.' The offeror should provide the requested information in
> accordance with their accounting system and labor categories.

106) Attachment 8.II Specific Instructions - Should both On-Site/Field
     and Off-Site/Non-Filed rates be proposed for all labor categories.
     If so, should Table 2 be used for both On-Site/Field and
     Off-Site/Non-Field responses and should the proposed annual hours
     be split between On-Site/Field and Off-Site/Non-Field as the
     contractor sees fit?

> [Response]{.underline}: Offerors cost proposals shall fully support
> their technical approach.

107) Attachment 8.II Specific Instruction \-- Similar to other
     categories, can additional CLINs (such as for example, laboratory
     analysis) be added to Table 3 Line C -- Other Direct Costs? This
     question applied to both the cost proposal preparation as well as
     project execution.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8.

108) Attachment 8.II Specific Instructions - Table 3, Line B, Equipment
     Category references a fixed price while the specific instructions
     require including usage hours, rates and total costs. Please
     clarify.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8.

109) Attachment 8.Table 3 - Is fee allowed on Line C, Other Direct
     Costs? If so, can the offeror revise table 3 to include an
     additional column?

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 of Attachment 8.

110) Attachment 1.Task 4: Ozone (40 CFR Part 58 Compliant) (page 1-12
     or 32) -- It is our understanding that to be fully compliant with
     40 CFR Part 58; quarterly certification of the on-site ozone
     transfer standard would be required. Since CASTNET protocols
     traditionally only allow for semi-annual maintenance visits, will
     the EPA waive the requirement for quarterly ozone transfer standard
     certifications and accept the results of semi-annual checks as the
     basis for validation and submission of data to AQS?

> [Response:]{.underline} The CASTNET protocol is compliant with the
> most recent EPA guidance. See page 4 of 25 in Appendix D of the EPA
> guidance document, "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
> Measurement Systems Volume II: Part 1". at
> http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/QA-Handbook-Vol-II.pdf.

111) Attachment 1.Task 16- Operation of IMPROVE site (page 1-19) states:
     *The Contractor shall be responsible for providing the necessary
     site operator support and costs associated with maintaining eight
     IMPROVE monitoring stations (see Table 8). This support may include
     other direct costs such as utilities (i.e., telephone or electric),
     land lease payments, occasional non-routine visits required by the
     site operator, and shipping costs associated with sample,
     equipment, or documentation transfers.*

> Should the estimated cost basis presented in Section L.4 be utilized
> for land leases and utilities? If not, what cost basis assumptions
> should be utilized for the referenced ODCs?
>
> [Response:]{.underline} The solicitation has been amended as follows:
>
> The Contractor shall be responsible for providing the necessary site
> operator support and costs associated with maintaining eight IMPROVE
> monitoring stations (see Table 8). This support may include other
> direct costs such as occasional non-routine visits and incidental
> supplies required by the site operator. The Contractor shall ensure
> that an available and trained site operator is performing the site
> operator duties specified in the appropriate IMPROVE Site Operation
> Manuals. This also includes identifying a designated back-up site
> operator for each site in the event the primary site operator is not
> available. The Contractor shall also ensure the site operator calls
> the Contractor weekly on Tuesdays to report on site operation and
> sample collection. The Contractor shall allow for the possibility of
> one or two site visits if circumstances arise where travel to the site
> is necessary.

112) Attachment 8.II Cost Proposal Specific Instructions (page 8-9) -
     The Specific Instructions for the Cost Volume indicate that the
     cost model should be based on the following:

> *For evaluation purposes for the base year use 174,000 hours; for all
> option periods use 600,500 hours per year to develop the Cost Model.
> These hours should be allocated among the proposed job categories.*
>
> There seems to be a significant increase in the hours per year between
> the base year (174,000 hrs/year) and the options periods (600,500
> hrs/yr). Please verify that these yearly hour estimates are correct
> for both the base and option years.
>
> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to remove
> Table 3 from the solicitation which contained the references
> instructing offerors to use 174,000 hours and 600,500 hours to price
> their cost proposals.

113) There are two (2) Tasks identified as "Task 16" in Attachment 1.

> Attachment 1.Task 16: Operation of IMPROVE site (Page 1-18)
>
> Attachment 1.Task 16: Acquisition and Management of NPS data (Page
> 1-19)
>
> Please clarify the numbering in Attachment 1 for Tasks on pages 1-18
> through 1-20.
>
> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Task 16 "Acquisition and Management of NPS Data" to be renumbered as
> Task 17. In addition, Task 17 "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and
> Deployment Support" will be renumbered as Task 18.

114) Attachment 8.I.C Assumptions (page 8-4 of 11) -- Please clarify the
     numbering for Task 17: Acquisition and Management of NPS data.
     Attachment 1 would indicate that this is should be Task 16:
     Acquisition and Management of NPS data (Page 1-19).

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Task 16 "Acquisition and Management of NPS Data" to be renumbered as
> Task 17. In addition, Task 17 "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and
> Deployment Support" will be renumbered as Task 18.

115) Attachment 8.I.C Assumptions (page 8-4 of 11) -- The last task
     listed in Attachment 1 (currently identified in Attachment 1 as
     Task 17: Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and Deployment Support)
     appears to have been omitted from Table 1.Assumed Number of Units
     for Solicitation. Please provide the assumed number of units that
     should be used as a cost basis for this task.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to correct
> Task 16 "Acquisition and Management of NPS Data" to be renumbered as
> Task 17. In addition, Task 17 "Infrastructure, Design, Testing, and
> Deployment Support" will be renumbered as Task 18. Task 18 is not
> included in Attachment 8.I.C Assumptions as it is a Level of Effort
> Task separate from Fixed Rate Tasks 1 thru 17.

116) Section B.1: FIXED RATES FOR SERVICES\--INDEFINITE
     DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITYCONTRACT (EPAAR 1552.216-73) (APR 1984)
     -- This section references fixed rates for CLINs. Are these CLINs
     for labor categories that are to be identified by the Offeror based
     on our understanding of the work to be performed (i.e. Jr.
     Engineer, Sr. Engineer, Jr. Scientist, Statistician, etc.)?

> [Response]{.underline}: Yes.

117) In our experience with recent submittals, EPA has provided small
     business and small disadvantaged business utilization targets for
     the RFP. Please clarify the specific small business and small
     disadvantaged business utilization targets that are applicable to
     this RFP including small business, small disadvantaged business,
     women owned, small disadvantaged veteran owned small business, and
     Historically Underutilized Business Zone.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended to include
> the EPA small business and small disadvantaged business utilization
> targets.

118) Section M.4.4 (Page M-4) and Attachment 8.D.4 (Page 8-5) indicate
     that the Offeror shall provide their (and any subcontractors)
     quality management plans (QMPs). In our experience with recent
     submittals, EPA has required that the prime contractor submit its
     QMP as part of the submittal, and team subcontractors could chose
     to work under the prime contractors QMP. Please confirm that team
     subcontractor QMPs are only required as part of the submittal if
     they choose not to work under the prime contractors QMP.

> [Response:]{.underline} See response to Question #6.

119) Attachment 1.Tasks 9, 10, 11, and 12 -- Is it correct to assume
     that the contractor is only responsible for operation of the
     sampler and submission of the operational data (i.e. calibration
     and audit results) to AQS, and not responsible for any laboratory
     filter analysis on these tasks?

> [Response:]{.underline} Yes, the contractor is only responsible for
> the operation of the sampler and submission of the appropriate data to
> AQS.

120) By the time the contract is issued, is it reasonable to assume that
     all EPA managed CASTNet sites will be converted to Campbell
     Scientific data loggers?

> [Response:]{.underline} Yes, all EPA-managed CASTNET sites will have
> been converted to Campbell Scientific data loggers prior to award of
> the contract.

121) Attachment 1.Task 14.2.3 (page 1-15) -- Table 5 is referenced to
     specify analysis methods. However, these methods appear to be
     listed in Table 4. Please clarify the reference in this section.

> [Response:]{.underline} Task 14.2.3 (page 1-15) of the solicitation
> has been amended as follows:
>
> **14.2.3 Analysis of Filter Extracts**
>
> The Contractor shall analyze filter extracts using the methods
> specified in Table 4 or an equivalent or better method which has been
> approved by the EPA.

122) Attachment 8 I.C Assumptions Table 1. Assumed Number of Units for
     Solicitation --Table 1 shows a minimum of zero and maximum of zero
     for the base and option periods associated with Tasks 9.1 through
     13.2. Please clarify the number of units for the tasks currently
     listed with zero minimum and maximum units. If these minimum and
     maximum units (zero) are correct for any of the tasks in Table 1,
     please clarify what should be used for as a cost basis for these
     tasks in the requested Cost Model.

> [Response:]{.underline} See Responses to Questions #32 and #71.

123) Attachment 1.Task 15.2 Site Operation Support (page 1-18) -- Please
     clarify the cost assumptions that should be used for the NADP Field
     Operations Training Course. Additionally, please indicate whether
     or not these costs will be reimbursable under this task.

> [Response]{.underline}: The solicitation has been amended as follows:
>
> **15.2 Site Operation Support**
>
> The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining six NADP sites as
> listed in Table 7. The Contractor shall ensure that an available and
> trained site operator is performing the site operator duties as
> specified in the NADP Site Operation Manual (NADP 1999-01). This also
> includes identifying a designated back-up site operator for each site
> in the event the primary site operator is not available. In addition,
> shipping costs associated with sample and documentation transfer to
> the NADP Program Office will be considered for the EPA sponsored NADP
> sites both independent and collocated with CASTNET sites. The
> Contractor shall allow for the possibility of one 2-day site visit if
> circumstances arise where travel to the site is necessary. NADP sites
> that are collocated with CASTNET sites are listed in Table 6.

124) What are the authorized and applicable NAICS Industry Subsectors
     for the CASTnet Program?

> [Response]{.underline}: The applicable NAICS code for this
> solicitation is 541620, Environmental Consulting Services.