# Presentation: 525543

## What is EPA's goal in proposing a new contract mechanism for CASTNET? 

- Our goal is to have more transparency and easier tracking of the work, tasks, and money.

## 2. Do changes in the contract mechanism portend any changes to the technical operations of the CASTNET program?

- No.

## 3. In the current contract, CASTNET has been funded at a relatively stable rate. What, if any, funding changes does EPA foresee over the course of the new contract?

- The CASTNET budget has been stable for the previous 10 years and we anticipate that will continue in the future.  However, like all EPA programs, the final budget is determined by Congress on an annual basis.

## 4. Under Section 2: How would “alternative technology proposed by the offeror” and the “supporting comparative study’’ be paid for?  As a contract charge or by the offeror?

- The EPA is open to alternate methods using established principles and technology for some of the tasks (please see revised draft SOW).
- The supporting comparative study must be provided by the offeror or published in the literature
- This is not an R&D contract, and we will not be paying contractors to develop new technologies under this requirement.

## 5. Section 3.2.1: In terms of the contracts/agreements that already exist with site operators, what information regarding these will be furnished in the RFP? Are these contracts with EPA or directly with the CASTNET contractor? What information will be provided by EPA in the RFP that will allow cost estimates to be made for initiating or maintaining these agreements?

- Site operators are furnished by the contractor.
- No information on current site operators is planned for release with the RFP; however, names and contact information will be provided upon award.
- EPA only requires that operators perform site operations as indicated in the RFP and proposed in the offer, and does not require continuation of services from any site operators.
- Cost estimates should be based on the going rate for personnel in non-urban areas who have the ability to perform the tasks.

## 6. Section 3.2.4: Is there existing documentation of training materials needed to train the site operators? 

- No. Site operators are furnished by the offeror and trained to perform the duties described in the Standard Operating Procedures included with the QAPP on the CASTNET web site.

## 7. Section 3.2.5: What is meant by “alternative technology ... focused on ... changes caused by CAIR”? Does EPA have specific changes in mind? Is EPA looking for new methodology proposals as a part of this proposal or would proposals be entertained during the performance of the contract?

- CASTNET was established specifically in response to Title IV of the 1990 CAAA.  CAIR has additional requirements pertaining to regional transport of ozone, fine PM and their precursors.  EPA is seeking new methodologies that might better characterize these pollutants.  See the revised SOW.

## 8. Section 3.2.8: How much equipment is to be stored for site resupply purposes, beyond routine operational needs (e. g., to provide replacement equipment when there is a problem in the field)? That is, how large is the supply of “sufficient spare parts” to be? 

- “Sufficient spare parts” implies that sites are not rendered inoperative because of the contractor’s inability to replace failed parts in the field.
- The size of the equipment depot is dependent on many factors, including the number of sites, failure rate of specific equipment, and the time required to repair or obtain new equipment.

## 9. Section 3.3: The phrasing here that the contractor will be delivered “... a complete and functional archive of the current ... SQLServer database and Visual Basic data management application, and a complete and functional export of EPA’s Oracle schema” and in Section 3.3.2 that “The Contractor shall transfer data to EPA with an electronic agent ... or by creating and delivering electronic data ... that are compatible with EPA’s DBMS” imply that the contractor needs to possess the capability to communicate properly with EPA’s Oracle system, but does not necessarily need to possess Oracle itself. Is this interpretation correct?

- Yes, that is correct.

## 10. Section 3.3: Is the cost of the various statistical analysis packages chargeable to the contract, or is the contractor expected to possess such software as part of its standard computing capability?

- The contractor is required to provide everything associated with performance of the requirement.

## 11. Section 3.3: What are the hardware and software requirements to run the MLM and MLBC models, and does EPA anticipate any changes to these models that would require changes to the hardware or software requirements?

- EPA will provide MLM and MLBC executables compiled for MS Windows XP®, as well as the source code for compilation on other operating systems, if desired.
- These models will run on any MS Windows XP®-compatible hardware.
- EPA does not anticipate any changes to these hardware or software requirements.

- ®

## 12. Section 3.3.3: Is the archiving to be strictly electronic? What is the current format of this electronic archive, and is it desired to maintain this format?  Are there also paper or photographic material to be archived? If there are non-electronic materials to be archived, how much of this material is there? 

- EPA prefers all data acquisition, reports, documentation, photographs and site plans to be in electronic form.  However, any materials that are collected by the contractor as physical media must be archived for the life of the contract or until transferred to electronic media with documented 99.99 percent reliability.  See the revised SOW.

## 13. What is the current proposed schedule for release of formal Request for Proposal?

- Mid-January.

## 14. Please provide additional information related to the statement “EPA is studying acquisition strategy alternatives which may be driven, in part, by various contracting approaches aimed at increased technical and cost efficiencies such as Fixed Rate, IDIQ for all areas of the SOW.” The Draft Scope of Work clearly indicates that the agency intends to handle Laboratory Services on a Fixed Rate basis. However, the remaining sections of the Draft Scope of Work do not provide any direction regarding the potential cost options being considered. Will the Agency provide additional information regarding the cost structures being considered for the remaining tasks in the Draft Scope of Work?

- At this time we are contemplating Fixed Rate IDIQ for the contract with two classifications of Contract line item numbers (CLINs). One CLIN classification would be for the Base-program work and the other classification of CLINs would be for Labor Categories. Task orders would then be issued for labor hours based on the CLINs.

## 15. Section 3.2.1: For comparative costing purposes, will the EPA provide a current (or assumed) total dollar value of all existing "contracts and/or agreements with landowners and site operators"?

- EPA will provide annual fixed costs for sites, including leases and utilities.
- The offeror is responsible for estimating labor costs.

## 16. Section 3.4.2: Please clarify the statement "for the purpose of this solicitation, the offer should assume 8 of these requests". Does this mean 8 individual one person trips, or 8 conferences or meetings with more than one person attending each?

- This means 8 individual person-trips.

## 17. Section 3.2.3: The Draft SOW states “The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair (including costs) of all instruments, shelters, and data acquisition systems.” For comparative costing purposes, will the EPA provide an inventory of the current equipment, assumed condition of the equipment in place, and historical maintenance and repair costs?

- EPA will provide the most recent equipment inventory in the RFP, which includes the condition of the equipment and its purchase price.
- Other information on the current contract can be found on our “Active Contract List” for 68-D-03-052, Prime Contractor: Mactec.

## 18. Section 3.3.2: Please clarify the statement “An electronic replica of the database and all supporting applications shall be delivered to EPA annually.” Is it the Agencies intent to run a parallel system internal to the EPA network, or is this for archival purposes?

- The intent is not material to this requirement.