Question
#/Section |
Question |
Answer |
Date
Posted |
| 1.
B |
Section
C, Paragraph B of Clause III, National Environmental Policy Act: Should the cost of
corresponding activities be included in the total estimated cost for design in Section B? |
Yes. |
12/22/00 |
2.
B.3
Fixed Fee
|
Is
it correct to assume that I.140, "Conditional Payment of Fee, Profit, or
Incentives" clause does not apply to the design phase fixed fee? |
No.
This clause covers all fee types under the contract. The clause states in part "In
order for the Contractor to receive all otherwise earned fee, fixed fee,..." |
12/08/00 |
3. Sections B.3, B.4 (f), and B.5 (d)
|
In
Sections B.3, B.4 (f), and B.5 (d) the RFP states that "The incentive fee shall
be applicable to the prime contractor and its members in a joint venture or limited
liability company, teaming partner, and subcontractors identified and considered a part of
the selection and award of this contract, if any." The wording implies that the
winning team must share fee with pre-selected subcontractors identified in the proposal;
however, they are not required to share fee with subcontractors hired after the award of
the contract. Is that the intent? |
Yes.
Any fees for subcontractors selected after award of the prime contract would be considered
as costs to the prime contractor. Award of subcontracts are subject to applicable
provisions of the contract. e.g., I.98, Subcontracts, I.100, Competition in
Subcontracting, etc. |
11/21/00 |
| 4. Sections B.4 |
Target
costs and incentive fees established in B.4 must be based on an assumed DOE Budget
Obligations of funds. B.6 makes the obligation of DOE funds a unilateral decision of the
CO, which could affect the target costs and resultant fee of the contractor. Will the
contractor be allowed to adjust the target costs and the fair incentive fee terms under
this scenario? |
The
contract contains provisions which allow the contractor certain remedies or provides for
equitable adjustments in the contract terms in the event that the Government’s action
affects the contractor, e.g., F.1, Stop Work; I.77, Limitation of Funds; I.96, Changes;
I.110, Termination, I.111, Excusable Delays. See similar Q&A under Section B
Q&A’s. |
12/22/00 |
5. B.4(g)
|
A.
25% fee retained from construction is to be paid after 10% of the DUF6 is
converted. This makes no allowance for the payment of the construction retained fee if
conversion is stopped by DOE or other parties outside the control of the Contractor. Is
this understanding correct? If yes, will DOE address this concern in the RFP? |
A.
The contract contains provisions which allow the contractor certain remedies or provide
for equitable adjustments in the contract terms in the event that the Government’s
action affects the rights of the contractor, e.g., clause F.1, Stop Work; clause I..96,
Changes, clause I.110, Termination. The Stop Work provision, for example, requires the
Contracting Officer to either cancel the stop work order and make an equitable adjustment
in the contract terms or terminate the contract under the termination provisions. |
12/01/00 |
6. B.4(g)
|
Is
the 25% fee retainage until 10% of DUF6 processed based on total amount available to be
processed or applicable to each site (i.e., 10% at Portsmouth, 10% Paducah and 10% of Oak
Ridge which was moved to Portsmouth)? |
The
25% fee retainage is applicable to 10% of DUF6 to be processed at each site, Portsmouth
and Paducah, calculated separately. There is a separate fee for each of these sites and
the retainage would be applied against each of these individual amounts. The retainage
under Incentive Fee for construction does not apply to the movement of cylinders from ETTP
to Portsmouth. An amendment to the RFP will clarify this point. |
12/13/00 |
7. B.4(g)
|
B. The invoicing, payment, and fee retainage terms together
act to create an unfavorable cash flow for the Offeror. To address these concerns, DOE is
requested to consider the following:
| (a) |
Due to the potential large sums of
money during certain phases of this contract, will DOE provide a letter of credit to
assist the contractor in achieving important project objectives without the negative cash
flow implications? |
| (b) |
Recognizing the high cost of money
and the huge potential sums involved, can fee retainage of 25% for the performance of the
construction work under B.2(b) and (c) be reduced to 15% or less? Note that FAR 52.216-10,
"Incentive Fee" limits retainage to 15% of the applicable fee or $100,000,
whichever is less. |
|
B.
| (a) |
There is no intent to amend the RFP
provisions to provide for a letter of credit as a means of contract financing. |
| (b) |
There is no intent to reduce the
25% fee retainage. It is DOE’s desire to use this retainage as an additional
incentive for the contractor to design, construct, and operate facilities that meet the
expectations expressed in the selected contractor’s proposal and the awarded contract
provisions. There is, however, a change that needs to be made for consistency between
clause B.4, Incentive Fee - Construction, paragraph (g) and clause I.22, Incentive Fee.
Fee retained can be released at the point that 10% of the conversion is attained, but
clause I.22, Incentive Fee also allows for the retainage of fee. Therefore, the last
sentence in paragraph (g) of clause B.4 will be deleted and a sentence substituted to the
effect of the following: "Upon successful conversion of (10% of the quantity of
DUF 6 proposed by the Offeror to be converted under this contract) kg of
DUF 6, fee retainage for the construction work shall be governed exclusively by
the requirements set forth in clause I.22, Incentive Fee and all fee retained in excess of
that being retained pursuant to clause I.22, Incentive Fee shall be paid to the
Contractor". An amendment to the RFP will be issued which will make a change in the
clause B.4. Offerors are cautioned to rely sole on the wording in the amendment to the
RFP. Note that these provisions apply to each plant separately. |
|
12/01/00 |
8.
B.5
Award Fee
|
A.
Does the Contracting Officer contemplate an annual evaluation period for the award fee?
Are Offerors invited to propose lengths of time for the evaluation periods? |
A.
An annual evaluation period on a fiscal year basis for the award fee is provided.
Paragraph (e) (1) of clause B.5 states in part "Prior to the beginning of each fiscal
year (or shorter period if the first evaluation period begins within a fiscal year) under
this contract..." If the first evaluation period begins within a fiscal year the
first period would be shorter. Under the current terms of the RFP, offerors are not asked
to propose lengths of time for the evaluation period. |
12/08/00 |
9.
B.5
Award Fee
|
B1.
This clause states that the Contracting Officer shall "unilaterally" determine
the evaluation areas and individual requirements in each evaluation period, while the
instructions at L.22(e)(2) require an Offeror to submit specific performance requirements
for which it is willing to be evaluated. Does the Contracting Officer intend to use the
criteria suggested by the winning proposal to negotiate the criteria at the start of the
contract or for each evaluation period?
B2.Will the Contracting Officer engage in discussions with
Offerors if the criteria proposed are unsatisfactory? |
B1.
The specific performance requirements proposed by the offereror will be used in three
areas: (1) The fee will be evaluated in accordance with M.2(c) which states in part
"...the degree to which the offeror is willing to put fee at risk with respect to
specific performance requirements proposed under award fee." (2) The specific
performance requirements proposed by the offerors could be incorporated into the contract
as a part of the discussion process with the offerors in the competitive range, i.e.,
would be a part of the awarded contract. This would not preclude the Contracting
Officer’s use of additional criteria for evaluation of other areas of performance
under the award fee. (3) If the specific performance requirements proposed by the offerors
are not incorporated into the contract as stated in (2) above, they would be used as the
basis on which the Contracting Officer would determine a part of the annual performance
requirements upon which award fee would be earned.
B2.Yes, if the Offeror is included in the competitive range. The
scope and extent of those discussions are a matter of the Government’s judgement, but
significant weaknesses or deficiencies would be discussed with offerors in the competitive
range. |
12/08/00 |
10.
B.5
Award Fee
|
C.
Will the Contracting Officer engage in discussions with Offerors if the criteria proposed
are unsatisfactory? |
C.
Yes, if the Offeror is included in the competitive range. The scope and extent of those
discussions are a matter of the Government’s judgement, but significant weaknesses or
deficiencies would be discussed with offerors in the competitive range. |
12/08/00 |
11.
B.5
|
Please
refer to Article B.5, Award Fee - Operations and Cylinder Management, paragraph (d). This
paragraph states that the fee paid to the prime contractor shall also include the fee for
subcontractors identified and considered a part of the selection and award of this
contract. For the purpose of this paragraph, are we correct in assuming that any selected
disposal site is not considered to be an identified subcontractor? |
The
intent of this provision is to cover those entities/team that are responsible for the
overall management of the contract and responsible for accomplishing the contract’s
requirements. If the “disposal site” is a private entity that is under a fixed
price/fixed unit price type subcontract to the prime contractor to perform solely a
disposal function at a later point in the contract term, this is not what this provision
is intended to encompass. However, if the disposal contractor has other responsibilities
in the performance of other aspects of the contract from the early stages of the contract,
this provision may be applicable. |
02/09/01 |
