MODIFICATION
R -- Definitional Mission to Evaluate Waste to Energy and Renewable Energy Projects in Europe Region
- Notice Date
- 1/28/2004
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- United States Trade and Development Agency, TDA Contracts Office, USTDA, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1600, Arlington, VA, 22209-3901
- ZIP Code
- 22209-3901
- Solicitation Number
- USTDA-04-Q-039
- Response Due
- 2/9/2004
- Archive Date
- 2/24/2004
- Point of Contact
- Forestine Winters, Contract Specialist, Phone 703-875-4357, Fax 703-875-4009,
- E-Mail Address
-
contract@tda.gov
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- Responses to Questions: The following answers are provided in response to questions we have received. 1. THERE APPEAR TO BE 19 IDENTIFIED RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS (THE DRUID BIOMASS-ENERGY PROJECT IS LISTED TWICE) IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 6 OF THE SOLICITATION OF WHICH USTDA HAS FUNDED FEASIBILITY STUDIES ON AT LEAST EIGHT. YOU INDICATE THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS TO VISIT MOST OF THESE PROJECTS WITH A MR. GREENIP. WHO IS MR. GREENIP AND WHAT KNOWLEDGE DOES HE HAVE OF THESE PROJECTS, ETC? PLEASE DEFINE "MOST" IN THIS CONTEXT. ANSWER: Scott Greenip is a USTDA employee and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative on this project. Under the Regional Director?s leadership, Scott will supervise the contractor and work with him in evaluating the contractor's recommendations. He is the Country Manager responsible for all the countries which will be visited on this mission. All his expenses will be covered by USTDA directly and need not be provided for in the contractor's budget. We have not yet determined which projects should be visited. We would like to visit as many as possible within the level of effort permitted by the budget. The site selection decision will depend on the availability of local counterparts, the status of the on-going USTDA-funded feasibility study at the time of the trip, the level of information we have on a given project at the time of the trip (e.g. if we already know the status well, a visit may not be necessary), geographic proximity as well as other logistical and budgetary considerations. 2. WHAT EXISTING REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED FEASIBILITY STUDY FUNDING? WERE DMS PERFORMED FOR THOSE PROJECTS? IF YES, ARE THERE DM REPORTS AVAILABLE? ANSWER: All of the projects which USTDA is supporting were recommended by expert consultants. Most were recommended by the consultant who prepared the briefing book for USTDA's Waste-to-Energy/Renewables conference in November 2001. The briefing book for that conference would be the appropriate reference document. A copy is available for review in USTDA's library. A few were reviewed by Desk Studies, but those reports are not publicly available. 3. YOU APPEAR TO HAVE USED THE STANDARD USTDA DM REPORT STRUCTURE AS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR MUST PERFORM. THIS STRUCTURE APPEARS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEW PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY RECEIVED FUNDING FROM THE USTDA FOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES, ETC., BUT THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SUITABLE REPORT STRUCTURE TO USE TO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PROJECTS WHERE FEASIBILITY STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. PLEASE EXPAND ON THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHERE FEASIBILITY STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. ANSWER: A report on a project for which USTDA has already invested in a feasibility study would have two components. First, if the contractor were to recommend USTDA provide additional assistance to the project, the contractor's report would conform to the standard DM format. Some of the background, if still relevant, could be taken from the documentation in the conference briefing book. Second, whether or not additional assistance is recommended, the contractor would be required to provide a few paragraphs (more if necessary, less if possible) describing, at least, the general status of the project, expected future developments, contact information for key players and recommendations for future USTDA consideration. 4. THROUGHOUT SECTION 3.0 "DEFINITIONAL MISSION FINAL REPORT" OF THE SOLICITATION YOU INDICATE "PROJECT" AND NOT "PROJECTS" ALTHOUGH IN SECTION 6 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 19 SEPARATE PROJECTS. DO YOU EXPECT A SEPARATE DETAILED ANALYSIS AND REPORT IN THE STANDARD DM REPORT FORMAT FOR EACH PROJECT REVIEWED? FOR ALL 19 PROJECTS? ANSWER: A report in the standard DM format is required only for those projects for which the contractor recommends additional USTDA funding. All other information should be reported in enough detail to cover the subject, but without non-substantive commentary or data that would make the report uninteresting. See answer 3. A concise, complete and understandable report delivered in a timely manner will be an important indicator of a successful mission. 5. THE SOW REFERS TO A MR. GREENIP TRAVELING WITH THE DM CONSULTANT. DO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON HIM? DOES HE PAY HIS OWN EXPENSES? WHAT IS HIS ROLE? ANSWER: Scott Greenip is a USTDA employee and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative on this project. Under the Regional Director?s leadership, Scott will supervise the contractor and work with the Regional Director in evaluating the contractor's recommendations. He is the Country Manager responsible for all the countries which will be visited on this mission. All his expenses will be covered by USTDA directly and need not be provided for in the contractor's budget.
- Place of Performance
- Address: USTDA office, Arlington, VA, other U. S. locations and designated host countries
- Record
- SN00511621-W 20040130/040128212722 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |