Bureau of Reclamation RFQ Proposal Compliance Gap Analysis

RFQ Identifier

RFQ No. 140R4026Q0006

RFQ No. 140R4026Q0006 referenced throughout

Covered

Good traceability.

Requirement Title

2026 Stewart Lake Water Delivery (to flush the lake)

Matches title and intent (selenium remediation flushing)

Covered

Terminology consistent.

Buyer / Office

USDOI, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office

Correctly identified

Covered

No gap.

Place of Performance

Stewart Lake WMA, Uintah County, Utah

Correctly identified

Covered

No gap.

Period of Performance

Base 04/01/2026–03/31/2027; Options I–IV through 03/31/2031; FAR 52.217-8 up to 6 months

Correctly stated; includes FAR 52.217-8 reference

Covered

No gap.

Contract Type

Single purchase order contract (commercial items)

Firm-fixed monthly pricing stated; service framing is commercial service

Covered

Proposal aligns with monthly CLIN concept.

Evaluation Approach

Best value: technical capability, past performance, price; non-price equal to price (per 52.212-2 addendum text)

Acknowledges FAR 52.212-2 applies; states included technical, past performance, price

Partial

Does not explicitly restate best-value tradeoff / comparative evaluation; minor but can help alignment.

Electronic submission to khervat@usbr.gov

Identifies Contract Specialist email and states electronic submission

Covered

Does not explicitly state destination email for final delivery (though shown on cover section)

Add an explicit line: “Quote will be emailed to khervat@usbr.gov.”

Due by Feb 9, 2026 @ 14:00 MT

Not stated in proposal

Gap

Failure to echo deadline can create administrative ambiguity (though not strictly required, it reduces risk)

Add a compliance statement: “Submitted prior to 2:00 PM MT, Feb 9, 2026.”

Questions due by Feb 3, 2026 @ 14:00 MT

Not stated

Gap

Not required for award but can show process awareness; low impact

Optional: add acknowledgment of Q&A deadline (or omit if already past at submission).

One (1) PDF for full quote

States “Single PDF containing technical capability, past performance, and price quotation (as required)”

Covered

Good alignment with cover page instruction

Ensure final deliverable is indeed one PDF if following this interpretation.

Subject line naming scheme required

Proposal includes exact naming scheme pattern in title line (Proposal – ... RFQ No. ...)

Partial

Does not explicitly state the email subject line will follow the exact scheme with asterisks/format

Add explicit statement: “Email subject line will read: Proposal – High Desert Water Logistics RFQ # 140R4026Q0006 – 2026 Stewart Lake Water Delivery.”

NOTE: Technical package and pricing must be submitted in one package (earlier note)

Proposal complies (single package/single PDF)

Covered

No issue against that note

None.

Conflicting NOTE elsewhere: Technical Proposal and Pricing Proposal should be submitted as separate documents

Proposal does not address this conflict; uses single PDF approach

Risk / Ambiguity

RFQ text contains inconsistent packaging instructions (one PDF vs separate documents). Proposal picks one interpretation without noting the conflict; could trigger non-responsiveness if CO expects two files

Add a clarifying compliance note: “Submitted as one PDF per cover page instruction; if Government prefers two PDFs, Offeror will provide immediately upon request.”

CLIN 00010 Base, UOE Months, Qty 12, monthly unit price and total; includes all fees/taxes

$9,850/month; total $118,200; states taxes/fees included

Covered

Matches required structure

Ensure pricing table formatting mirrors Table 1.1 if possible.

CLIN 01010 Option I, Months 12

$10,145/month; total $121,740

Covered

No gap

None.

CLIN 02010 Option II, Months 12

$10,450/month; total $125,400

Covered

No gap

None.

CLIN 03010 Option III, Months 12

$10,765/month; total $129,180

Covered

No gap

None.

CLIN 04010 Option IV, Months 12

$11,090/month; total $133,080

Covered

No gap

None.

CLIN 05010 Description in RFQ: “Newton Reservoir Janitorial Services – Additional Extension 6 Months” (likely erroneous) priced at current option-year rate

Prices 6-month extension at $11,090/month; total $66,540; labels it “Additional Extension 6 Months under FAR 52.217-8”

Partial

Proposal does not call out the apparent CLIN description mismatch (janitorial vs water delivery). Could create confusion during evaluation

Add a note: “CLIN 05010 description appears to contain a typographical carryover; Offeror prices the 6-month extension of water delivery services at the current Option Year rate per 52.217-8.”

Total evaluated price (base + all options + extension)

$634,140 stated

Covered

Arithmetic appears consistent with stated totals

Optionally include a mini-sum table to ease evaluation.

RFQ warns about unbalanced option pricing

Proposal states consistent escalation and intent to avoid unbalanced pricing

Covered

Good evaluator-facing narrative

None.

Use Treasury IPP for all payment requests; register and use IPP

States prepared to register/use IPP immediately upon award

Covered

No gap

None.

Email electronic copy of IPP invoice to COR to sign and copy CO; then upload signed invoice to IPP

States will email electronic copy to COR for signature and copy CO prior to IPP submission; recognizes delays if not emailed

Partial

Does not identify the COR and CO emails listed in RFQ (COR: jruvalcabaroman@usbr.gov; CO: khervat@usbr.gov). Proposal references COR/CO generically

Add the specific email addresses and names exactly as in the clause to demonstrate procedural compliance.

If unable to comply with IPP, submit waiver request with quote

States does not request waiver

Covered

No gap

None.

EFT via SAM per 52.232-33

States SAM EFT information current; acknowledges 52.232-33

Covered

No gap

None.

WBR 1452.201-80 COR authorities/limitations; technical direction in writing; notify CO within 5 working days if out-of-scope

Follow written technical direction; do not act on out-of-scope direction; timely written notice to CO

States written authorization from CO/COR; technical direction binding only in writing; will not proceed if out of scope without CO confirmation

Partial

Add explicit commitment to the 5-working-day written notification requirement if direction appears to fall under (c)(1)-(c)(5).

52.242-15 Stop-Work Order

Ability to pause performance as directed

Acknowledges Government’s right; staffing includes pause capability

Covered

No change needed.

52.217-8 Option to Extend Services

Up to 6 months at rates; clause mentions possible adjustments only due to prevailing labor rate revisions

Prices 6-month extension at current option-year rate; acknowledges exercise by written notice/timeframes

Partial

Proposal does not acknowledge potential labor-rate adjustment language in clause (if applicable to this service)

Add a sentence acknowledging any allowable rate adjustment mechanism per 52.217-8 as incorporated.

52.217-9 Option to Extend Term (notice timing; total duration <= 66 months)

Government option notice and overall cap

Proposal acknowledges 52.217-9 and readiness to continue

Covered

Optionally acknowledge 66-month cap to show awareness.

52.212-3 Reps & Certs (complete paragraph (b) if using annual SAM reps)

Ensure SAM reps current/accurate; identify any completed paragraphs (c)-(v) if applicable

States reps/certs current in SAM and incorporated by reference

Partial

Does not explicitly state that only (b) is completed / no additional paragraphs apply (if true)

Add explicit 52.212-3(b) statement: reps updated within last 12 months; no add’l deviations unless listed.

Provide past performance information for 2 or more similar contracts

Provides 2 narratives (water conservancy district; municipal utility surplus transfer program)

Covered

Both references state “contact available upon request” but do not include full contact details

Include full reference details if allowed: POC name, phone, email, contract number/value, performance ratings.

Similarity to requirement (seasonal releases, documentation, coordination)

Narratives align strongly to seasonal coordination, reporting, invoicing support

Covered

Good relevance

None.

Government may evaluate confidence; comparative evaluation

General statement only

Partial

Could improve by explicitly tying each reference to RFQ evaluation factors (quality, timeliness, compliance)

Add a short bullet list per reference: scope similarity, volumes, deliverables, performance outcomes.

NAICS / Set-Aside Inconsistency

Cover page: NAICS 336999 (size 1,000); later: NAICS 221310; total small business set-aside

Proposal states “Small Business under applicable NAICS ... stated in solicitation” but does not specify NAICS code used

Medium

State explicitly: business is small under NAICS 221310 and/or 336999 as applicable; ask CO for clarification if needed; align to the NAICS used for size determination.

Competition Type Inconsistency

States both “Total Small Business Set-Aside” and “unrestricted open competition”

Proposal assumes small business set-aside and represents small business

Low/Medium

Add a short statement: “Offeror is eligible under the solicitation’s small business set-aside requirements.” Avoid repeating “unrestricted.”

Option Year Typo

Lists “Option Year VI” instead of IV in period section

Proposal uses Option Years I–IV correctly

Low

No action required, but can note proposal follows CLIN table and dates.

CLIN 05010 Description Mismatch

Mentions “Newton Reservoir Janitorial Services” under CLIN 05010

Proposal prices extension for water delivery services

Medium

Include explicit clarification note as described in pricing table.

Submission packaging conflict

One place requires one PDF; another note says technical and pricing separate documents

Proposal chooses one PDF

Medium/High

Add a conditional statement offering both formats immediately upon request; ensure actual submission adheres to the CO’s latest instruction.

R-01

Non-responsiveness due to submission packaging mismatch

RFQ contains conflicting instructions (one PDF vs separate technical/pricing); proposal does not address

Medium

High

High

Add explicit clarification and be prepared to provide two PDFs; consider submitting as one PDF with bookmarked sections plus separate extracted pricing as a courtesy (if allowed).

R-02

Evaluation confusion regarding CLIN 05010 scope

RFQ CLIN 05010 description appears erroneous (janitorial); proposal does not flag discrepancy

Medium

Medium

Medium

Add a clarifying note tying CLIN 05010 to 52.217-8 extension of water delivery services and pricing basis.

R-03

Small business eligibility challenge or evaluator uncertainty

RFQ lists multiple NAICS codes; proposal does not specify which NAICS is used for size representation

Low/Medium

High

Medium

State the NAICS under which the firm qualifies as small and confirm SAM profile aligns.

R-04

Payment delays due to incomplete IPP workflow adherence

Proposal omits specific COR/CO emails and does not explicitly attach signed invoice requirement detail

Low/Medium

Medium

Medium

Insert exact IPP steps and points of contact as stated in DOI-AAAP-0028.

R-05

Technical evaluation downgrade due to lack of explicit SOW compliance matrix

Proposal provides narrative only; SOW details not mapped line-by-line

Medium

Medium

Medium

Add a compliance crosswalk to Attachment 1 SOW sections and explicitly call out deliverables, reporting frequency, and measurement method required.

Deliver and fund delivery of a minimum of 1,000 acre-feet of surplus M&I water annually; releases occur Apr 1–Oct 31; deliver up to 1,000 AF upon request

Commits to “up to 1,000 acre-feet ... annually ... upon request”; tracks progress toward annual maximum; recognizes Apr–Oct season

Partial

RFQ states Reclamation responsible for supplying and funding delivery of a minimum of 1,000 AF annually, while CLIN says deliver up to 1,000 AF. Proposal repeatedly states “up to 1,000” and does not address “minimum” language

Add explicit commitment: “Will deliver the Government-requested volume up to 1,000 AF and will support fulfillment of Reclamation’s minimum annual 1,000 AF obligation under the agreement, subject to RFQ/SOW direction.”

Coordinate with Burns Bench Irrigation Company and other stakeholders

Explicitly mentions coordination points incl. Burns Bench Irrigation Company; workflow includes stakeholder coordination

Covered

No gap in concept; specific coordination protocols not verifiable without SOW

Add any known contact/communication protocol if stated in Attachment 1.

Measurement/verification implied for acceptance

Proposes measurement method/verification source in delivery action record; two-person verification; monthly and seasonal summaries

Covered

Would benefit from stating specific gage/measurement points if SOW defines them

If SOW specifies measurement locations, add them explicitly.

Acceptable quotes must conform to SOW/RFQ

States “fully consistent with ... SOW”; provides compliance narrative

Partial

No line-by-line compliance matrix shown; could weaken technical evaluation if evaluators want direct traceability

Add a brief SOW compliance matrix (SOW section → proposal paragraph/page).

Operational readiness during Apr–Oct, year-round contract admin through Mar 31

Explicitly addresses seasonal ops and year-round readiness; staffing and cadence described

Covered

No gap

None.

High

Add a short 'Submission Compliance' block explicitly stating: delivery email (khervat@usbr.gov), deadline (Feb 9, 2026 2:00 PM MT), and exact subject line text.

Cover page submission instructions; 52.212-1 addendum

Reduces administrative rejection risk and improves evaluator confidence.

High

Address the RFQ packaging inconsistency (one PDF vs separate technical/pricing) with an explicit clarification and willingness to provide alternate formatting immediately upon request.

Cover page NOTE vs later NOTE

Mitigates non-responsiveness risk.

High

Add a concise SOW Compliance Matrix (Attachment 1 section-by-section) including: request process, measurement/verification, reporting deliverables (monthly/seasonal), and coordination points.

Technical Capability requirement 'in accordance with SOW'

Strengthens technical rating and traceability.

Medium

Update IPP section to include the exact COR/CO names and emails from DOI-AAAP-0028 and restate the required signed-invoice attachment workflow.

DOI-AAAP-0028

Reduces payment processing friction and demonstrates clause fluency.

Medium

Clarify small business eligibility under the solicitation’s NAICS ambiguity by explicitly stating the NAICS code used for size status (and confirming SAM aligns).

Set-aside/NAICS statements; 52.219-6

Reduces eligibility questions and strengthens responsiveness.

Medium

Add an explicit acknowledgement of WBR 1452.201-80 requirement to notify the CO in writing within five (5) working days if COR direction appears out of scope.

WBR 1452.201-80(e)

Demonstrates mature contract governance and reduces disputes risk.

Low/Medium

Enhance past performance entries with full POC details (if permitted) and add contract numbers/values plus objective performance outcomes (on-time reporting, zero invoice disputes).

Past performance factor

Improves verification ease and confidence assessment.

Low

Add a one-paragraph 'Comparative Evaluation Fit' section explicitly aligning strengths to the three factors (technical, past performance, price) and best-value rationale.

52.212-2 evaluation

Helps evaluators quickly identify discriminators.