12445122R0041 Questions Asked As Of 08312022.doc

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR USDA-FS ISSUANCES: 12445122R0041 London DBC DBNF KY (Please read instructions on back before completing form.)

Resolution: Section L provides that guidance (transcript time 043:26 – 44:59) Projects in last seven years, emphasis on last 3

Resolution: Not on transcript. The SF-330 provides section that provide magnitude information from the contractor. In particular, section F and H. This DBC project has a price ceiling of $5.4M for the compound.

-Individual buildings order magnitude may be just as valuable as the overall project magnitude.

Resolution: Not on Transcript. The evaluation board will look at “all relevant” experience and projects offered up as examples. Again, the London DBC project is for a “office/work compound” who’s facilities are different based upon their unique use. Design reference documents have been provided to increase the contractor’s knowledge of their use and requirements. There is nothing to say a contractor’s “single” facility” may/may not encompass the same essential functions as a multi-facility campus. It is the contractor’s duty to show its relevance and their abilities to execute their plan for the USDA-FS campus.

Time 49:1.3 Resolution: The government will accept a variation of the PPQ form if it conveys the same essential information.

Resolution: This is a recognized situation for Engineering firms. The London DBC Phase I uses two methods to evaluate this issue.

Section M, Page 9 of 14 For DB projects where the offeror did not receive a past performance evaluation report that did not specifically address design performance, the offeror shall submit a PPQ specifically for the design work associated with the DB project. (See Question 4)

SF-330 Sections H and F allows for a DB engineering firm to outline their relevant projects AND the construction results.

- with it being fourth quarter spend down with people moving from agency to agency, it's very, very difficult to get these PPQ forms refilled out time after time.

Resolution: The USDA-FS understands the time and expense of obtaining “new” PPQ from previous clients. The USDA-FS will accept previously completed PPQ/Variation Forms under the terms/conditions of 12445122R0041.

Page 8, Section E, Criterion 3: Past Performance

A. Add after the last sentence. ”The contractor may submit an alternate form of PPQ that reflects “largely” the same information as the RFP Attachment B”.

B. Line 1, change the word “shall” to “may”. Add after the last sentence: “The contractor may submit an alternate form of PPQ that reflects “largely” the same information as the RFP Attachment B”.

Resolution: Section M incorrectly references itself for page count limits on submittal. Change to reflect Section L

Resolution: Delete reference in its entirety

Resolution: The meeting slide deck, meeting transcript, Questions Asked, and amendment are posted to Sam.Gov. The MP4 video size is currently too large for distribution.

Bidder Comment: Attachment M requests “pre-screening” bond and EMR information. However, phase 1 volume 1B asks for the same information. Are we required to include both a pre-screening package as well as a phase 1 proposal with this redundant information?

Resolution:

Section L, Page 1 States

Phase I is a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) where all potential sources can submit proposals demonstrating their capability to perform. The Government will select and invite no more than three (3) offerors to submit proposals for Phase II.

a. Phase I only involves non-price criteria.

b. Do not include either design or pricing information in the Phase I proposal.

c. An offer guarantee is not required for Phase I (SF 1442 block 13b).

Section M, Page 4 states Pre-Screening Criteria

A.Bonding Capacity

Standard: Individual project capacity of $8 million Actual bonds are not required until the Award phase.

Bidder Comment: Typically, we see a requirement to utilize projects with a magnitude equal to or above the magnitude of the project being solicited for the “specialized experience” section. However, this RFP makes no mention of the minimum magnitude for projects presented as specialized experience for volume 1A criterion 2. Is there a minimum dollar magnitude for the projects presented in criterion 2?

Resolution: No minimum is stated. Refer to section M, Page 6 of 14 in terms of recency and relevancy

Bidder Comment: Attachment M appears to direct offerors to provide CPARS for the projects utilized in criterion 2 in the volume 1A criterion 3 section. However, attachment L seems to be in conflict with attachment M and directs offerors to include the CPARS in volume 1B rather than 1A. Please confirm if CPARS are to be included in volume 1A per attachment M or 1B per attachment L.

Section M, Criterion 3 Past Performance (Page 8 of 14):

For at least two of the projects submitted in Criterion 2: Specialized experience, submit either a Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation Report or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

Section L, Phase I: Request for Qualifications Response Requirements, Page 8 of 9, Volume IA - Technical and Management Quote (Criterion 1 and 2)

1. Page limit is thirty six (36) pages.

2. Use SF 330 for the Statement of Qualifications

3. Provide a narrative response to all Phase I evaluation criteria in Section H of the SF 330.

Section L, Phase I: Request for Qualifications Response Requirements, Page 8 of 9, Volume IB – Substantiation Materials (Criterion 3 and misc documents)

1. This volume does not have an explicit page limit but shall include ONLY the material requested.

2. Contents

a. Letter(s) from surety providing bonding

b. Letter(s)/backup documenting EMR for the last three years

c. Maximum of five (5) CPARS evaluations or completed Past Performance Questionnaires.

d. Team member commitment letters

e. Joint Venture Agreements

Bidder Comment: Attachment L page 8, paragraph C, item 3 does not match the description provided in attachment M for criterion 3. Is “Criterion 3 to include CPARS per attachment M or is criterion 3 to include section H of the SF 330 per attachment L?

Attachment L page 8, paragraph C, item 3 3. “Provide a narrative response to all Phase I evaluation criteria in Section H of the SF 330” corresponds to Criterion 1 (Section M, Page 5, 2 a) , Criterion 1: Preliminary Management and Technical Approach1.

Criterion 3 address Past Performance documentation via government port of entry (CPARS/CCASS/PPQ) and commercial forms that contain essentially the same information (See amendment 0001)

Bidder Comment: Attachment M, Criterion 1, criterion 2 and criterion 3 all say that page counts are to be in compliance with “Section M”. However, we do not see any page count information in attachment M. The page counts are provided in Section L. Please confirm we are to follow the section L page counts of 36 pages for Phase 1, Volume 1A Resolution: See Amendment 00001. All page counts are referenced in Section L.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SD FORM 818

Coordinating OSD Component: Use this form to provide consolidated critical and substantive comments to the OSD Component that originated the issuance. Complete the classification header and footer, columns 1 through 5, and the first two entries in column 6. REVIEW THE COMMENTS, resolve any conflicting views, AND CONFIRM THAT THE COMPLETED MATRIX ACCURATELY REPRESENTS YOUR COMPONENT’S POSITIOn. Upload the form to the DoD Directives Program Portal in microsoft word format, with a scanned copy of the sign SD Form 106, “DoD Directives Program Coordination Record,” or coordination memorandum.

Originating OSD Component: Use this form to consolidate comments from all coordinators and to record adjudication of the comments. (To add comments from an SD 818 submitted by a coordinator, use the “Copy” and “Paste” tools on the Microsoft Word Standard Toolbar.) When consolidating comments, place them in the order of the pages/paragraphs they apply to (e.g., all comments from all coordinators that apply to page 1, paragraph 1.a., should be grouped together as the initial entries; all comments that apply to page 1, paragraph 1.b., should be grouped together next, and so on). Complete column 7 and the third entry in column 6. Adjust the classification header and footer and columns 1 and 2 as appropriate.

Classification – Enter the highest classification of the comments. If all are unclassified, mark the header and footer accordingly and ignore the column.

Column 1 – Enter the number of the comment. Enter comments in the order of the pages/paragraphs they apply to.

Column 2 – Enter the classification of the comment. If all comments are unclassified, mark the header and footer accordingly and ignore the column.

Column 3 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 4 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 5 – Enter the appropriate information.

Column 6 – Enter the comment type. Place only one comment per row. Do not include administrative comments concerning non-substantive aspects of an issuance, such as dates of references, organizational symbols, and/or grammatical errors.

(C) Critical: When a Component has one or more critical comments, that Component’s coordination shall reflect a nonconcur. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CRITICAL COMMENTS MUST IDENTIFY:

– Violations of the law or contradictions of Executive Branch policy or of policy established in DoD issuances. The GC, DoD, or his or her representative shall identify legal objections as critical comments.

– Unnecessary risks to safety, life, limb, or DoD materiel; waste or abuse of DoD appropriations; or imposition of an unreasonable burden on a Component’s resources.

(S) Substantive: Substantive comments are made when a section in the issuance appears to be or is potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections, or when a Component disagrees with the proposed responsibilities, requirements, and/or procedures. A substantive comment is usually not sufficient justification for a Component to nonconcur on an issuance. Several substantive comments when taken together may be grounds for a nonconcurrence.

Column 7 – Coordinating Component: Enter the comment in the area provided. Enter your justification for the comment and your requested or recommended changes in the area provided. YOU MUST PROVIDE CONVINCING SUPPORT FOR CRITICAL COMMENTS IN THE JUSTIFICATION.

– Originating Component: Enter your justification for disposition of the comment in the area provided. Include any related communications with the coordinating Component. You must provide convincing support for rejecting critical comments.

Column 8 – Enter whether you accepted (A), rejected (R), or partially accepted (P) the comment. Your justification for disposition of the comment in column 6 must be consistent with this entry.

PAGE

SD FORM 818, JAN 09

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE