NIST RFI LOG 1.pdf

# Question Soucre Document & Page Number Response Status/Amend No

1 Question #1: “Section L, Factor 2 notes that projects submitted may be either construction or design/build. Section M, Factor 2 notes that the Government wants to confirm that project “examples are design/build”. Can the Government confirm that Factor 2 projects do not need to be design/build, per Section L and because Factor 2 addresses experience as a builder, whereas Factor 3 addresses design/build experience?”

Section M, Page 3, Factor 4

Answer #1: See amendment #2. All projects listed in factor #2 are to be used in factor #3. All examples are to be design-build

Question #2: Section M, Factor 3 notes: “It will be reviewed to ensure same examples provided in Factor #2 will be evaluated for

Factor #3. Only first five examples will be reviewed, in case more than 5 were provided.” Section L, Factor 3 makes no mention of

Factor 3 projects needing to correlate with Factor 2 projects. Can the Government clarify the requirement for Factor 3? Because

Factor 2 focuses on builder experience, whereas Factor 3 focused on design/build experience, can the Government confirm that

Factor 3 projects do not need to be the same as Factor 2 projects?

Answer #2: Please see answer #1. Factor #2 examples must match examples in Factor 3.

3 Question #3: Factor 3 does not include any project recency language or requirement. Please confirm that relevant design/build projects do not have a recency requirement. If a recency requirement does apply, would the Government consider allowing offerors to submit projects completed within the past 12 years? Large and specialized design/build projects are often rare and a 12-year look-back will encourage participation by qualified offerors and allow offerors to present their best relevant projects, to the Government’s benefit.

Answer #3: Please answer #1 and additionally amendment #2 which permit completed design projects within past five years.

Question #4: Will the Government allow offerors to submit the required Factor 4 information from more than one designer? Or does the Government want offerors to present one designer only—the designer it would use for the Phase 2 project, specifically?

Answer #4: Reference amendment #2. Offeror shall provide designer of record (one person) from the design firm.

Question #5: Factor 5a notes that the Government “will evaluate the past performance information for relevant projects that were completed within the past 3 years as identified in Factor 3.” Factor 3 includes no mention of a 3-year look-back requirement. Can the

Government confirm that the 3-year look-back language in Factor 5 is inapplicable? If a 3-year recency requirement does apply, would the Government consider amending this requirement and allowing offerors to submit projects completed within the past 12 years? A 3-year look-back is a very narrow window for specialized design/build experience and maybe discourage participation from well-qualified offerors. Large and specialized design/build projects are often rare and a 12-year look-back will encourage participation by qualified offerors and allow offerors to present their best relevant projects, to the Government’s benefit

Answer #5. Refer to Answer #1 and amendment #2.

6 Question #6: Factor 2 - Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor. Section L, Page 82, states the following: " i. The offeror must submit documentation of at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts completed within the prior 3 years of the date of the RFQ, exclusive of the warranty period. The Offeror must have been the contractor on each federal contract submitted for Factor 2".

Is the government willing to consider extending the range for submitted contracts from being completed within the prior 3 years to contracts completed within the prior 5 years?

Answer # 6: Please reference amendment #2, which in part changed period from three (3) years to five

(5) years.

Question #7: Factor 2 - Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor. Section L, Page 82, states the following: "IV. For each contract Offeror must provide the following: #4 - Type of contract (e.g. construction, design/build or design-bid-build)".

Section M, Page 99, states the following: "Evaluation of Factor 2 : The Government will review offers to confirm: #2 -

Examples are design-build examples".

The above referenced requirement presented in Section L - Factor 2 contradicts the evaluation requirement presented in

Section M - Factor 2, indicating only design-build contracts will be reviewed by the Government. Please clarify: Will the submission of construction/design-bid-build contracts also be acceptable to the Government for review for Factor 2?

Answer # 7: See answer #1 and amendment #2.

RFI Responses

Solicitation 1333ND22QNB190089

NIST General Construction IDIQ

8 Question #8: Factor 3: Design/Build Experience of the Offeror. Section L, Page 83, states the following: "1a. At least one federal design/build construction contract for a hospital, laboratory facility or research facility, exclusive of curtilage or ancillary facilities". Government, please clarify: Is there a minimum total value required for contracts submitted under Factor 3, Item

1a?

Answer #8: Yes. See answer #1 and amendment #2. Factor #2, ii. States the minimum value is at least

$500K for all examples. Note for factor 3 it states that one of the examples:

“At least one contract must be for new construction of a facility valued at least $5M;”

9 Question #9: Factor 3: Design/Build Experience of the Offeror. Section L, Page 83, states the following: "1b. At least one contract must be for new construction of a facility valued at least $5M" Government, please clarify: Can a contract for new construction of a facility be Design-Bid-Build or does it have to be Design-Build?

Answer # 9: See answer #1, all examples must be design-build

10 Question #10: Given that this solicitation is a Small Business set aside “This RFQ and any resulting IDIQ/task orders is a total small business set aside under NAICS 236220.” A $30 million capacity per task order for a $70 million dollar task order contract seems unbalanced in a small business set aside contract vehicle.

Answer #10: Thank you for your feedback. The market research for this procurement revealed there is adequate small businesses that meet our requirement. The RFP is not changing with respect to the bonding requirements

11 Question #11: Is this a total small business set aside? Answer #11: Yes

12 Question #12: RFP Page 10 – Second Paragraph – line 2 – Will have a total aggregate value up to $70,000,000 for five year ordering period. Page 10 – Fourth Paragraph - Maximum Contract Value: $30,000,000.

What is the overall contract award?

Answer #12: Overall contract award is $70,000,000 (Aggregate across all contract holders), and the maximum single task order award is $30,000,000

13 Question #13: Can affiliate experience be submitted to meet Factor 2 Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor requirements?

Answer #13: The experience of the offeror must have been the contractor on each contract submitted for

Factor 2.

14 Question #14: Can team/key subcontractor experience be submitted to meet Factor 2 Experience of the Builder as a Prime

Contractor requirements?

Answer #14: The experience of the offeror must have been the contractor on each contract submitted for

Factors 2 & 3

15 Question #15: Factor 2 Prime Contractor experience, Factor 3 Design/Build Experience and Factor 4 Design Experience, are all experience factors required to have been completed within the past 3 years? Answer #15: See amendment #2. Period was changed from three (3) to five (5) years.

16 Question #16: Factor 3 – Design-Build Experience, is contracting requesting the design-build experience of the team, the offeror or the builder?

• Pg 81 – Phase One Qualifications refers to Factor 3 Design-Build Team Experience

• Pg 83

• - refers to Factor 3 – Design-Build Experience of the Offeror

• Pg 98 – I. Evaluation of Offerors refers to Factor 3 Design-Build Experience of the Builder

Answer #16: Design-Build experience of the Offeror. Refer to amendment #2 for revised criteria.

17 Question #17: Factor 3 – Design-Build Experience - Would Contracting consider lowering the construction value from $5 million to

$2 million for Design-Build projects?

Answer #17: Government is not changing the requirement to lower the construction value. Factor remains unchanged

18 Question #18: RFP Page 83 – Factor 4 – Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of Offeror and Subcontractors – b.

Provide resumes for non-designers identified in iv. Where is the location of “iv” so that we can find the non-designers resumes that contracting is requesting?

Answer #18: See amendment #2. Provide SF 330 for designer of record (one person). If the remaining team members are not architect/engineers provide resumes.

19 Question #19: RFP Page 84 – Factor 5 – Past Performance - Offeror must use the attached PPQ to document Past Performance. No past performance questionnaire is found within the solicitation. Will contracting provide the past performance questionnaire?

Answer #19: Please see amendment #2. For non-CPARS contract a PPQ is attached to amendment #2.

20 Question #20: RFP Page 84 – Factor 5a/5b – Offeror must provide past performance information via CPARs for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years. Is CPARs the only acceptable past performance information that contracting will accept?

Answer #20: Please see amendment #2 for revised factor 5.

21 Question #21: RFP page 84 -Subfactor 5b – Designer Past Performance - Offeror must provide past performance information via

CPARS for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years. Offeror may cite contracts identified in Factor

3.

If there is no CPARS but there’s an existing PPQ for a relevant federal government contract completed within the past 3 years, may we submit the existing PPQ to satisfy Subfactor 5b?

Answer #21: See amendment #2 for revised factor 5.

22 Question #22: RFP Page 99 - Evaluation of Factor 3 – Design-Build Experience of the Offeror - paragraph 2 – “It will be reviewed to ensure same examples provided in Factor #2 will be evaluated for Factor #3.” Is contracting seeking the same Project Experience from Factor 2 to be submitted in Factor 3?

Answer #22 : See answer #1. See amendment #2

23 Question #23: The SF 1442 requires sealed offers, while RFP Section L requires e-mail submission. Please clarify. Answer #23: Electronic submissions only

24 Question #24: RFP page 10: “contractor shall allow up to 90 minutes to collect badge”. Please confirm this is for initial badge issuance only

Answer #24 : There are two aspects to obtaining a NIST badge. Offerors are encouraged to review pages 25 to 28 which reviews the badge process and timeline. Once a badge is deemed ready for pickup, page 10 indicates a person may have to wait up to 90 minutes to be processed for a badge

(issuance).

25 Question #25: Is NIST SP 8009-171 certification a requirement? If so, where should proof be placed?

Answer #25: n/a

26 Question #26: May offerors use 10 pt font for headers and footers in its submission? Answer #26: Page formatting as indicated in Section L – Instructions To Offerors. To answer this question – yes.

27 Question #27: Is there a page limit for overall proposal and is there a page limit for Factor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 If so, what pages are excluded from the page limit?

Answer #27: Page limits are as indicated in the solicitation. No page limites are listed for phase 1.

28 Question #28: Section M; Factor 2 - Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor. Pg 98 of 109. Please confirm that ongoing projects can be included as past performance.

Answer #28: Projects/Examples must be completed projects. In progress projects would be non-responsive.

29 Question #29: Section M; Factor 2 - Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor. Pg 98 of 109.

We understand that firms providing completed DB projects greater than $15M will be evaluated more favorably; however, given that this is a SB Set aside, would it be possible to lower the threshold?

Answer #29: No, the Government does not intend to lower the threshold.

30 Question #30 : Section M; Factor 3 - Design-Build Experience of the Offeror. Pg 99 of 109. Would you consider increasing the past performance timeline from 3 years to 7 years?

Answer #30: See amendment #2 which changed factors 2 & 3 to five (5) years.

31 Question #31: Section L; Factor 5 - Past Performance. Pg 84 of 109. Please provide the PPQ form referenced on page 84: "Offeror must use the attached Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs) to document past performance."

Answer #31: See amendment #2 for revised factor 5

32 Question #32: Section M; Factor 5 - Past Performance. Pg 100 of 109. Please confirm that for Subfactor 5a – Builder Past

Performance, Subfactor 5b – Designer Past Performance we are to provide copies of CPARs evaluations.

Answer #32: See amendment #2 for revised factor 5

33 Question #33: Would you consider making two adjustments to the Past Performance criteria. We respectfully request expanding the project performance window from 3 years to 5 years in Factor 5 and reduce the “new construction” project value from $5M to $3M in

Factor 3.

Answer #33: See amendment #2 which changed the period from three (3) to five (5) years. The dollar thresholds did not change in amendment #2.

34 Question #34: Please clarify if double spacing of text also applies to tables and graphics. Answer #34: No

35 Question #35: Is there a page count limitation for the submission in Phase 1. Answer #35: No

Question #36: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 2, 3-5 projects appear to need to be 1)Design Build, 2)over $500K in Value, and

3)performed within the last 3 years. We are requesting that the time frame be expanded to 5 years due to the massive impact of the

Pandemic, which prevented the delayed a multitude of projects that would have added to our list of completed projects. Can you expand the projects performed in the last 3 years to those performed in the last 6 years?

Answer #36: See amendment #2 which changed factors #2 & 3 to five (5) years. Dollar thresholds did not change. Factor 5 was revised in amendment #2.

Question #37: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 3. One of the projects here needs to be New Construction of at least $5M. Does that new construction project need to be Design Build?

Answer #37: Project/example needs to be Design Build

Question #38: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 3. Are past performance projects limited to a total of 5 projects overall or 5 project for

Factor 2 and 5 projects for Factor 3.

Answer #38: Three is the minimum up to a maximum of 5 projects/examples. Any projects after five will not be reviewed .

Question #39: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 3. Can the past performance projects be a combination of the design team past performance and the prime contractor past performance in both Factor 2 and Factor 3.

Answer #39: Projects must be the offeror’s experience in both factors

Question #40: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 3. This RFP is a small business set aside. $15 million projects are not common for small businesses. $15 million projects in the last 3 years given the pandemic and even less common for small businesses. Please consider reducing the evaluation factors in Factor 3 to $4 million.

Answer # 40: The Government does not intend to change the requirements.

Question #41: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 3. Will design team or subcontractor team past performance apply for ASME B31.1 power piping?

Answer # 41: Section M Factor 3 stated offeror’s response will be reviewed even more favorably. More favorably is above the minimum requirements in factor L.

42 Question #42: Page 100 Evaluation of Factor 4. Please define DBIA. Answer # 42: Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA)

Question #43: Page 83 Evaluation of Factor 4. Offeror must identify the following proposed entities for the proposed design-build team:(b) Designer of record. Please confirm that this may/should include the designer's of record for each design discipline (i.e.

architecture, mechanical electrical, plumbing etc. as well as any specialty subconsultants the design team intends to use)

Answer #43: Designer of record is the lead design company (one person). See amendment #2.

Question #44: Page 100 Evaluation of Factor 4. iii. A Design-Build Team Experience Table for each proposed Team Member is evaluated to see past experience together....Offerors will be reviewed more favorably if the design-build team members has past experience working together on at least four examples noted in factor #3 and factor #4 table. The factor #3 and factor #4 table are only being evaluated for five project examples (per page 99 third paragraph from the bottom of the page). Please confirm if the

"Design-Build Team Experience Table" may include projects beyond the five used in evaluation Factor 3. The criteria that will be viewed "more favorably" under factor 3 will exclude a number of projects where our team has experience working together on projects with a construction cost of less that $15M and/or projects that are more than 3 years old.

Answer #44: Reference amendment #2. Do not provide more examples than referenced in factors #2 &

#3.

Question #45: Page 99 Evaluation of Factor 2. At least three federal contract examples were submitted that were completed within the past 3 years. Only first five examples will be reviewed, in case more than 5 were provided. Please confirm if design build projects that have completed design but are still under construction will be considered.

Answer #45: Examples must be completed design-build projects. See amendment #2.

Question #46: Page 101 Evaluation of Factor 5b. Note: The Government may also consider other available sources of information when evaluating the offerors past performance, including past performance of significant contractors. Others sources may include, not limited to information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or CPARS. Please confirm if Past Performance Questionaires (PPQs) or letters of reference may be included in lieu of CPARS for the Designers of Record, and if so whether there is a standard PPQ format NIST would want used.

Answer #46: See amendment #2 which revised factor 5.

Question #47: Page 101 Evaluation of Factor 5b. Please consider allowing additional projects beyond the 5 included under Factor 2 for consideration of the Designer Past Performance.

Answer #47: See amendment #2 which revised factor 5

Question #48: Reference: Solicitation, Page 81, 1.g.i “Submissions must be typed, double spaced using 12-point Times New Roman font with 1” margins and Portrait orientation”

Reference: Solicitation, Page 87 3.c.i and iii, “Proposals must be typed with a minimum one line spacing using 12-point size font”;

“Fonts must be easily readable. Offerors encouraged to use either Times New Roman (preferred), Calibri, or Arial font.

Question: Please confirm the formatting for the Phase I submission is Double Spaced using 12 pt. font, or if it is the same as the required formatting for Phase II.

Answer #48: Yes, confirmed

Question #49: Reference: Solicitation, Page 82, Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “The Offeror must submit documentation of at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts completed within the prior 3 years of the date of the RFQ”.

Question: Will JV prime offerors be able to submit experience that was performed by both JV partners under a previous Joint

Venture?

Answer #49: Acceptable if offeror was a prime in the JV. See amendment #2

Question #50: Reference: Solicitation, Page 84, Factor 5 – Past Performance, “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.”

Reference: Solicitation, Page 84, Subfactor 5a – Builder Past Performance, “Offeror must provide past performance information via

CPARS for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years.”

Question: Please clarify whether offerors are required to submit PPQs, or if offerors are only required to submit CPARS.

Question: If offerors are required to submit PPQs for projects that don’t have CPARS evaluations, please provide PPQ form.

Answer #50: See amendment #2 for revised section 5. If a CPARS is referenced by an offeror, a PPQ is not required for that example.

Question #51: Reference: Solicitation, Page 91, C.2.a.iii “Offeror must include a completed bid schedule. The first line item on the bidding schedule must be the initial Task Order – D/B Bldg. 225 1st Floor Restrooms Renovations.”

Question: Please confirm whether the Initial Task Order is considered a Seed Project for this IDIQ (the successful Phase II offeror will be awarded the project).

Answer # 51: Potential offeror is reviewing phase II which is not a deliverable/submission element for phase 1. It is the intent for the Government to award seed project to successful offeror for phase II.

Question #52: Reference: Solicitation, Page 82, Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “The Offeror must submit documentation of at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts completed within the prior 3 years of the date of the RFQ”.

Question: If submitting as a Joint Venture, can each entity of the Joint Venture submit relevant past project(s) performed as an individual (non-JV) Prime Contractor?

Answer #52: Acceptable if the individual entity of the JV was the Prime Contractor

Question #53: Reference: Solicitation, Page 84, Subfactor 5a – Builder Past Performance, “Offeror must provide past performance information via CPARS for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years.”

Question: Please confirm that CPARs for the projects presented in Factor 2 can be presented in Factor 5

Answer #53: See amendment #2 which revised factor 5. See answer #50 additionally.

Question #54: Reference: Solicitation, Page 82, Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “The contract must be either construction as defined in FAR or Design Build as defined in FAR”

Reference: Solicitation, Page 82, Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “For each contract Offeror must provide the following…Type of contract (e.g., construction, design/build or design-bid-build);”

Reference: Solicitation, Page 99, Section M, Evaluation of Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “2) Examples are design-build examples”.

Question: Please confirm that offerors may submit Design-Bid-Build projects for Factor 2.

Answer #54: See answer #1. Projects for Factors 2 & 3 must be design-build. Reference amendment #2

Question #55: Reference: Solicitation, Page 83, Factor 3 – Design/Build Experience of the Offeror, “At least one federal design/build construction contract for a hospital, laboratory facility or research facility, exclusive of curtilage or ancillary facilities.”

Question: Can offerors submit projects featured in Factor 3 for Factor 2 and vice versa?

Answer #55: See answer #1 and amendment #2. Factor 2 eamples must be used in factor 3.

Question #56: Reference: Solicitation, Page 9, “Additional scope elements may be found in specification section 01 10 00 Summary of Work.”

Question: Please provide the Specifications listed.

Answer #56: Specs included with SOW attachment.

Question #57: Reference: Solicitation, Page 83, “b. Provide resumes for non-designers identified in iv.”

Question: Please advise location of “iv” or provide guidance on the non-designers that Offerors must provide resumes for

Answer #57: : See amendment #2. Resumes are for:

(a) Offeror’s role if not listed in “b” through “g”

(b) Designer of record (one person from design firm) - SF 330

(c) Design-build project manager

(d) Company responsible for construction activities/Superintendent

(e) Company responsible for electrical construction activities/Superintendent

(f) Company responsible for piping activities/ Superintendent

(g) Company responsible for HVAC/ Superintendent

Question #58: Reference: RFP p. 58/109 - I.135 1352.237-75 KEY PERSONNEL (APR 2010) “(a) The contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel: Designer of Record, Project Manager, Construction Superintendent. The contractor shall obtain the consent of the Contracting Officer prior to making key personnel substitutions. Replacements for key personnel must possess qualifications equal to or exceeding the qualifications of the personnel being replaced, unless an exception is approved by the

Contracting Officer.”

Question: Please advise whether Contractors are able to use different teams if awarded multiple task orders?

Answer #58: Each task order, offerors will be able to offer for consideration different key personnel.

Question #59: Reference: RFP – Factor 2 and Factor 3. RFP p. 99/109 – Evaluation of Factor 3 – “It will be reviewed to ensure same examples provided in Factor #2 will be evaluated for Factor #3. Only first five examples will be reviewed, in case more than 5 were provided.”

Question: Please advise what is the difference between Factor 2 and Factor 3 other than evaluation rating? Do the same projects cited in Factor 2 need be cited in Factor 3?

Answer #59: See answer #1. Reference amendment #2

Question #60: Reference: RFP p. 83/109 – Factor 4 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of the Offeror and

Subcontractors; “b. Provide resumes for non-designers identified in iv.”

Question: Please advise - does ‘iv’ refer to items i. (d) through (g)?

Answer #60: Reference answer #57 and amendment #2

Question #61: Reference: RFP p. 10/109 – Requirements – “Multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Design/Build

Construction Services Contracts will be awarded to a minimum of three (3) offerors.” The solicitation on SAM.gov states the “Three

(3) highest rated firms will be selected to move into the Phase II of the selection process.”

Question: Please advise - does this mean that all Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II will be awarded a contract?

Answer #61: No only successful offerors for phase II will be awarded a contract.

Question #62: Reference: RFP p. 82/109 - Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor – iv, (4) “Type of contract

(e.g., construction, design/build or design-bid-build)”.

Question: Please advise how Offeror should differentiate between construction and design-bid-build types of contracts.

Answer #62: See answer #1 and amendment #2.

Question #63: Reference: RFP p. 84/109 - Factor 5 – Past Performance – “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.”

Question: May Offerors submit CPARS evaluations for projects cited in Factors 2 and 3 in lieu of PPQs?

Answer #63: See amendment #2.

Question #64: Reference: RFP p. 84/109 - Subfactor 5a - Builder Past Performance – “Offeror must provide past performance information via CPARS for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years. Offeror may cite contracts identified in Factor 3.”

Question: There is an abnormally long delay between the issue of CPARS evaluations and project completion that has grown during the pandemic. Projects completed in 2022 will not likely be drafted until late 2023 (or 2024). We are still waiting for CPAR evaluations for projects completed in 2021 and 2020. Will the Government eliminate the requirement that CPARS evaluations be submitted for at least 3 projects submitted in Factor 3?

Question: Will Offeror’s interim CPARS evaluations be acceptable

Answer #64: Period has increased from three (3) years to five (5). See amendment #2. As listed in amendment #2 offerors have choice of submitting PPQs or relying on CPARS for same federal contracts.

Question #65: Reference: RFP Factor 2 and Factor 3 – p. 83/109 – Factor 3, 1) c. “Provide the same information required in § iv. of

Factor 2.”

Answer #65: Confirmed. For Factor 3, provide the same information required in Factor 2. Refer to amendment #2

Question #66: Reference: RFP p. 84/109 - Subfactor 5b - Designer Past Performance – “Offeror must submit CPAR information for any Architect-Engineer contracts completed in the last 3 years.”

Question: We understand that A/E firms contracting directly with the Government may receive CPARS evaluations for their design/engineering work. For Subfactor 5b please advise – are Offerors permitted to submit their proposed A/E’s CPARS evaluations for design/engineering services rendered directly to the Government and utilized in design-bid-build projects?

Question: Will the Government also deem acceptable (for Subfactor 5b) the CPARS evaluations for Design-Build projects completed by Prime Offeror wherein the Offerors proposed Designer served as the Designer of Record?

Answer #66: See amendment #2 for revised section 5

Question #67: Reference: Solicitation, Page 84, Subfactor 5c, Experience Modification Rate, Offeror must submit a letter from the

National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) or its calculating State Agency verifying the Offerors’ EMR for the last rating period only. (2) If the Offeror is ineligible for an EMR, the Offeror must provide a signed letter from their insurance company.”

Question: If submitting as a JV, can offerors submit an EMR or insurance letter from each individual member of the JV?

Answer #67: EMR or insurance letter for each individual in a JV is acceptable. Should be consistent

(MJW)

Question #68: Reference: Solicitation, Page 82, Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, “i. The Offeror must submit documentation of at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts completed within the prior 3 years of the date of the RFQ…”

Question: Small Business General Contractors do not regularly perform projects involving many of the desired aspects, such as projects valued over $15 million. Will the government consider reducing the desired qualification $15 million to $10 million?

Question: Will the government consider extending the period of completion for projects to five years?

Answer #68: See amendment #2 which changed the period from three (3) to five (5) years. The dollar thresholds did not change.

69 Question #69: For Phase 1, are page limits associated with each Factor section? (Factors 1-5) Answer #69: No page limits required for Phase 1

Question #70: Factor 2 (pg 82/109 and Factor 3 (pg 83/109): Can the same project be submitted for Factor 3 as was submitted for

Factor 2 if it was a design-build project performed by us as the prime contractor?

Answer #70: Yes see answer #1 and amendment #2

Question #71: Factor 3 (pg 83/109), para 1) a-c: Do these Design-Build project examples need to be all from us as the prime contractor, or can they include design-build projects performed by a second tier contractor serving as a sub to us for this pursuit?

Answer #71: Examples must be from the Prime Contractor as the offeror

Question #72: Factor 3 (pg 83/109), para 1)a-c: Does Factor 3 require inclusion of our intended design partner firm’s design-build project(s)? If so, can they have been performed with a different prime contractor other than us?

Answer #72: Factor 3 is the past experience of the offeror for those example projects. If the potential offeror plans on utilizing a different designer of record for NIST IDIQ, that would be reflected in factor #4.

Question #73: Factor 4 (pg 83/109), para a: For the SF 330 required for the DOR, we see Section H is to be omitted. How many

Section F projects are to be included in their SF330? What required disciplines and minimum number of resumes are to be represented in the Section E and included in their SF330?

Answer #73: See amendment #2. For phase 1 provide one designer of record only. Phase II has additional requirements for designers.

Question #74: Factor 4 (pg 83/109), para a: For the DOR’s SF330, is there a minimum or maximum page limit? What is the font type/size required? What pages or content is excluded from the page count?

Answer #74: No Page limits required. See answer #48.

Question #75: Factor 4 (pg 83/109), para b: “Provide resumes for non-designers identified in iv.” What is “identified in iv” actually referring to (unclear)?

Answer #75: See amendment #2

Question #76: Factor 5 (pg 84/109), Subfactor 5b – Designer Past Performance: The designer’s CPAR information will not reflect design-build work where the DOR served as sub. Can PPQs be provided in lieu of CPAR information? Can these be from both DBB and DB projects in the last 3 years, or do they all need to be PPQs from only design-build projects

Answer #76: See amendment #2 which revised section 5

Question #77: Factor 2-Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor: Will you accept any projects that are ongoing if they are a certain percentage complete?

Answer #77: Projects must be completed projects. See amendment #2

Question #78: Factor 2-Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor: Are all of the projects we are submitting as experience to be design-build?

Answer #78: Yes, all of the projects/examples must be design-build

Question #79: Factor 5- Subfactor 5a- Builder Past Performance: The solicitation states “The Government will evaluate the past performance information for relevant projects that were completed within the past 3 years as identified in Factor 3.” Should this actually state Factor 2? Factor 3 is experience from the designer

Answer #79: See answer #1. Factor 3 requires that potential offerors provide the same information in

Factor 2. Reference amendment #2

Question #80: Factor 5-Subfactor 5a- Builder Past Performance: Can you please confirm that we are to submit past performance on the projects we identified in Factor 2 and not any other projects?

Answer #80: See amendment #2 which identifies projects used in factor 2 are to be used in factor 3.

Factor 5 as noted in amendment #2 is for offeror to submit the same projects in factor 2 and 3 for consideration in factor 5

81 Question #81: Are there any pro forma requirements for submission? (i.e. SF1442, amendments, representations and certifications) Answer #81: See amendment #2 AMD Will coordinate issuance (MJW)

82 Question #82: Can you please confirm if we are to include a teaming agreement in this proposal if we have teaming partners Answer #82: AMD to answer. AMD to add teaming in solicitation (MJW)

Question #83: Factor 2- Experience: Per the Solicitation on page 82, under Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime

Contractor, section ii., “…The contract must be either construction as defined in FAR or Design Build as defined in FAR” However, on page 99, Evaluation of Factor 2 – Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor, reads that the Government will review offers to confirm “2) Examples are design-build examples”. Do all projects submitted under Factor 2 have to be design build, or can they be design-bid-build construction/renovation as well?

Answer #83: Projects submitted under Factor 2 must be design-build. Please reference amendment #2

Question #84: Factor 3- Design Build Experience: Per the solicitation on page 83, under Factor 3-

Design/Build Experience of the Offeror, “1) Design Build Experience must meet the following criteria:

a. At least one federal design/build construction contract for a hospital, laboratory facility or research facility, exclusive of curtilage or ancillary facilities.

b. At least one contract must be for new construction of a facility valued at least $5M;

c. Provide the same information required in § iv. of Factor 2”

-Please confirm that we are only to provide a maximum of five projects in Factor 2, and that we are not to provide additional projects in Factor 3 beyond the five maximum to meet the criteria above. Meaning, that at least one project submitted in Factor 2 needs to meet the criteria above.

-Also, do we need to include the project(s) submitted in Factor 2 that meet the criteria above and include them again in Factor 3, or can we just make a reference to “please see the applicable projects” in Factor 2?

Answer #84: Provide the same projects in Factor 2 in Factor 3. See amendment #2

Question #85: Factor 4- Specialized Experience: Per the solicitation on page 83, under Factor 4 – Specialized Experience and

Technical Competence of the Offeror and Subcontractors, section “a. Provide SF 330s for the proposed Designer of Record Do not provide SF

330 section “H” Additional information.”

- Please confirm that the Govt. only wants an SF330 for the Designer of Record company.

Answer #85: Confirmed, SF 330 required for the Designer of record (one person). Reference amendment #2.

Question #86: Factor 4- Specialized Experience: Per the solicitation on page 83, under Factor 4 – Specialized Experience and

Technical Competence of the Offeror and Subcontractors, “b. Provide resumes for non-designers identified in iv.”

- What and where is section “iv” that is being referred to?

- Do the resumes for the “non-designers” need to be provided in SF330 Section E format?

Answer #86: Reference amendment #2

Question #87: Factor 4- Specialized Experience: Per the solicitation on page 83, under Factor 4 – Specialized Experience and

Technical Competence of the Offeror and Subcontractors, section “ii. A Design-Build Team Experience Table must be completed based upon projects listed in factor 3.” Page 100 of the solicitation, under Evaluation of Factor 4 – Specialized Experience and

Technical Competence of the Offeror and its Subcontractors, “Offerors will be reviewed more favorably if the design-build team members has past experience working together on at least four examples noted in factor #3 and factor #4 table.”

- Please clarify what is required to fulfill the requirements for the creation of a “Design-Build Team Experience Table.” Are we only to include projects from Factors 2 & 3? Or should we include Design Build projects that our companies and/or key personnel have worked on together?

- What is the Factor #3 Table? Are the projects from Factor 2 to be included?

- Is the Design-Build Team Experience Table to be included within the SF330 in Section G format, or is it supposed to included separately? Should it be presented in Section G SF330 format?

Answer #87: Table is for projects listed under factor #2 and #3 and team member’s involvement.

Team experience is not in SF 330 format. See amendment #2.

Question #88: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): Per page 84 of the solicitation, under Factor 5 – Past Performance, “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.”

- No PPQ form has been attached. Please provide.

Answer #88: See amendment #2 for revised factor 5

Question #89: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): Per page 84 of the solicitation, under Factor 5 – Past Performance, “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.”

Should the completed PPQs be included within our proposal submission

Answer #89: See Answer #88

Question #90: Past Performance Questionnaires vs CPARS: Per page 84 of the solicitation, under Factor 5 – Past Performance, “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.”

- Do PPQs need to be provided for all 3-5 projects provided in Factor 2, or can CPARS Evaluations (if available) be submitted in lieu of PPQs?

- Can previously submitted PPQs be used from other proposals?

Answer #90: See Answer #88

Question #91: Subfactor 5a - Builder Past Performance: Per page 84 of the solicitation, under Factor 5- Past Performance, Subfactor

5a - Builder Past Performance, “Offeror must provide past performance information via CPARS for at least 3 federal government contracts completed within the past 3 years. Offeror may cite contracts identified in Factor 3.” Can the Offeror include CPARS evaluations for the contracts identified in Factor 2 as well?

Answer #91: Yes see amendment #2 which requires factor 2 examples to be used in factor 3.

Additionally those projects are to be used in factor 5. Amendment #2 also revised section 5.

Question #92: Due Date Extension: Please consider extending the due date to provide enough time to respond to the answers to the

RFIs provided Answer #92: RFP Response date is Feb 21, 2023

Question #93: SF1442 Form: Are we supposed to include a signed SF1442 form with our Phase 1 submittal for the purpose of acknowledging amendments?

Answer #93: Yes

Question #94: Representations and Certifications: Are we supposed to include a completed Section K- Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors form with our Phase 1 submittal?

Answer #94: No only for phase II

Question #95: Proposal Submission: Per page 80 of the solicitation, under 1. Submission Instructions, section b., “Offerors must use the following email subject line “Submission – Phase One RFQ NB195000-23-00531- Large Tier D/B IDIQ”. Should we change the solicitation number to #1333ND23QNB190061?

Answer #95: AMD to provide answer Yes (MJW)

Question #96: P.18, part 12. Asbestos:

Does NIST have reports depicting ACM locations and other hazardous material locations for buildings which are part of this contract?

Answer #96; Information related to ACM, other hazardous material and as-built drawings if required will be determined at the task order level. Seed project has ACM.

97 Question #97: LEED Certification: Will LEED certification be a goal/requirement for projects within this contract? Answer #97: LEED certification if required will be determined at the task order level

Question #98: P.23, part 25. Restoration of Exterior Construction Site:

2nd sentence notes the following: “This shall include removing all debris and stones of 2 inches or from the subsoil to a depth of 8 inches regardless of the condition the site was turned over to the contractor.”

- What does “stones of 2” or more” mean? Is this intended to be 2” or more, or 2” or less?

Answer #98: Intended to mean stones of 2” or more

Question #99: Page 82, Factor 2, Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor indicates that we are to provide at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts to demonstrate our experience and that, “The contract must be either construction as defined in FAR or Design Build as defined in FAR”. The evaluation criteria indicates that “Examples are design-build” examples.

Please confirm that design-bid-build construction contracts, as defined by the FAR, are acceptable.

Answer #99: Contracts must be design-build as defined in FAR. Please refer to amendment #2 and answer #1.

Question #100: Page 82, Factor 2, Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor indicates that we are to provide at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts to demonstrate our experience. Please consider: If three Federal Government contracts are included, can the additional contracts be for other governments (i.e. state and local) or private clients?

Answer #100: See amendment #2 which revised factors 2 and 3.

Question #101: . Page 82, Factor 2, Experience of the Builder as a Prime Contractor indicates that we are to provide at least 3 but not more than 5 Federal Government contracts completed in the last three (3) years. Please consider: If three contracts were completed within the last three years, can the additional contracts extend to five (5) years.

Answer #101: See amendment #2 which was changed from three (3) to five (5) years.

Question #102: Page 83, factor 4 Specialist Experience and Technical Competence of the Offeror and Subcontractors (b) indicates that we are to provide “resumes for non-designers identified in iv.” But there is no “iv” following this requirement. Please confirm that this should be resumes listed in “i.” or clarify which resumes are required.

Answer #102: Please reference amendment #2

Question #103: Page 83, factor 4 Specialist Experience and Technical Competence of the Offeror and Subcontractors (b) indicates that we are to provide qualifications for all relevant subcontractors and later states that we must provide resumes for the electrical construction activities Superintendent, piping activities/ Superintendent, and HVAC/ Superintendent

i. Please confirm that the only subcontractor qualifications required are electrical, piping, and HVAC.

ii. May we provide qualifications for more than one subcontractor in each trade?

Answer #103: Subcontractor qualifications required are construction (general architectural) electrical, piping and HVAC. Provide one subcontractor and superintendent resume for each trade noted.

Question #104: . Page 84, Factor 5 Past Performance indicates that “Offeror must use the attached Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.” This statement is followed by requirements 5a and 5b indicating that

CPARs must be submitted.

i. The PPQ form was not provided with the RFP document. Please provide the form that should be used.

ii. If a CPARs is available, should the CPARs be submitted in place of the PPQ.

iii. If a CPARs is not available, please confirm that the PPQ – submitted on the correct form – is acceptable

Answer #104: See amendment #2 for factor #5 revisions.

Question #105: Regarding Evaluation Factor 4, item iii. A Design-Build Team Experience Table for each proposed Team Member is evaluated to see past experience together.... Offerors will be reviewed more favorably if the design-build team members has past experience working together on at least four examples noted in factor #3 and factor #4 table. The factor #3 and factor #4 table are only being evaluated for five project examples. May the Design-Build Team Experience Table be expanded beyond the five projects to show a more comprehensive view of the team’s experience together?

Answer #105: Factor #4 table is to review are the proposed team members the same ones who were involved with factors #2 and #3. Do not provide more than 5 examples for factors 2 and 3. Amendment

#2 also revised factor 5.

Question #106: Regarding Evaluation Factor 2, At least three federal contract examples were submitted that were completed within the past 3 years. Please confirm if projects that are still under construction will be considered. Answer #106: Projects must be completed projects. See amendment #2.

Question #107: Please refer to Section L, Factor 5 Past Performance. Factor 5 indicates to “Offeror must use the attached Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to document past performance.” It appears a PPQ format was not included as an attachment in the original RFP. Please provide.

Answer #107: See amendment #2

Question #108: Please refer to Section L, Factor 5 Past Performance. In recent years, other federal agencies have allowed offerors to submit copies of completed PPQs that have been previously submitted with other proposals. This approach has proven to be much more convenient to customers because it streamlines the evaluation process, simplifies the logistics of sending PPQs, and reduces the number of times offerors need to impose on their customers to fill out PPQs. We respectfully request that the government adopt this well-established and effective approach to providing customer past performance evaluation. Please confirm that it is acceptable to submit federal PPQs (e.g., DoD PPQ-0 format) previously submitted in other proposals.

Answer #108: See amendment #2

Question #109: Please refer to Section L, Factor 5 Past Performance. In addition to PPQs to demonstrate past performance, please allow CPARs completed by government customers for federal past projects

Answer #109: NIST has the ability to look up CPARS completed by other agencies. Offeror has options on CPARS noted in amendment #2.

Question #110: Please refer to RFP Section C (RFP page 10 of 109). The Requirements paragraph of Section C indicates, “Multiple

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Design/Build Construction Services Contracts will be awarded to a minimum of three (3) offerors.” The SAM.gov notice indicates, “Three (3) highest rated firms will be selected to move into the Phase II of the selection process.” RFP Section L includes 52.216-27 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS (OCT 1995), “The Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation.” Please confirm that no more than three of the most highly qualified offerors will be selected to the phase II solicitation and that less than three will be awarded a contract after the phase II solicitation

Answer #110: Yes no more than 3 phase I offerors will move to phase II. NIST intends to award up to 3

IDIQ contracts contingent upon Phase 2 evaluations.

Question #111: RFP Section L – Instructions to Offerors – Phase 1 paragraph 1.h.iii of the Submission Instructions states that “Multi-column formatting is not allowed.” (REF: page 89 of 109). Please confirm this only applies to the paragraph h. Charts, Table, Figures, Graphs that it falls under and that a 2-column format is allowable for other elements of the proposal

Answer #111: Confirmed, h. applies to Charts, Table, Figures, Graphs that it falls under

Question #112: Please consider extending the proposal due date an additional 2 weeks (at least) from February 13, 2023 to

February 27, 2023. This additional time will allow all offerors to fully coordinate all response information for best value proposals, including the necessary coordination efforts with prior customers related to past performance questionnaires (PPQs) required for

Factor 5

Answer #112: New RFP Date is 02/21/2023. Reference amendment #2 for factor 5 revisions.

Question #113: The SAM.gov notice indicates that RFIs are due January 23, 2023, 12:00 pm Noon EST. Please provide an additional 7 days for RFIs submissions.

Answer #113: New RFP Date is 02/21/2023