Attachment_9_Amendment_0003_Q_A_2_0004.pdf

Number Date Received Contractor Question Date Sent to COR Answer Date Answered

1 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Specification Clarity: In the interest of promoting bid consistency and minimizing future scope gaps, can you confirm whether a formal written roofing specification will be provided by the government, or are bidders expected to submit proprietary system proposals? 5/5/2025 Formal written specification will be provided, see other RFI responses 5/15/2025

2 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Defined Scope of Work: To ensure apples-to-apples bid comparisons and avoid misinterpretation of intent, will an official Scope of Work be issued, clearly outlining the work to be performed. 5/5/2025 Yes official scope of work will be issued 5/15/2025

3 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Warranty Requirements: To ensure long-term value and reduce risk to the government, please clarify the required warranty parameters—specifically the duration, type (e.g., No Dollar Limit), and whether the issuing authority must be the manufacturer or a third party. 5/5/2025 20 year NDL, 60 mil TPO 5/15/2025

4 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Code Compliance and Uplift Requirements: To align with federal building standards and reduce liability during installation, are there specific IBC, FM Global, or other compliance and wind uplift benchmarks that the proposed roofing assembly must satisfy? 5/5/2025

2021 IBC, Wind uplift calcs based on ASCE 7-16, 20 year NDL, BIE to confirm FM Global. Standard zone based wind uplift cals based on ASCE 7-16 are sufficent for submittal 5/15/2025

5 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Acceptable Roof Assemblies: To guide appropriate system selection and meet lifecycle cost expectations, will both single-ply TPO, and multi-ply roofing systems be considered acceptable options? 5/5/2025 single ply TPO system, fully adhered installation, 60 mil membrane, 20 year NDL 5/15/2025

6 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Performance Benchmarks: Are there stated performance goals or service life expectations (e.g., 30-year system lifespan) that the proposed roof assembly must be designed to meet or exceed? 5/5/2025 20 year NDL 5/15/2025

7 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Moisture Scan and Overlay Option: Would the government consider an infrared moisture scan to evaluate the viability of an overlay option in lieu of a full tear-off—provided less than 25% of the roof area shows moisture intrusion, thereby reducing waste and project cost? 5/5/2025 Yes. 5/15/2025

8 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Project Oversight Expectations: Will a certified manufacturer’s representative be required on-site throughout the installation to ensure compliance with specification details, quality control protocols, and warranty activation requirements? 5/5/2025 Yes 5/15/2025

9 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Liability and Risk Transfer: Will the roofing system manufacturer be required to assume performance liability through a system-specific specification, warranty issuance, and active oversight, as part of the bid submission? 5/5/2025 Yes 5/15/2025

10 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Contractor Selection Support: Would the owner or project team be open to assistance from the manufacturer regarding contractor prequalification or bid review, to ensure that approved applicators meet system requirements and quality expectations? 5/5/2025 Yes 5/15/2025

11 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Submission by Manufacturer Representative: If a manufacturer's representative attended the pre-bid meeting, would the government permit them to submit a proposed performance specification and scope of work on behalf of the project to serve as a uniform bidding standard? 5/5/2025 Yes 5/15/2025

12 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Applicable Design Standards: Can you confirm whether any of the following design standards are being used to inform this project’s roofing scope or compliance requirements: BIA “School Facilities Design Handbook” (2007); BIA “Educational Space Criteria Handbook” (2007); BIA-DMRS Space Allocation Guidelines? 5/5/2025 Confirmed, shall be considered along with above adddional codes 5/15/2025

Questions and Answers Log for Request for Proposal

13 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Clarification of “Technically Acceptable” Criteria under LPTA: In reference to the current solicitation approach: Given that the project has not yet issued a formal specification or detailed Scope of Work, how does the agency intend to define “technically acceptable” in order to meet the requirements of a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection under FAR 15.101-2?

Per FAR 11.002(a)(1), agencies must define their needs in a way that allows offerors to propose meaningful solutions and permits objective evaluation.

Without clearly established specifications or performance benchmarks, there is no baseline to determine technical acceptability—potentially compromising the integrity of the LPTA process.

In the interest of ensuring fairness and compliance with FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) and FAR 11.002(b), we respectfully recommend the agency consider one of the following approaches to help ensure that all proposals are evaluated equitably and in accordance with applicable procurement standards:

1. Issuing a site-specific, performance-based specification to provide a uniform technical baseline, or

2. Allowing a manufacturer’s representative who attended the pre-bid meeting to submit a standardized performance specification and scope of work to serve as a basis for all bids. 5/5/2025

The Statement of Work is available with details of requirement. Refer to solicitation page 25 for "technically acceptable" ratings. 5/20/2025

14 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

Procurement Strategy and LPTA Evaluation Clarity: Given the current absence of a detailed specification or defined Scope of Work, how does the agency plan to ensure an objective evaluation under the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method as outlined in FAR 15.101-2?

Without clearly defined minimum technical criteria, the determination of "technically acceptable" risks becoming subjective—contrary to FAR 15.101- 2(b)(1), which requires evaluation against clearly stated minimum acceptability standards. Additionally, FAR 11.002(a)(1) emphasizes the need for clearly articulated requirements to support meaningful proposal comparisons. In light of these factors, we respectfully suggest that a Best Value Tradeoff procurement method, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, may better support this project's goals. A Best Value approach would allow for consideration of both cost and technical merit—particularly appropriate when:

-- Project requirements are still evolving, -- System longevity and performance may vary significantly across proposals, -- Lifecycle cost and risk mitigation are important evaluation factors.

Would the agency consider transitioning to a Best Value procurement model or issuing a performance-based specification to align more closely with FAR procurement best practices and ensure the agency receives the most advantageous outcome? 5/5/2025

No we will no transition to Best Value procurement. LPTA aligns with FAR procurement best practices. See solcitation technical evalutions page 23 of 140A2325R0032 for evaluation factors. 5/20/2025

15 5/5/2025 AmerInd

Contracting

The RFP indicates that the project will be awarded under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation. However, during our review and discussions, it has been indicated that the roof requires a full replacement and that a 30-year warranty on the new system is preferred. Given the complexity and long-term nature of the project, we believe that a Best Value evaluation would be more appropriate to ensure that the selected contractor can meet the technical requirements and provide a high-quality, durable solution.

Additionally, the current solicitation lacks detailed design standards and specifications, making it difficult to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of bidders' proposals. Clear specifications are essential for evaluating the technical acceptability and overall value of each proposal.

According to FAR 15.101-2, the LPTA source selection process should only be used when:

1. The agency can comprehensively and clearly describe the minimum requirements in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of offers;

2. The agency would realize no, or minimal, value from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements;

3. The agency believes the technical proposals will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal versus a competing proposal;

4. The agency has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit to the agency;

5. The agency determined that the lowest price reflects the total cost, including 5/5/2025

The LPTA source selection is justified: 1. The solicitation contains the requirements for the statement of work, technical evaluation criteria, instructions to the offerors, price bid scheudle, DOL wage determination and clauses. 2. BIA/BIE would realize minimum value from a contract proposal exceeding the technical requirements set forth in the proposal. 3. The proposed technical approach will require miminal subjective judgement by the source selection authority as to the desribaility of one offeror's proposal versus a competing proposal.

4. The resulting contract will be a firm fixed priced contract that will reflect full costs of the construction at teh Beclabito Day School. 5/20/2025

Sheet1