Amendment_0001_-_Questions_and_Answers_0001.pdf
PDF 172 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AK IZEMBEK DB GAOA Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140F0822R0007
- Issued by
- Not on record
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to Solicitation 140F0822R0007 issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The solicitation seeks a contractor to complete various projects at Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Cold Bay, Alaska, including reducing deferred maintenance, operating costs, and safety issues as well as modernizing infrastructure. The questions and answers provide clarification such as confirming offerors can use past performance questionnaires, CPARS documentation, and experience from prime and subcontractors to meet evaluation criteria. Teaming arrangements are also permitted. The period of performance is 90 days for design and 240 days for construction, with all work to be completed by September 22, 2024.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140F0822R0007_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| B08_-_Notice_to_Offerors.pdf | ||
| B08_-_Solicitation_(9_23).pdf | ||
| Sol_140F0822R0007.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Solicitation 140F0822R0007 - Izembek NWR GAOA Projects, Cold Bay, AK Amendment #0001
Questions and Answers
1. Are we able to obtain the CAD files generated so far for this project, specifically civil, topo and utilities?
USFWS Response:
In the SOW, Section 7.1, it states: “AutoCAD files for the 50% Design Drawings and Specifications and survey can be provided upon request to the awarded contractor.”
We will provide these files to the contractors selected for Phase 2 of the solicitation.
2. Do you want us to provide experience of the designer or just the Prime?
USFWS Response Provide experience that highlights and is in line with the evaluation criteria.
3. Based on the definition of relevant work in the RFP, does a project for it to be relevant have to have all these items as shown in the RFP or if we just meet 1 or more to be considered relevant?
Similar work is defined as follows:
• Projects of a similar size and budget ($5-$15 million)
• Projects located in remote (not accessible by road) Alaska
• Projects that include water, sewer and/or electrical utility work
• Projects that include residential and/or commercial building seismic retrofits
• Projects that include residential fire suppression renovations
• Projects that include residential and/or commercial building repairs and maintenance.
Please read section L.2.1.2 of the evaluation criteria as this is spelled out in the evaluation faction.
4. Based on the requirements of L.2.1.2, will you accept where the DOR was used as a consultant but was not a design build project to qualify for this item?
L.2.1.2 Evaluation Factor 1.2, Recent, Relevant Experience (Maximum 10 pages)
At a minimum 1 of the examples provided shall be a project on which the general contractor and the designer-of-record both worked, regardless if they were design-build projects.
We will accept experience that meets the established evaluation criteria.
5. Will you accept a teaming subcontractors experience either in lieu or combined with the Primes experience to qualify for this requirement?
L.2.1.2 Evaluation Factor 1.2, Recent, Relevant Experience (Maximum 10 pages) Provide at least 3 and no more than 5 examples of recent experience by the prime contractor or designated subcontractor similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work detailed herein.
Solicitation 140F0822R0007 - Izembek NWR GAOA Projects, Cold Bay, AK Amendment #0001
We will accept experience that meets the established evaluation criteria.
6. Factor 4, Past Performance. Submit past performance questionnaires on at least 3 and no more than 5 ongoing and/or past projects within the last five (5) years that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work described herein. The evaluation criteria suggests this is allowable. QUESTION: Confirm offerors are allowed to submit CPARS when available in lieu of PPQs.
We confirm that offerors are allowed to submit CPARS documentation.
7. Factor 4, Evaluation Factors. The proposal identifies at least three (3) similar projects with adequate details that demonstrate CPARS (or equal) past performance rated “exceptional” in cost, schedule, quality of product/service, and project management. QUESTION:
Exceptional ratings in every category are possible and do occur, but most often they occur in one or two categories with very good ratings in other categories. Many times a category will be rated very good, but the comments will describe exceptional work performance. How will evaluators assess performance when offerors provide a mixture of exceptional and very good ratings that are backed by strong comments?
Evaluations will be completed in accordance with section M of the solicitation.
8. Factor 3. Can offeror’s provide the organizational chart on an 11 x 17 page, and if so, would an 11 x 17 page count as one or two pages?
Yes the chart can be provided on an 11x17 page and it will count as 1-page.
9. Is a Bid Bond Required for Phase 1 proposal? Per the SF1442, additional solicitation requirements, 13.b., is checked that the offer guarantee is required.
No, the bid bond will only be required as part of the second phase.
10. The SF1442 shows a period of performance of 11-15-22 to 9-15-24, Section F shows 90 days of design and 240 days of construction. Section I (FARS 52.211-10) shows final completion of 9-22-24. Please clarify
The period of performance consists of 90 days of design and 240 days of construction from the issuance of the NTP. The dates act as a place holder and best estimate given all conditions. For the sake of answering the question please use the end completion date identified in the clause.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .