Attch_16_A0002_Questions_Answers_0002.pdf

CA, GAOA DESIGN-BUILD CAHUILLA RANGER STATION REPLACEMENT

Solicitation No: 140L0625R0007 – Amendment 0002 Questions & Answers

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

REFERENCE | SECTION QUESTIONS | ANSWERS

N/A

Q1: There is a site visit scheduled for Phase 1 of this 2 phase procurement, and FAR 52.236-27 indicates offerors are urged and expected to attend. Since Phase 1 is really about qualifications and past performances, would the BLM consider holding off on a Phase 1 site walk, and just plan on having the site walk during Phase 2, for the short listed bidders that are actually going to receive the RFP and bid the project?

A1: No; see Q3/A3 for additional information.

N/A

Q2: Can you please let me know the reason why all proposed bids were rejected on this project. We are still very interested in your project.

A2: Please monitor SAM.gov for all updates regarding this opportunity.

N/A

Q3: Can we visit the site ourselves any time from May 8th?

A3: Only the parking areas outside the fence and the public reception portion of the building (when staffed) are open to the public. Offerors might be able to get a look around the fence perimeter, otherwise please coordinate a site visit with the

COR.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q4: The solicitation, Phase One Evaluation Criteria; Volume 3, Past Performance section (b) Questionnaires indicates "References shall return the questionnaires directly to the CS and CO". Unfortunately many of our colleagues have left the federal government due to the recent downsizing. We are concerned that BLM may not receive PPQ due to federal staff leaving or making them a low priority as many are overwhelmed with redirected work loads.

Allow PPQs to be sent from the offeror. Format attached for referance.

A4: References, not the offeror, may email complete questionnaires.

N/A Q5: Can you confirm this project isn’t a small business set aside project?

A5: This project is a small business set aside.

N/A

Q6: We were wondering if it is beneficial or necessary for BLM Staff and staff for proposing entities to make the site visit on 5/2/25. The Phase 1 proposal components are related to Experience with DB projects for firm and staff as well as past performance with nothing required for technical issues related to existing site conditions. Perhaps it would be the best use of time for all involved to suspend the site visit until after Phase 1 when the qualified offerors are known.

During the Phase 2 submission process would seem to be a better time to make a site visit where proposals relate to more technical aspects of the project. Would BLM consider postponing the urged and expected site visit to a time during the Phase 2 submittal process?

A6: See Q1/A1 & Q3/A3.

N/A Q7: The RFP references BLM SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS (The Yellow Book) in the Statement of Work. Could BLM please provide a link to this document so we can reference for submission of proposal?

A7: Please see Attch 18_A0002 H-1112-1 Rel.1-1837 BLM Safety and Health Management for BLM Safety and Health Management handbook H-1122-1.

SOLICITATION PAGE 1

Q8: Box 13 of the SF1442 states the bid is due at 14:00 (local time). Does “local time” refer to the local time of the Denver Federal Center (MST) or the time zone in which project will occur (PST)?

A8: See (solicitation page 4), Phase One Deadlines.

SOLICITATION PAGE 35 | L-7 | Volume 3 (Past Performance)

Q9: This section is limited to 10 pages. The PPQ form is 3 pages long, and we will be submitting 5 PPQs, thus 15 pages. We also intend to submit 5 past project descriptions, which are 2 pages long each. Thus our submission will be 25 pages in length. Can you relax the page limitation—maybe allowing it to go to 25 pages in length? If not, we will not be able to provide 5 projects.

A9: No; see Q4/A4. Questionnaires are not included in Volume 3 page limitations.

N/A

Q10: We are the Prime Contractor / General Contractor / Design-Build Entity for this submission. We will be using an A/E (DOR) firm for the design of this project—a company that we have worked with for over ten years. Is your intent that the project submissions are to be only for projects that we as the Prime / D- BE have worked on? Or can we include 1-2 projects that our A/E (DOR) firm has performed?

A10: See M-6 VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE (PHASE ONE) (solicitation page 39).

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q11: Regarding the PPQs: Page 36 of 40, under L-10 (b): It is stated that substitute questionnaires completed for other projects will not be accepted. It can be very difficult (and often unsuccessful) to keep approaching our same references, year after year, to fill out proprietary PPQs. We aren’t getting a good success rate on having these same references, often from 5-6 years ago, keep filling out these forms. We are concerned that if some of our references do not respond to our request that this will diminish our grade. Will your evaluation criteria take into account this fact that bidders don’t have full control over their references taking the time to fill out and submit the PPQs?

A11: See Q10/A10.

Attachment 13

Q12: The “How To” instructions describe how to fill out the SF1442 for the Phase 1 submission. It directs us to fill out Boxes 30a, 30b, and 30c. Normally these boxes do not get filled out when an SF1442 is being submitted as an Offer.

We are used to filling this part of the SF1442 out upon being awarded a project.

Can you confirm that you want us to fill out and sign this section of the SF1442, which falls under the “Award” section of the SF1442?

A12: Yes; see L-8 instructions (solicitation page 35).

N/A

Q13: We wanted to ask about the qualifications and past performance. We have one new residential build we are completing in June and other commercial and residential remodels. We want to know if our last employment job where we executed several project which include two 3,000 square foot warehouses with 1,000 square foot office space inside with mezzanines would qualify as past performance to qualify for to bid on this project.

A13: See L-10, (solicitation page 36) & M-6, (solicitation page 39).

N/A

Q14: I am trying to find who the General Contractors that our bidding this project. Can you please provide me with that information or direct me to where I can find out?

A14: See Attch 15_A0002 PRE-BID Attendees, Conference.

SOLICITATION PAGE 1

Q15: See the SF1442, page 1, box 13. 13b indicates an Offer Guarantee is required. However the body of the Solicitation only talks about an Offer Guarantee in the context of Phase 2. Please confirm that an Offer Guarantee is not required in our Phase 1 submission.

A15: An offer Guarantee is required in Phase 2; see L-12, (solicitation pages 36- 37).

SOLICITATION PAGE 4

Q16: I see in the Solicitation that there is a SET-ASIDE for “Total Small Business” and SIZE STD is $45M. Can you explain if this would eliminate us from the opportunity if we have an annual revenue over $45M.

A16: Size Standard – $45M is the maximum average annual revenue a company can have (usually averaged over the past 3 years) to be considered "small" for the 236220 NAICS code.

SOLICITATION PAGE 35 | L-7 | Volume 3 (Past Performance)

Q17: The solicitation, Phase One Evaluation Criteria; Volume 3, Past Performance section (a) Past Performance Examples. Please confirm that the Volume 3 Past Performance 10 page limitation only pertains to section (a).

Allow section (b) Questionnaires to be exempt from the 10 page limitation for Volume 3 as each of the 5 PPQs are 3 pages each.

A17: See Q9/A9.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q18: Similar to our RFI #1 - The solicitation, Phase One Evaluation Criteria;

Volume 3, Past Performance section (b) Questionnaires indicates "References shall return the questionnaires directly to the CS and CO". Unfortunately many of our colleagues have left the federal government due to the recent downsizing.

We are concerned that BLM may not receive PPQ due to federal staff leaving or making them a low priority as many are overwhelmed with redirected work loads. Allow CPARS to be used in lieu of PPQs.

A18: See Q10/A10.

SOLICITATION PAGE 34 | L-7

Q19: Factor 1 requirement is to provide an org chart and identify team members and their history of working together, and their history of performing D-B projects.

Factor 2 requests resumes for the key personnel called out in the org chart.

The Volume 2 content request does not indicate that we are to provide information about our technical approach to this project or to the D-B approach.

Please confirm that this is the case--that Volume 2 is not requesting that we provide information about our technical approach. It appears that this information won't be required until Phase 2, Volume 5, Factor 4. Is this correct?

A19: Yes; see L-11 & L13, (solicitation pages 36&37).

SOLICITATION PAGE 35 | L-9 Q20: Volume 2 Factor 1 indicates that we are to provide construction trades in our org chart and for our Team, and in the EVAL CRITERIA for this Factor it is indicated that highly qualified construction trades on our team may result in a higher rating. Since this is a two phase procurement, and no pricing is required at this stage, we are not getting bids from the trades, so we will not have decided who our main trade subcontractors will be. Therefore we cannot provided these companies’ information in our org chart or in our team. However we are able to identify major trades that we could utilize in a Design Assist effort, and we could provide that information.

Can you confirm that this would be an acceptable approach and would not lower our rating in the evaluations?

A20: See M-4, (solicitation page 38).

SOLICITATION PAGE 39 | M-5

Q21: Please see the solicitation, page 39, "M-5 Volume 2: Factor 2, Key Personnel. Here it states: "Proposals which show QA/QAC and Site Safety personnel reporting to the contractor’s field office instead of directly to the Site Supervisor may be rated more favorably." All three of these roles will be located at the job site (SSHO, QA/QC, and Superintendent).

Maybe "contractor's field office" means something other than the construction site?

Can you further clarify your request?

A21: See Attch 14_A0001 140L0625R0007 SF1442 Cont. Pages for M-5 revisions.

N/A

Q22: We provide specialty storage solutions, including lockers, shelving, and mobile shelving as listed on the specs of this bid. Unfortunately, I was having a hard time identifying any of these items on the actual floor plans listed for this project and wanted to reach out and see if there are any additional documents available showing what is needed on this project.

A22: Any required specialty storage solutions will be identified and specified during the design process of this design-build contract. However, furniture and equipment not permanently attached to the building will not be procured as part of this design-build contract.

SOLICITATION PAGE 39 | M-5

Q23: M-5 Volume 2: Factor 2, Key Personnel, (Phase one), paragraph 1, 2nd sentence states, “Offerors proposing more key personnel with superior law enforcement and emergency medical facility design and/or construction experience may be rated more highly than those with less design and/or construction experience.”

This facility does not appear to be primarily an EMS or Law Enforcement Office and only has a few (~8) specific requirements to both EMS and LEO’s. and due to the very small percentage of actual EMS and Law Enforcement specialty building components for those uses compared to the overall program, site components and standard building requirements, will the government please consider changing the “…personnel with Superior Law Enforcement and Emergency Medical Facility design or construction experience..” TO “…personnel with similar building program design or construction experience…”

A23: See Attch 14_A0001 140L0625R0007 SF1442 Cont. Pages for M-5 revisions.

SOLICITATION PAGE 39 | M-5 Q24: M-5 Volume 2: Factor 2, Key Personnel, (Phase one), paragraph 1, 4th sentence states, “….which show QA/QAC and Site Safety personnel reporting to the contractor’s field office instead of directly to the Site Supervisor may be rated more favorably.”

Please clarify the intent of the difference between “Contractors Field Office vs.

Site Supervisor”.

A24: See Q21/A21.

N/A

Q25: Due to the short response time between RFI due date of 09 May 2025 and the Bid Date of 19 May 2025 and for the purposes of evaluating and incorporating government responses to Phase 1 RFI’s, please extend the Phase 1 due date by 2 weeks from when questions are answered.

A25: See Amendments 0001 & 0002 SF30s.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10

Q26: Please confirm that the (5) projects required for the past performance requirements are only for the prime offeror (entity).

A26: See Q10/A10.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q27: L-10 PHASE ONE / VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE

(b) Questionnaires require that PPQs be sent directly to the CS/CO. Many of our clients once a CPARs has been completed refor to that when asked to complete a PPQ and will not provide a PPQ once a CPARs has been completed. If a CPAR is available can that be include instead of a PPQ document?

A27: See Q18/A18.

SOLICITATION PAGE 38 | M-4

Q28: M-4 VOLUME 2: FACTOR 1, DESIGN-BUILD TEAM (PHASE ONE),

first paragraph, 2nd sentence states. “Teams including more highly qualified design disciplines and/or construction trades may be rated higher….”

Please elaborate on the definition of “more highly qualified”

A28: Refer to Solicitation page 35 Section L-9 for specific design-build team submission requirements. More highly qualified teams may demonstrate more examples of relevant successful project completions, more relevant technical expertise and certifications, more years of experience, etc.

SOLICITATION PAGE 39 | M-6

Q29: M-6 VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE (PHASE ONE):

Please clarify what that the evaluation criteria for the information requested, including potentials for “higher and more favorable rankings” will be based on.

A29: See M-2, (solicitation page 38).

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q30: Clarification on Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQs) Submission Requirements. Per the instructions on page 36 of the solicitation, PPQs are to be submitted directly by the references listed in our proposal. However, our company already possesses completed and signed PPQs for the exact projects we intend to list as references.

1. Can we submit these existing signed PPQs with our bid in lieu of having the references sent directly?

2. If not, would CPARs for those projects be acceptable substitutes?

3. If CPAR’s are acceptable, are we responsible for submitting them with our proposal, or will the Government retrieve them independently from the CPARs system?

A30:

1. See Q4/A4.

2. See Q10/A10.

3. See the previous answer.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (a) Past Performance Examples

Q31: Can we go back one more year for a total of 8 years for past performance jobs as specified in section L10(a)?

A31: See L-10(a) (solicitation page 36).

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10

Q32: Can the past performance jobs include CMAR delivery services?

A32: The offeror may include Construction Manager At-Risk (CMAR) services in their past performance submission. The offeror should clarify their CMAR roles and responsibilities and whether or not they won the construction bid and constructed the project.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q33: If a contracting officer does not provide the PPQ for a past performance job, can we use a CPAR instead?

A33: See Q10/A10.

SOLICITATION PAGE 36 | L-10 | (b) Questionnaires

Q34: Regarding past performance questionnaires: Due to massive restructuring of federal personnel making it difficult to gather past performance questionnaire’s, We request that CPARs and already complete questionnaires be permitted, and that these be allowed to be submitted with Phase One

A34: Q10/A10.

N/A

Q35: Could you please confirm if anyone attended the walk-through? We're very interested in the project and plan to submit our qualifying documents next week and would appreciate it if you could advise whether any other firms are currently being considered for this project.

A35: See Q14/A14.