B12_PreProp_Questions_1402024R0026_20240306_Amend_4_0004.pdf

Solicitation 140P2024R0024 Preproposal Questions Responses

CATO 250011

Solicitation 140P2024R0026, CATO 250011 Pre-Proposal Questions and Responses, as of 03/06/2024 Amendment 0004 Number Question Response 1 To help us better meet the past performance requirements, would the Government consider increasing the time limit for past projects from having to be completed within the past 6 years to having to be completed within the past 10 years?

Sections L&M have been revised to change the definition of recency from 6 years to 10 years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

Offerors are reminded CPARS reports, that ma be used in Past Performance evaluation, are available for access up to 6 years.

2 Could you please confirm whether the deadline for questions, set as 10 days prior to the proposal due date and time, pertains to business days or calendar days? Also, could you provide the specific date?

The dealine for questions is 10 days prior to the closing date of the Solicitation. Since the due date for proposals may be changed by the Contracting Officer through issuance of Amendments, please review issued Amendments for the current proposal due date.

3 Regarding Factor 4 Technical Experience, there appears to be a discrepancy between the definition of applicable projects and the evaluation criteria. The former specifies completion within the last six years from the solicitation's issuance date, while the latter mentions ongoing projects at least 25% complete or those finished within the last six years prior to the solicitation's issuance. Could you clarify which criterion is accurate?

Factor 4 is changed to clarify projects must be completed within 10 years of the Solicitation issuance date OR may be currently ongoing. If the project is currently ongoing, it must be at least 25% complete as of the issuance date of the solicitation.

4 Could you please clarify the requirements for the Factor 5 Past Performance Proposal? It's stated that the proposal is limited to 15 pages, but it's also mentioned that PPQ/CPARS do not count against the page limit. Could you provide further clarification on this?

The solicitation does not include this language. Offerors shall submit past performance information with their proposal. CPARS may but submitted in lieu of a PPQ; however, please note that the NPS has access to complete CPARS reports.

5 Is the site open and available for contractors to perform test pits along the proposed alignments? No.

6 Arborists & Qualifications. Does the Park Service have an arborist on-staff for this project, or will that be on the contractor to provide for the duration of the project?

No NPS Arborist; contractor will need to supply that person.

7 At the site walk it was stated that the trees called out for removal on the drawings will be down by the time this project begins, but the stumps will remain and it is on the contractor to remove those stumps. Please confirm if the trees scheduled for removal in both the base bid and proposed option items will be down, or if the contractor should include pricing for removing any trees in the option items.

Please reference Addendum 2. A total of 226 trees will be removed under a separate construction contract along Manahan and Park Central Road. A total of 53 trees at the Central Treatment Facility site will be removed by others through the Park’s Feller Training in March 2024. The contractor shall include pricing for all other trees required for the awarded contract, which if options are awarded will require tree removal.

8 Will any roads/sections of the park be closed to vehicular traffic during this contract? Park central on the east side of the park is closed, weather dependant during winter month. Presidential visits will lead to closures as well.

9 Due to the complexity of the scope of the project, and with multiple trades being involved, we would like to request an extension of the due date by two weeks to March 25th, 2024.

Please monitor SAM.gov for changes to proposal due date and time, revised through Amendments issued by the Contracting Officer. As of Amendment 0002, the proposal due date and time is changed to 1:00 PM MST, March 29, 2024.

10 Issued with the solicitation was a document titled "Information-Only_Sol_140P2022R0078_Q_R20220628. Are these questions and answers to be incorporated into the contract?

The document is provided for information only. Applicable questions and answer from previous solicitation were included in Specifications and Drawings Addendum 001.

11 For projects Identified under Factor 4, who require submittal of Past Performance Information under Factor 5, that have associated CPARS, are the CPARS to be provided by the Contractor within its response to Factor 5, or are these to be submitted by the Contractor, to the Contracting Officer via email as with those being provided by Attachment 7?

The offeror is not required to submit CPARS reports, as the NPS has access to CPARS reports. For projects completed under federal contract and for which a CPARS report is available, provide the Contract Number, Project Title, and Performance Period of the contract to allow for query.

12 Page 48 of the solicitation states “The NPS subcontracting goals for Fiscal Year 2024 are: Small Businesses (42%), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (10%), Women-Owned Businesses (5%), HUBZone (3%), Service Disabled Veteran- Owned Businesses (5%), and Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEE)(3%).” And “Subcontracting plans that contain goals less than the NPS goals shall include rationale as to why the above goals cannot be met and a thorough explanation as to the offeror’s good faith efforts that will be made during the course of performance to meet the goals proposed.” Please confirm that these percentages are of the subcontracted dollars, and not percentages of the total contract value?

Yes, the percentages of Subcontracting Goals are calculated for subcontracted dollars.

13 As a follow-up to discussions held during the site visit, we respectfully request at least a three (3) week extension to the proposal due date?

Please monitor SAM.gov for changes to proposal due date and time, revised through Amendments issued by the Contracting Officer. As of Amendment 0002, the proposal due date and time is changed to 1:00 PM MST, March 29, 2024.

14 As a follow-up to the site visit, we note several areas where work is to be performed we closed and inaccessible due to weather. Accordingly, we request a second site visit be scheduled after these areas are available for inspection, and then an extension of the proposal due date an additional two (2) weeks after this site visit so that we may have time to properly consider the work, access, and current site conditions?

An additional site visit will be provided on 3/13/2024. See the SAM.gov advertisement with an Amendment 0004 with specific information.

15 For Factor 4, will Government consider changing contract value requirement from $10M to $3M? There is not a $10M contract value requirement. Projects demonstrating capability to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation present lower levels of risk and may be more favorably rated.

16 Please confirm that Factor 4 “recent project” experience can either be completed projects or projects that are at least 25% complete.

Sections L&M have been revised to change the definition of recency from 6 years to 10 years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

Offerors are reminded CPARS reports, that ma be used in Past Performance evaluation, are available for access up to 6 years.

17 For key personnel, can Superintendent and Quality Control Manager be the same person? Yes.

18 Can we use subcontractor experience for factor 4? Section L is revised to allow for subcontractor experience to be provided for Aspect 2 and 3. Subcontractor experience for Aspect 2 and Aspect 3 will be considered, but only it correlates to the work the subcontractor will be performing on this requirement.

19 Can we please have an extension? Please monitor SAM.gov for changes to proposal due date and time, revised through Amendments issued by the Contracting Officer. As of Amendment 0002, the proposal due date and time is changed to 1:00 PM MST, March 29, 2024.

20 Is blasting for rock removal allowed on this project? See Addendum 1 , C. Changes, No. 5 for information on blasting. Copied below for convenience:

5. Blasting, if needed, may be authorized with an approved blasting plan. In accordance with Specification 01 35 25 – Explosives, Paragraph 1.4.C.6, the Contractor shall submit a blasting plan for NPS review and resolve any comments in advance of need. NPS shall review and provide comments to the Contractor within (30) calendar days of submission.

21 Addendum 2 – Solicitation, Part 1, Section A makes reference to the SF1442 as pages 1-3. These pages are not included with this document. Please provide those pages.

The SF1442 is unchanged from the original Solicitation issuance. A form SF30 is issued for Amendment 0002.

22 Can the sign-in sheet from the site visit be shared? Reference SAM.gov document uploaded on 02/28/2024 as part of Amendment 0002:

B11_CATO_250011_Prepro_Site_Visit_Mins_Attndce_0002.pdf

23 Please provide the manufacturer(s) of the existing gear/panels/transformers that will need to be modified or connected to.

Question is too broad and opens up risk in leaving out or mislabeling a manufacturer. Please review the contract documents and provide more specific information within the question.

24 Are any areas of the project other than the wet well and valve vault on E32 considered corrosive or a hazardous gas area? Please identify these areas.

Refer to 26 05 02 Basic Electrical Requirements: 1.06 Environmental Conditions. Providing reference to specification section does not relieve the contractor of reviewing the contract documents in their entirety.

25 The existing roadways in the park are already in a deteriorated condition. There will be portions of the roadway along the shared utility corridor that become damaged during the construction activities as currently planned in the contract documents. There are no measurement and payment items for contingent asphalt repair or restoration. Is the contractor responsible for repairing further damage caused to these existing roadways by trucks delivering equipment and materials to the site?

An FHWA project will follow this project. It is understood that the existing roadway is already in a deteriorated condition, however, any major damage caused by construction activities will need to be repaired. The intent is not to track minor additional cracking that may occur. The contractor is responsible for offroad rutting/shoulder damage.

26 The existing roadways in the park are already in a deteriorated condition. There will be portions of the roadway along the shared utility corridor that become damaged during the construction activities as currently planned in the contract documents. There are no measurement and payment items for contingent asphalt repair or restoration. Is the contractor responsible for repairing further damage caused to these existing roadways by our heavy equipment working from the road as the details in the drawings show?

Please see above Response to Question No. 38.

27 Can you please provide photos of the Transformer nameplates on the inside of the doors of the transformers that are being removed?

This will indicate whether or not the transformers contain PCB’s along with other vital information.

Unable to provide information. Per specification section 02 41 00 - 3, 3.01, C: Electrical transformers older than 1977 are presumed to contain PCBs. Contactor is responsible to identify and implement required procedures. Please review the contract documents in its entirety for other references.

28 At the site visit that took place on 2/22/24, we were taken over to the Blue Blazes Well House and shown the inside. It was told to us at the site visit that this wellhouse was scheduled to be abandoned and that this work was part of the project scope. However, on Attachment 3 Addendum 1 this work appears to be struck through and removed from the project. Please confirm what work, if any, is to be done at the Blue Blazes Well House #1 and #2.

This strikethrough is an error.

Per strikethrough inconsistencies between 01 11 00 Summary of Work and 01 27 00 Definition of Contract Line Items, the following provided in the Summary of Work is considered part of the Option Work to match what is stated in the Definition of Contract Line Items:

01 11 00 - 3 (Summary of Work)

c. Camp Misty Mount/Visitor Center

1) Blue Blazes Well House 1

a) Abandon in-place.

2) Blue Blazes Well 1 (existing well, existing equipment located inside of existing building)

a) Disconnect wellhead discharge and cap inside of wellhouse, remove and dispose of all downhole equipment including wellhead seal and affix watertight locking cap to wellhead casing that meets the requirements for a monitoring well per Maryland Department of the Environment requirements.

3) Blue Blazes Well House 2

a) Abandon in-place.

4) Blue Blazes Well 2 (existing well, existing equipment located inside of existing building)

a) Disconnect wellhead discharge and cap inside of wellhouse, remove and dispose of all downhole equipment including wellhead seal and affix watertight locking cap to wellhead casing that meets the requirements for a monitoring well per Maryland Department of the Environment requirements.

01 11 00 - 4 (Summary of Work)

d. Camp Greentop

1) Ike Smith Booster Station and Tank

a) Building and adjoining water tank will be abandoned in place.

29 Under Factor 6, page 51 of the solicitation, item 1 states to “Identify the planned participation of small and socio-economic business subcontractors in terms of the percentage value of the total acquisition (total contract value).”

Under Factor 6, page 57 of the solicitation, Item No. 1 states that the Government will evaluate “The planned participation of small and socio-economic business subcontractors in terms of the percentage value of the total acquisition (total contract value).”

Page 48 of the solicitation states “The NPS subcontracting goals for Fiscal Year 2024 are: Small Businesses (42%), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (10%), Women-Owned Businesses (5%), HUBZone (3%), Service Disabled Veteran- Owned Businesses (5%), and Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEE)(3%).”

Please confirm that Factor 6 will be evaluated based upon the total contract value, not performed by the Contractor, and not the total contract value. Specifically, for contractors wishing to self-perform a majority of the work, please confirm they may do so and will not be forced to subcontract 42% to others for work it would traditionally complete with its own forces.?

Yes.

Small business participation values associated to Factor 6 and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan included in the Business and Price Proposal are two separate elements.

The values in Factor 6 Element 1 pertain to planned participation of small businesses as a percentage of total contract value.

The values in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (within the Business and Price Proposal) pertain to the requirements at FAR 52.219-9 and are values as a percentage of subcontracted dollars.

30 We are not permitted the submit a blasting plan for NPS review and resolve any comments in advance, and we have no way of knowing ahead of time whether blasting will be required other than the information provided in the geotechnical reports. In the 2023 report, the geotechnical engineer states that this rock is not “rippable” and will have to be blasted.

Under what circumstances will blasting be permitted?

Blasting and contractor blasting plan falls under contractor means and methods. The intent of the project is to allow for blasting with an approved blasting plan.

31 In the event the rock on this project is not “rippable” as described in the 2023 Geotechnical Report, will the Contractor be allowed to blast once he has submitted a blasting plan for NPS review and has resolved any comments in advance? …or will the Government require the Contractor to remove the rock with breakers and drilling instead?

The intent of the project requirements is to allow blasting with an approved blasting plan.

32 The statement in the FY22 Q&A says “Blasting is a contingency only.” Does that mean if the rock on this project is not “rippable” as defined in the Geotechnical Reports, then the Government will allow blasting once we submit a blasting plan and resolve associated comments?

FY 22 Q&A if for information only purposes. The intent of the project requirements is to allow blasting with an approved blasting plan.

33 What situation and conditions constitute and justify blasting as a contingency? This question appears to apply reference to the FY22 Q&A. The intent of the project requirements is to allow blasting with an approved blasting plan.

34 Please confirm the scope of work as it relates to the fiber optic conduit. In the previous solicitation some fiber optic lines were to be installed in the base bid, while other segments were to be installed in option item 000A1. In the original contract documents, on sheet C2 of the drawings, it states the following for the scope of work in option item 000A2 “Install Fiber-Optic Home run in conduit installed in base bid and CLIN 000A1.

Response Pending

35 Since both option 000A1 and option 000A2 are removed from this contract, are we still to install the Fiber Optic conduit that is shown on the plans that would have been a part of the “Base Bid”; and if so, is the intent for the conduit to remain empty at the end of the project since all “hot work” was meant to be completed under Option 000A2?

Response Pending

36 Drawings E16 and E17 shows an existing ductbank from JB-5 to TX2 at the Maintenance Building, but this route cuts off at the top of the drawing and does not appear on E14 or E15. Please confirm the routing and distance to TX2.

Response Pending

37 The one-line diagrams on E19 and E23 show what appear to be new feeder cables in existing conduit from various transformers to various buildings. No cable size or quantity information is given, and no indication of where these feeds should be terminated is shown. Please confirm that these unlabeled feeds are existing to remain, and are not intended to be included in the work.

Response Pending

38 Drawing I12 shows the location of FE/FI-1102, -1103, and -1104, but does not show any power connection for them.

(Power requirements for FE/FI-1100 are shown on E6.) Please advise the power requirements and where they should be connected.

Response Pending

39 Several electrical drawings, such as Drawings E25, E26, E28, E30, and others, show symbols that, according to the symbol list on E2, are volume control devices. This appears to be an incorrect symbol, and perhaps these should be junction boxes instead. Please confirm.

Response Pending

40 Drawing E5, Note 4 directs us to remove the existing feeder cable from the pad-mounted switchgear back to the switch and meter 0921251. Please confirm that this should be meter 09821251, as shown on the ductbank routing plans on E7 and E9.

Response Pending

41 Please confirm that all 15kV cable terminations in the PMS/Pad-Mounted JB’s are intended to be Loadbreak Elbows as shown on the existing photographs.

Response Pending

42 The graphic scale on Drawing E36 appears to be incorrect (it is the same scale shown on E10). Please confirm the proper scale to be used on this drawing.

Response Pending

43 No spec for the lighting exists. Spec Section 26 50 00 is referenced in the submittal list at the end of Section 01 33 23, but no such section is provided. Please provide this spec section if required by the contract.

Response Pending

44 Some of the feeder runs shown on the electrical drawings appear to be exceptionally long, with no manholes, handholes, or other pull points shown in between. In general, we suggest that feeders should not run over approximately 500’ in a straight line, or less than that with changes of direction, without a pull point in between.

This is in order to not run the risk of exceeding the manufacturer’s recommended pulling tension. Please confirm that the runs shown on the electrical drawings are intended to be completed as one continuous pull with no pull points in between. In the most extreme example of this, Drawing E15 shows an existing conduit run between JB-2 and JB-3 that measures approximately 1150’ with some changes of direction, and no manholes, handholes, or other pull points are shown.

Response Pending

45 Are there any existing conduit runs that have manholes or handholes that are not noted on the electrical drawings?

Most existing conduit runs do not show any existing manholes or handholes along the length.

Response Pending

46 The electrical drawings showing the ductbank routing do not show match lines. Please confirm that the routing on these drawings match up with each other as shown, and this shows the full extent of the ductbank routing, with no unshown gaps. Examples of ductbanks are below.

Response Pending

Sheet1