Q_A_CO_Responses_(does_not_include_A_E_Technical_Answers)_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Construct North Unit Visitor Center at BADL
- Solicitation number
- 140PS126B0010
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for a federal construction solicitation (140PS126B0010) issued by the National Park Service to construct a North Unit Visitor Center at Badlands National Monument. The document does not address specific products or services required, but rather clarifies contracting procedures and solicitation requirements through 71 contractor questions and government responses.
Key clarifications include: the contract period of performance is 730 calendar days from Notice to Proceed, with weather-related work suspensions to be issued as needed and the period frozen during suspension; the anticipated award date is November 2, 2026; this is a competitive 100% Small Business Set-Aside using a Firm-Fixed Price Sealed Bid format with Lump Sum pricing for base and options; bid bonds must be 20% of total bid price (base plus options) with a $3 million maximum; bids are due October 15, 2026 at 12:00 PM Central Time via electronic submission only; performance and payment bonds will be required post-award; Davis-Bacon wage determinations apply (SD20260022); the project involves earthwork, drilled concrete piers, cast-in-place concrete foundations, and building construction with significant work anticipated during the 2027 construction season; contractors may propose alternative Davis-Bacon classifications for glazier and building automation work if standard classifications are unavailable; dual-hatting of key personnel (Superintendent, SSHO, QCM) is permitted; certified payroll must be submitted electronically; and the project is tax-exempt under federal contract requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions & Answers Document | ||||
| # | Contractor Question | Reference | Government Response | Reference |
| 13 | Would the company that prepared the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Government be prohibited from participating in this contract by providing testing and inspection services? Considering the remoteness of this project site and small pool of qualified testing/inspection firms within a reasonable driving distance, we request Government consideration to allow the Company to participate. | Solicitation, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, second paragraph under "A) GENERAL" | No - the government has not prescribed any prohibitive language concerning subcontracting outside of the Limitations in Subcontracting Clause. The Prime may subcontract with whomever they wish, provided the Prime meets the limitations in subcontracting requirements (85%). Take note of "similarly situated" language therein as well and remember to provide a compy of your Limitations in Subcontracting worksheet with your bid. | CO Response |
| 33 | The solicitation provides a contract duration of 730 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to Proceed (“NTP”) for the Contractor to complete the project. The solicitation identifies an Anticipated Award Date of 2 November 2026. Accordingly, assuming the NTP is issued shortly after award, the Contract Completion Date would be on or about 1 November 2028. |
The Contractor understands that this project involves construction of a new building on an undeveloped site and that the initial major site activities will include earthwork, installation of the drilled concrete piers, and construction of the cast-in-place concrete grade beam foundations.
Due to the anticipated extremely cold weather and climatic conditions at the project site during the winter months, these major site and foundation activities are not anticipated to be reasonably executable until the Spring of 2027. Consequently, given the anticipated late-season contract award, issuance of an NTP shortly after award would result in approximately four to five months (120 to 150 calendar days) of the 730-calendar-day contract duration occurring before meaningful physical construction activities can reasonably commence.
This seasonal limitation is particularly significant because a substantial amount of work must then be accomplished during the 2027 construction season in order to achieve building enclosure prior to the onset of the subsequent cold-weather season. Building enclosure is necessary to allow the Contractor to proceed with the substantial interior construction activities during late 2027 and into early 2028.
In consideration of these project-specific circumstances, would the Government please consider utilizing a two-part NTP for this project, or otherwise providing an equivalent adjustment to the contract duration to account for the seasonal limitations associated with the anticipated November 2026 award?
Under a two-part NTP approach, the first NTP could authorize the Contractor to immediately commence preconstruction activities, including preparation, review, and submission of required submittals, procurement activities, coordination, and other work that can reasonably be performed prior to physical mobilization. This would allow the Contractor to advance submittals and initiate fabrication and procurement of long-lead materials and equipment as early as practicable.
The second NTP could then be issued in conjunction with the Contractor’s physical mobilization to the project site in Spring 2027, at which time the 730-calendar-day contract performance period would commence. This approach would provide the Contractor with the full 730 calendar days necessary to execute the physical construction work following the period during which weather conditions reasonably preclude commencement of the major site and foundation activities.
Absent an adjustment of this nature, the Contractor would effectively have only approximately 580 to 610 calendar days to perform the physical construction work, despite the solicitation providing a 730-calendar-day contract duration.
The Contractor respectfully requests that the Government consider this approach, or an equivalent extension of the contract duration, to account for the seasonal limitations associated with the anticipated timing of award and NTP.
We appreciate the Government’s consideration. Contracting
| Standard Form 1442 | 730 Days is whats listed on the 1442, therefore 730 days is the estimated PoP. Note that the CO is attempting to have the A&E update the Spec section(s) that speak otherwise). The question's further points make the assumption that the government is simply going to "Issue NTP" and step away. Complex contracts of this nature require a focused and attentive CO and PM. Suspension of Work(s) will be issued, as required, due to weather -- this is a standard construction procedure and falls within both "express" and "implied" Contracting Officer Authority. Including "implied" contract law in our specifications would result in 20,000 page specs. While Suspensions are issued, the PoP is frozen. In addition, to lift a Suspension, the CO must execute a contract modification that, 99% of the time, includes renegotiation of the remaining PoP time. The government is not going to force any contractor into a "no-win" PoP scenario, rather, we will work together with the Prime firm to ensure we get a solid product at the end of this contract. It is not in the government's best interest to rush construction, set unrealistic PoP's, or otherwise suggest the contractor must perform the impossible when the ground is frozen. The CO will attempt to get the A&E Designer of Record to formally update that section of the Specifications to match 730 days. | Contracting Officer Response | |
| 36 | Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts Note 3 on Sub Sheet No. S0.2 of the contract drawings states: “Contractor’s base bid shall include a unit cost (per ft of pier) for final adjustments to elevations.” |
However, the Bid Schedule included in Section B – Bid Schedule of the solicitation does not contain a unit price bid item for drilled concrete piers or adjustments to pier elevations.
| Will the Government please confirm that the unit cost requirement referenced in Drilled Concrete Piers and Shafts Note 3 on Sub Sheet No. S0.2 is not applicable to the bid and that no separate unit price for adjustments to pier elevations is required to be included with the Contractor’s proposal? | Contracting | |||||
| Sheet S0.2 | This was clearly not caught by the NPS prior to accepting the Title II Designs. Language in the specification cannot tell contractors how to submit bids (or anything to do with the bid format, requirements, etc). For purposes of answering the question, this is a Firm-Fixed Price Invitation for Bid with a Base and Options requested as "Lump Sum." Please follow the solicitation criteria as specified. A bid will not be rejected for omitting the "per ft. of pier" pricing data or for failing to conform with any language in the Specification that (errouneously) speaks to the Bid Format. The CO's solicitation instructions take full and final precidence over anything written by the A&E within the Specification Documents. With regard to bid formatting and pricing, stick to the solicitation and bid schedule requirements. Nothing more, nothing less. | Contracting Officer Response | ||||
| 52 | Tribal Labor / TERO Requirements: Please confirm whether any Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO), Indian preference, tribal labor requirements, tribal business licensing, tribal taxes/fees, or tribal permits apply to this project. | Solicitation 140PS126B0010 and Contract Clauses | Davis Bacon Wage Determinations apply to this acquisition. | CO Response | ||
| 55 | Glazier Davis-Bacon Wage Classification: Wage Determination SD20260022 does not include a Glazier classification, and the project includes storefront, curtainwall, windows, and glazing installation. Please provide the applicable Davis-Bacon wage and fringe rate bidders should use for Glazier work, or advise which listed classification should be carried for bidding purposes. | Attachment 3 – WD SD20260022; Solicitation Labor Requirements | Typically in such events, the contractor is required to propose a close alternative and the CO agrees or disagrees with the proposed alternative. The CO defines a "close" alternative as being a classification rate on the Wage Determination approximately within 5% of what a reasonable person could expect to pay for the Glazier rate. Choose a rate and classification from the prevailing WD and propose it's use to the CO. The CO will make a decision - preferably before the bid opening date/time though this can also be resolved pre-NTP. The alternate approach is to petition DOL for a stand-alone "conformed" rate, but the CO's experience is that such a process can extend the solicitation by months and this would harm the NPS's mission. If a close alternate cannot be identified, please let the CO know. Cole_Johnson@ios.doi.gov. | CO Response | ||
| 60 | Key Personnel - Please provide the required number of personnel to fill the roles of Superintendent, SSHO, and QCM. | Key personnel may be "multi-hatted" unless otherwise defined in the Specification or at the Direction of the Contracting Officer. | CO Response. | |||
| 66 | Certified Payroll - Please confirm emailed copies of certified payroll is acceptable or advise if hard copies are required. | FAR 52.222-8 | Certified electronic copies are acceptable. Hard copies, in fact, will not be allowable. Such details will be discussed during the Pre-CON as well, prior to NTP issuance. Hard copies of any document (including Bonds) are not necessary. For bonds, the seals must be able to be made out on the electronic copy. The CO will not flat out reject a bid if the seals cant quite be seen -- I will follow up with the bidder to double-check the seals. | CO Response | ||
| 73 | Due Time/Opening Time - SF1442 indicates Bids Due 1200 Local Time (Central Time); however there is a reference in page 35/55 of the Solicitation to 1200PM Eastern. Please confirm all times should be Central Time. | SF1442 and SOL Page 35/55 | Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. Because the Park itself is on Central Time, the CO has Amended the solicitation to firmly state "12PM Central Daylight Time." | CO Response | ||
| 74 | Bid Guarantee - Please confirm if the bid guarantee has a maximum amount, also is the 20% based on BASE or BASE+OPTIONS. | FAR 52.228-1 | The solicitation states that the Base + Options are considered to be the overall "Bid Price", Bid Bonds must naturally cover the aggregate value of the entire bid's value (i.e. including options). That said, the maxinum amount is limited to $3M, as specified in the solicitation, and IAW FAR 28.101-2(b). The CO notes the clause only speaks to 20% however $3M is the maximum amount if 20% would push you over that. | CO Response | ||
| 94 | 3.7.C requires 80 hours of training in three increments, the last being two days three months after turnover. Does that final increment fall inside the contract period of performance? | 23 09 23 par. 3.7.C | Technically, it falls outside the PoP but within warranty timeframe. Should the contractor require a firm "PoP" extension at such juncture, the CO will consider the need at the time and issue a formal SF30 modification. | CO Response | ||
| 111 | SF-1442 block 11 and the solicitation summary state a period of performance of 730 calendar days. Section 01 10 00 par. 1.2.E states 640 calendar days. Which governs? | SF-1442 block 11; 01 10 00 par. 1.2.E | The Block 11 on the SF1442 governs. The CO is attempting to get the A&E to alter these timeframes within the Specification. Either way, the CO will hold the contractor to what is on the 1442 with regard to PoP. | CO Response | ||
| 112 | General Decision SD20260022 contains no classification for controls, instrumentation, building automation or low-voltage work. What classification applies to BMCS installation and on-site commissioning labor, or will a conformance request be required? | Gen. Decision SD20260022 Mod 2; FAR 52.222-6 | Similar to the Glazing question above, it's typical for a contractor to propose a close alternative from the prevailing WD. Propose (via email) one to the CO and the CO will agree/disagree. If one cannot be proposed, the CO will consider a conformance request -- however, this may be done AFTER contract award due to the urgent needs of the NPS to start construction on this project. In such a case, the contractor may issue a Request for Equitable Adjustment if the resulting DOL conformance WD rates exceed the contractor's original rates for this work, as included in their Lump Sum bid price. | CO Response | ||
| 138 | With reference to Item Number 13 on Standard Form 1442, "Sealed offers in original and 1 copy are due at the place specified in Item 8" | |||||
| Since this bid will be submitted electronically, will two copies of the bid be required in the submission? | Contracting |
| Standard Form 1442 | No, 2 copies will not be required. Electronic submission of bids is the only acceptable method, therefore separate "copies"are not required. Such language is pulled directly from the FAR and was not edited by the CO. No physical copies will be accepted nor are they required with bid submission. Please send bids directly to Cole_Johnson@ios.doi.gov or Cole_Johnson@NPS.Gov. Contractors are encouraged to password protect their electronic bids as an added layer of bid security. | Contracting Officer Response | |
| 139 | This RFI is in reference to the offer due time and the bid opening time. |
Per the original solicitation on SAM.gov, the Date Offers Due was October 15, 2026 at 12:00 PM CDT; the Current Date Offers Due is October 15, 2026 at 12:00 PM EDT.
On Standard Form 1442, Item Number 13 states that offers are due by 12:00 “local time”.
Page 7 of 55 of the Solicitation states “Bids Due – 10/15/2026 by 11:59AM CT and Bid Opening – 10/15/2026 at 12:00PM CT.
Page 35 of 55 of the Solicitation states “Bid Opening Date/Time: Thursday, 10/15/2026 @ 12:00PM ET.
Will the Government please confirm the time and time zone that the bids are due and the time and time zone of the bid opening? Contracting
| Standard Form 1442 | Embarassing on our part, but thank you for pointing these out -- the issues have been corrected via Amendment 02 (See the SF30 for changes). For ease and clarification, bids are due at 12 PM Central Time (to align with South Dakota's Time Zone). The bid opening will begin, likewise, at 1200 PM Central Time. The reader should note that SAM.Gov keeps the "orignal" posting date/time when accessing the initial solicitation. Therefore, contractors are encouraged to follow what the SF30 Amendments state about the time/date changes. This is why signing/acknowledging all amendments with a bid is so important. | Contracting Officer Response | |
| 140 | This RFI is in reference to the Bid Guarantee. |
Page 32 of 55 of the Solicitation states, “52.228-1 Bid Guarantee (Sep 1996) (c) The amount of the big guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price.”
Page 37 of 55 of the Solicitation, Item 4. under 1. Bid Package, iii. Contents, states “Bid Guarantee: Offeror shall submit a Standard Form 24. The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3M.”
Please confirm our understanding that the bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3,000,000.00, in accordance with Page 37 of 55 of the Solicitation, “1. Bid Package, iii. Contents: 4. Bid Guarantee: Offeror shall submit a Standard Form 24. The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3M.” Contracting
Solicitation
| 52.228-1 - Bid Guarantee | I understand the potential for confusion here as the clause just speeks to 20%. However, I wish to firmly convey that the $3M limitation is the MAXIMUM bid bond value the government requires. Please do not obtain bid bonds in excess of $3M. | Contracting Officer Response | |
| 157 | If any named staff is required, please confirm if dual-hatting will be allowed. | Architectural |
Sheet No. A6.1
Section 08 71 00
| Hardware & Specialties | Dual hatting is allowed. Use of common-sense is applicable here (i.e. if it wouldn’t generally make sense to dual hat certain key-personnel, then don’t do it. Otherwise, the government doesn’t care so long as the proper oversight is there). This is mostly a "means and methods" issue with common sense applied. | CO Response. | |
| 158 | Please confirm if this project is tax exempt. | Electrical |
| Sheet No. E2.1 | Confirmed - The Federal Government does not pay taxes to itself, however, forms for tax exemption may be requested at the outset of the contract PoP, prior to NTP issuance, if required. Many if not most suppliers often use the contract itself as "proof of tax exemption." Contractors ought not include tax fees within their bids -- though since this is a FFP Sealed Bid using Lump Sum, firms who choose to sneak taxes into their bid prices may lose out against another firm who smartly left tax figures out of their bid...in addition, should a priced modification (down the line) require the CO to request Other Than Certified Cost/Pricing data and said data contains taxes, the CO CANNOT pay for such costs, legally. Caution is advised. | CO Response. | |
| 169 | Please confirm that this project is a competitive 100% Small Business Set-Aside and clarify whether any bonding support provided to the small business prime contractor by another contractor must be through an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé relationship established prior to the bid date. | Architectural & |
Structural
Section 03 35 11
| Concrete Floor Finishes | Confirmed, this is a competitive 100% SB Set-Aside as indicated in the solicitation. Bonding requirements are prescribed by the Bonding clauses incorporated into the solicitation and via the solicitation Instructions. Please follow these prescriptions and instructions. The FAR does not seem to prohibit such relationships, as described on the left, though I question why an SB would not form a more "formal" relationship with the LB when massive sums of money are on the line like this. I'd advise submitting an avadavit with your bonds describing the relationship between the SB and LB. | CO Response | |
| 170 | Please confirm whether a large business that is not part of an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé relationship with the small business prime contractor may provide or otherwise support the required Payment and Performance Bonds without affecting the small business prime contractor's eligibility for award | Architectural |
Sheet Nos. A5.1,
| A7.1, & A7.2 | There are several bonding provisions/clauses incorporated into the solictiation. Each must be followed. There are also Instructions to Offerors/Bidders regarding bond submission requirements (bid bonds for solicitation) and (Payment/Performance Bonds post-award will be required, per clauses). The FAR is silent on the scenario described on the left. If the CO receives bonds from a Large Business for which the government has no formal relationship (i.e. we're contracting with the SB, not the LB) and the LB has no mentor protege relationship to establish a legal link between the firms, it's asking for trouble. I would venture that if the SB submits an avadavit with the bonds, detailing the arrangement and establishing a legal connection, such would be permissible in terms of accepting a bid bond and performance/payment bonds thereafter, similarly. The CO can make no promises, however, that upon Legal Review of the award, should NPS Legal refuse to approve such an arrangement that award can still be made, at that point. This method is not advised, but is also not strictly (per the FAR) prohibited. | CO Response | |
| 171 | Please confirm whether a large business that is not part of an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé relationship with the small business prime contractor may provide or otherwise support the required Bid Guarantee without affecting the small business prime contractor's eligibility for award. | Architectural |
Section 07 27 00 Air & Water Barrier This is not an easy question/answer. See above question/answer 170. My concern with this approach lies with the fact that we set this aside for Small Business in order to give the Small Business experience/credit for the work. If the bonding LB is directing the Prime SB in everything they do (because they hold bonding leverage outside a mentor-protege arrangement) - it defeats the purpose of the set-aside and may even be protested by other firms as not being a true SB Set-Aside, regardless of what UEI is on the Award document. I can find no express prohibition of the scenario based on my readings in the FAR, but I do respectfully advise against it - My recommendation is to at least submit an affadvit describing the arrangement between your firms with a statement that the SB will be performing the work as the Prime. Any contractor's taking note of this response may provide the CO with additional input, at their own discretion, by emailing the CO directly at Cole_Johnson@ios.doi.gov. CO Response
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .