Attachment 01 - Responses to RFI.xlsx

RFI Tracker

This project is a building construction/renovation scope (NAICS 236220, PSC Z2DA) and requires a Building construction type wage determination, not Heavy. The Heavy/dredging-only determination currently posted as Attachment 10 does not apply and does not contain the building trade classifications necessary to perform or price this work.

The Government will pull the correct, current Building-type Davis-Bacon wage determination for Alachua County, FL, and reissue it as a corrected Attachment 10 by amendment prior to the proposal due date. All referencing citations (Table of Contents, General Information Paragraph 22, and the Attachment list) will be corrected to a single, consistent WD number and modification level at that time. Per General Information Paragraph 22 and FAR, the wage determination current and in effect at the time of contract award will govern for the life of the project, consistent with standard Davis-Bacon incorporation practice.

A3 A. Contract Admin Missing building trade classifications If a building WD is confirmed, please validate proposed trade mappings for: drywall hanging/framing/ceilings/flooring (Carpenter), drywall finishing (Painter), test-and-balance (Sheet Metal Worker), storefront glazing (Ornamental Ironworker), BAS/low-voltage controls (Electrician), cold-formed metal framing incl. E1.0 infill at grid N/10 (Carpenter), and scaffold erection (Laborer). Depends on A2 This item is contingent on resolution of Item A2. A Davis-Bacon Wage Determination with building construction trade classifications has not yet been confirmed/posted; the WD currently in the solicitation package (General Decision FL20260140, Construction Type: Heavy) lists only dredging classifications and does not contain building trades. The Government cannot validate trade classification mappings until the correct Building WD is issued by amendment.

Once a Building WD is confirmed, the Government/CO will review and respond to the following proposed trade mappings:

Drywall hanging/framing/ceilings/flooring — Carpenter Drywall finishing — Painter Test-and-balance — Sheet Metal Worker Storefront glazing — Ornamental Ironworker BAS/low-voltage controls — Electrician Cold-formed metal framing, including E1.0 infill at grid N/10 — Carpenter Scaffold erection — Laborer

This validation will be provided concurrently with or shortly after the amendment issuing the corrected Building WD.

The Attachment list identifies Attachment 09 – VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting 852.219-75 (3 Pages) as a distinct attachment to the solicitation.

Clause 3.3 (VAAR 852.219-75) contains, at paragraph (d), the actual certification block to be completed, signed, and dated (Printed Name, Title, Signature, Date, Company Name and Address), and states: "The formal certification must be completed, signed and returned with the offeror's bid, quotation, or proposal. The Government will not consider offers for award from offerors that do not provide the certification..."

General Information Paragraph 12.1 and Price Proposal Preparation Instructions Section 6(j) both require submission of the completed Mandatory LOS Certification form in a separate PDF, named "LOS Mandatory Certification – SOLICITATION NUMBER – OFFEROR COMPANY NAME."

Offerors should complete the fillable certification block printed within Clause 3.3(d) (or an offeror-prepared document reproducing that exact certification language) and submit it as a standalone, separately-named PDF per Paragraph 12.1. If a separate fillable Attachment 09 PDF form (distinct from the certification text embedded in Clause 3.3) was intended to be posted and was inadvertently omitted, the Government will issue it by amendment; in the interim, offerors may satisfy this requirement by preparing the certification using the exact text at Clause 3.3(d).

The Government will confirm by amendment whether Attachment 06 is in fact required for submission, and if so, will clarify its purpose and relationship to the Factor 1 minimum-of-3/maximum-of-5 project requirement. Unless and until clarified, Attachment 06's apparent 3-project cap does not limit or override the Factor 1 instruction to submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance projects. Offerors should follow Factor 1's stated range (3–5 projects) for past performance submissions.

Representations and Certifications: No separate, standalone representations and certifications document is required to be submitted with the proposal. Per Clause 3.1 (FAR 52.204-19), the Contractor's representations and certifications — including those completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) — are incorporated by reference into the contract. Offerors must have a current, complete, and active SAM.gov entity registration with all applicable representations and certifications on file as of the date of offer submission; this satisfies the requirement without a separate paper submission. Offerors should ensure their SAM registration is current and accurately reflects their SDVOSB status, size standard, and other applicable representations before submitting their proposal.

Limitations on Subcontracting (LOS) Certification: Yes, this is required as a separate, signed document submitted with the proposal. Per General Information Paragraph 12.1 and Price Proposal Preparation Instructions Section 6(j), offerors must complete and submit the Mandatory LOS Certification (using the certification language at Clause 3.3, VAAR 852.219-75, paragraph (d)) in a separate PDF document, named "LOS Mandatory Certification – SOLICITATION NUMBER – OFFEROR COMPANY NAME." This is submitted in addition to, and separately from, SAM representations — it is not satisfied by SAM alone. See also Item A6 regarding the related Attachment 09 question.

However, the solicitation does not explicitly confirm the specific scenario raised: whether past performance of a proposed first-tier subcontractor or teaming partner (as distinct from the offeror's own experience performing as a subcontractor on someone else's prime contract) may be submitted and evaluated as part of the offeror's past performance for this procurement.

The Government will confirm by amendment whether: (a) a proposed first-tier subcontractor/teaming partner's projects may be submitted as part of the offeror's Factor 1 package, provided that subcontractor will perform a substantial, clearly identified portion of the work on this contract; and (b) if so, what role and relevancy weighting will apply to subcontractor-performed projects relative to prime-performed projects, consistent with the existing evaluation language.

The Government will issue corrected, Cardiology-specific Factor 4 instructions by amendment, removing the inapplicable references. Offerors should disregard the garage/bridge-specific language in the interim and ensure their preliminary CPM schedule addresses milestones appropriate to this project's actual scope (e.g., mobilization, ICRA/infection control phasing, selective demolition, phased construction, MEP rough-in and inspections, commissioning/TAB, and substantial completion/closeout).

Regarding Deduct Alternate No. 1: A separate schedule, or a clearly delineated schedule variant, reflecting the Alternate No. 1 scope and its distinct 480-calendar-day duration (versus 540 days for the Base Bid, per the Price/Cost Schedule) is required so the Government can evaluate the offeror's approach to completing that reduced scope within its stated period of performance.

Regarding offset: the tradeoff process does allow the Source Selection Authority to weigh relative strengths and weaknesses across factors in reaching an integrated judgment of overall value — a notably stronger rating in one factor may be weighed against a comparatively weaker rating in another as part of that integrated tradeoff. However, this is not a mechanical point-offset system, and a significant weakness or deficiency in any individual factor may limit the extent to which strength in another factor can compensate, depending on the nature and severity of that weakness. The Government does not commit in advance to a specific offset formula between factors.

B23 B. Evaluation Factors Price reasonableness methodology What technique(s) will the Government use (comparison among offerors, IGE, historical pricing, market research)? Will individual CLINs be evaluated, or only total price? Will price realism be assessed in addition to reasonableness? The solicitation does not identify specific price analysis techniques; General Information Paragraph 9, Section III (Price Evaluation), and Price Proposal Preparation Instructions Paragraph 7 all state only that the Government "may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to make a price reasonableness determination," without naming a specific method. Consistent with FAR 15.404-1(b), available techniques could include comparison with the Government's independent estimate, comparison among competing offers, comparison with historical prices for similar work, and/or market research — the Government has not committed to a specific technique or combination in advance, and reserves discretion to apply whichever is appropriate based on the offers received.

CLIN-level evaluation: The Price/Cost Schedule structures pricing as two lump-sum line items — CLIN 0001 (Base Bid) and CLIN 0002 (Deduct Alternate No. 1) — each priced as a single "JB" (job) amount, with no further CLIN-level breakdown in the schedule itself. However, offerors are separately required to submit a detailed price breakdown (Labor, Materials, Equipment, Subcontractor Cost, Overhead, G&A, Profit, etc., per General Information Paragraph 7/Section II.7) supporting the proposed CLIN prices. The Government's reasonableness analysis will be informed by both the top-line CLIN prices and the supporting breakdown; total evaluated price for award purposes will be based on the Base Bid (CLIN 0001), with the Deduct Alternate No. 1 price factored in as applicable depending on whether the Government exercises that alternate.

Price realism: The solicitation does not provide for a price realism assessment. Price Evaluation sections (General Information Paragraph 9, Section III, and Price Proposal Instructions Paragraph 7) state only that price will be analyzed for fairness and reasonableness — "realism" is not referenced anywhere in the evaluation criteria. Because this is a Firm-Fixed-Price acquisition (Clause 2.1, FAR 52.216-1), a realism analysis (assessing whether a low price reflects a misunderstanding of requirements or unrealistic performance risk) is not a standard requirement, though the Government retains general discretion under FAR 15.404-1 to consider risk associated with any unrealistically low offer as part of a broader determination of responsibility, separate from the price reasonableness review itself.

Note that the proposal due date is being extended to November 16, 2026 (see Item A13). The Government confirms the December 18, 2026 assumed POP Begin/NTP date remains valid and unchanged notwithstanding the due date extension, and falls within the 120-calendar-day offer acceptance period required by General Information Paragraph 6 and SF 1442 Block 13d, measured from the new November 16, 2026 due date.