36C24919R0158-0001002.docx

Solicitation 36C24919R0158 RFI’s Project # 596A4-18-106 Repair Exterior Walls Lexington, VAMC “Troy Bowling”

Question #1: There was an amendment posted on FBO for this project 8/8/2019. The Notice Tab shows a change, but I do not see an amendment. I looked on ECMS and there are several additional files not shown on FBO. Some of these file look to be duplicates but I cannot tell. I have attached pictures of both FBO and ECMS files. Can you let us know what changes were made to this solicitation? It looks like the same thing happened to the Leestown Exterior Walls project as well.

Answer: . Due to the way the VA post items on FBO we do not have a direct link into the system and it flows through eCMS. With this being said what you saw was that both RFP’s was modified by the VA Acquisition Help Desk. As the RFP’s were posted FOB did not capture the data within eCMS and it resulted in the wrong response date being placed on both of them. Therefore, I submitted a help desk ticket for them to go in and modify the response dates to what is actually in the RFP’s. I saw that they somehow duplicated the attachments when they did that. Please disregard the duplication as none of the files changed from the original posting.

Question #2: Will you accept CPARS Evaluations to be submitted with our proposal in lieu of PPQs, if CPARS are available?

Answer: Since two of the RFI’s are similar in nature I will respond here and post our official response in an amendment after RFI closing.

Because these RFP’s are based on LPTA having a heavier weight on price, we will revert back to

2.1 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2017) As stated in the solicitation:

3 Past Performance – The attached questionnaire shall be sent to every VA entity that is listed in the offeror’s proposal as Experience.

*Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

To be rated Acceptable for Past Performance the offeror’s past performance questionnaires must have a rating of Acceptable on each question and an overall rating of Acceptable.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, if no Past Performance is received then the offeror will be rated as Acceptable.

Therefore, with this we are not accepting CPARS Evaluations in lieu of PPQ’s. This allows us to stick to one type of required documentation verses multiple types of documents.

Please keep in mind the following:

NOTE: Experience and Past Performance factors when combined are approximately equal to Price.

Question #3: Can the superintendent be triple hat ( Super, QC, SSHO)?

Answer: The superintendent is typically all of these.

The QC is started by them, but the PM should be listed as another QC check from the GC.

That order has been pretty standard around here, right, wrong, or indifferent.

Question #4: Could you please provide the asbestos and lead based paint report, please?

Answer: See attached reports with amendment P0001.

Question #5: Do we have to submit a PPQ of two completed projects with the VA in the last 3 years, or could we provide in our proposal, CPARS for those jobs, and avoiding having to send the PPQs to the VA entity? This time of the year, everybody is so busy that it is difficult for them to respond.

Answer: See question 2 answer.

Question #6: Can you verify if a Contractor Professional Industrial Hygienist and Industrial Hygiene Technicians. would be required for these two projects?

Answer: Specifications 01 35 26 under 1.4 only mentions CIH in reference to an Accident Prevention Plan (APP) signature.

Question #7: The basis of award is indicated as lowest price reasonable/realistic received. With that said, will the Government provide quantities for the line items included in price/cost schedule in order to create a level bidding field for all proposals received or will the pricing be based entirely on “estimated” quantities developed by the bidders; with the award going to the lowest bidder? If the approach will be to accept the lowest bid based on bidder developed estimates; will contract modifications be provided for discrepancies between the estimated quantity and the actual amount of work required after award?

Answer: Correct the basis for the award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) see 52.215-1 Instructions To Offerors (e). However, per the solicitation we are requesting that each offeror provide their unit cost per the specified unit of measure given in the solicitation “1 Each” (square foot, lineal foot, cornice/ gutter straight sections…). This allows us to price any unforeseen sight conditions that are discovered prior to start of work. At this specific time, we will not discuss contract modifications while in the process of solicitation/proposal phase. This information will be helpful to the VA in making determinations should any discoveries are made that is not visible.

END OF RFI’s