B41_and_B56_Questions_813_to_820.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Building 41 and Building 56 Egress
- Solicitation number
- 47PJ0019R0077
About this file
B41 and B56 Egress Questions 81319 to 82019
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
| Building 41 Egress Construction and Optional Building 56 Design Build Egress Construction | Solicitation Number 47PJ0019R0077; Questions Received from 8/13 - 8/20 | |
| QUESTION | Answer | |
| 18 | Just downloaded Amendment 06; proposal must be send to you and cc: Mara Wild is that still applicable? | Yes, this is still applicable. |
| 19 | In regards to GSA Form 527 – Contractor’s Qualification and Financial Information; is this required; we are submitting a bid bond and you will have a Payment & Performance Bond if awarded. | No the GSA Form 527 is not required at this time, but the Government request it if additional information is needed. |
| 20 | Our proposing access control vendor, SIS is inquiring about the card readers to be relocated (9) and new additions (4). The existing can be relocated and re-programmed, however his understanding is that GSA is not installing any new Brivo readers (existing) and intending to convert to Gallagher (new). There are no Gallagher readers presently in B41 that he is aware of. Which means if the intent is to add new Gallagher readers and there in no infrastructure, it could create substantial upfront cost in getting the base system established. Simplified question, please advise what type of new card readers are to be priced. | We need to relocate the Brivio readers, and any new readers need to be Gallagher |
| 21 | Factor 2 requirements on page 53 state that offerors should submit a minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 project examples. “Each project example shall be no more than two (2) standard pages (8 1/2” x 11” with 1” margins and at least a 10 pt. font)”. However, the RFP also contains Attachment 0003 which is a two page form requesting relevant information for each project example, and the instructions for “Attachment 0003: Offeror Experience Information” state that “Offerors shall complete this page and include in the technical proposal submission as the required documentation for criteria number 2) Past Experience.” Our question is: Does the GSA want an additional two page description for each project, formatted as described in bold above, beyond the information provided in Attachment 0003, to address experience under Factor 2? Or is it the GSA’s intent that Attachment 0003 serve as the two page description that provides the project example information meeting the Factor 2 requirements? | Yes, provide a two (2) page description beyond the information that is provided on Attachment 0003 to address experience under Factor 2. It is not GSA's intent that Attachment 0003 serves as the two (2) page description that provides the project example for the Factor 2 requirements. |
| 22 | Does the GSA wish to see resumes of key personnel under the “Proposed Staffing” section of the proposal. If so, we request that resumes be removed from the page count. | Yes GSA wishes to see the resumes of key personnel and these will not be included in the page count. |
| 23 | Please confirm that the only page limitation to Factor 2 – Offeror’s Relevant Experience, is the 2 pages per project example. | Yes the only page limitation to Factor 2 is the number of pages per project example. |
| 24 | Please confirm that there is no page limitation to Factor 3 – Offeror’s Past Performance On page 54 of the RFP under Factor 3 – Offeror’s Past Performance, it is stated, “All completed questionnaires are due and must be received by Close of Business on the proposal due date for this solicitation. References for previous work with the US Government must be sent from email addresses ending in a “.gov” email address.” Regarding this statement, please address the following questions: We have similar past projects that we would like to submit that were completed for the military and have a “.mil” email address. Will these be acceptable? We will request that all references complete the RFP’s Past Performance Questionnaire and return them directly to you by the COB on the proposal due date. However, because this is a very busy time of year for government contracting officers and offerors have limited control over the timely completion of Past Performance Questionnaires by government COs, we would like to request that it be allowed include Final CPARs and other Past Performance Questionnaires previously received in order to ensure, should one or two of the PPQs not be returned in time, that the GSA will have something to review for all of the Past Performance projects submitted under Factor 3. Please confirm that this will be acceptable to the GSA. | Yes this will be acceptable as .mil is considered a US Government email. Final CPARS will be acceptable in conjunction with Past Performance but not in lieu of. |
| 18 |
| 19 |
| 20 |
| 21 |
| 22 |
| 23 |
| 24 |
| 25 |
| 26 |
| 27 |
| 28 |
| 29 |
| 30 |
| 31 |
| 32 |
| 33 |
| 34 |
| 35 |
| 36 |
| 37 |
| 38 |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it.