Response to Vendor Questions_8_17_2022.docx

RFP 70Z02322D09230001

Exhibition Design & Fabrication

Response to Vendor Questions

Answer: The design scope will be a review and edit of the existing design developed by Eisterhold to incorporate Government requested revisions and to ensure code compliance per the RFP.

Answer: The STEM galleries (8 in total) will be from scratch. See above for remaining question.

Dated 8/17/2022

Answer: The RFP will be edited to include a maximum of 50-pages per proposal which shall include the following topics:

· Cover page

· Bond

· Corporate Experience

· Key Personnel Resumes

· Project Management: Project Schedule and Teaming/Subcontractors

· Past Performance

Other Administration Requirements are not included within the 50-page limit.

· Representations and Certifications

· Subcontracting Plan

· Price Proposal

Answer: Currently, we are requesting a “project schedule” (e.g., Excel spreadsheet, Gantt chart) to ensure the offeror can accomplish the installation prior to the museum opening while identifying the major milestones needed.

Answer: This paragraph will been edited to the following:

Proposals shall be prepared in a format that is compatible with Microsoft Suite applications. Provide spreadsheets that include all formulas, function, macros, computations, or equations used to compute the proposed amounts. For each workbook, all Rows, Columns, Cells, and Worksheets must be visible. Do not include Zero height and zero width rows and columns in Worksheets. Do not format Worksheet cells with font color equal to the fill color. If Workbooks or Worksheets are password protected, then the passwords must be provided. Print image files or pictures or files containing only values are not acceptable. Failure to provide fully functional spreadsheets MS Excel file format (.xlx or equivalent) in the proposal may result in the proposal being rejected.

Answer: USCG security requirements and system limitations preclude the ability to download a link or access a shared folder and send/receive emails in size greater than 10MB. Offerors can send a series of numbered emails; or upon request by the Offeror, the Government can “Request a Drop-off” through DoD SAFE which will send the Offeror an email request to send (upload) one or more files.

Answer: While the two factors seem very similar in nature, they are, in fact, different concepts that focus on different aspects of past work, and will be used by the Government to determine its level of confidence that the Offeror (Factor 2) has completed similar work, and (Factor 5) has delivered quality products in a timely manner.

Experience (Factor 2) factor focuses on the degree to which an offeror has actually performed similar work.

Past performance (Factor 5) focuses on the quality of the work performed.

Answer: No, the Government only wants to see three recent and relevant projects performed by the Offeror in a portfolio format. The projects provided should include key elements identified in Factor 2.

Answer: No, the Government would only wants to see three recent and relevant projects performed by the Offeror in a portfolio format.

The Government will assess its level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements based on its demonstrated corporate experience, provided in the portfolio.

As noted under FAR 52.212-2 Factor 2, the Government is looking to obtain documented proof that the Offeror has performed similar Museum Design and Fabrication contracts.

Answer: No, the Government has identified the Key Personnel required for the IDIQ and will address the need for additional Key Personnel at the Task Order level.

Answer: The Type of Work column will be added to Attachment II (Price Schedule).

Answer: Tab 3 was to delivery 100% Final Design, Engineering, Detailing and Fabrication Package to move forward with fabrication. The Offeror shall describe the services needed to review the existing drawings (to be provide in the official RFP), make required edits (to be provide in the official RFP), and confirm code compliance in accordance with the RFP. . As we anticipated it having a period of performance of six months or less, the Coast Guard did not see a need for five-year pricing.

Answer: Yes

Answer: The intent of Tab 4 was for the Offeror to describe the conservation services needed to survey 600 artifact and objects located in both Washington DC and New London. CT with a Period of Performance of 9/29/2022 to 12/15/2022. It was not intended to price it out for five years.

FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph (b)(6), Price Tab 4 will be edited as follows:

TAB 4- The offeror shall provide a firm fixed-priced proposal for Conservation Services, in accordance with the § 2.2.2 of Attachment I (SOW), on Tab 4 of Attachment II (Price Schedule). The survey will consist of 600 artifact and objects located in both Washington DC and New London. CT and the Period of Performance shall be 9/29/2022 to 12/15/2022.

The contractor shall survey, document the characteristics of, and photograph each artifact. The survey shall include a condition reports that prioritize artifacts based on current conditions and coupled with a recommended treatment plan and cost estimate. The Government will review all recommendations and may result in a Task Order modification.

The contractor shall document the specific requirements for artifact mounts and review exhibition specifications and design drawings to ensure that exhibit case design, physical dimensions, case and mount materials, lighting levels, ultraviolet light filtration, and environmental parameters (both in the overall space and for exhibit cases, to include tests or equivalent testing method) proposed by the exhibition design meets the needs of the artifacts.

The travel required for this service shall be a Not-To-Exceed amount determined by the Government per FAR 31.205-46 and does not require a price proposal by the offeror.

Answer: Currently, Tab 4 does not include artifact restoration. Refer to questions #13 for clarification on service requirement.

Answer: The Factors and titles will remain unchanged. FAR 52.212-2 Evaluations, Factor 5: Past Performance has been edited as follows:

Factor 5: Past Performance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine its level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. This evaluation will assess whether an Offeror consistently delivered quality products in a timely manner in the past, including overall consideration of schedule, management, and regulatory compliance. Evaluators will consider recent and relevant past performance examples. “Recent” is defined as performance during the last six (6) years (from solicitation closing). “Relevant” past performance is defined as performance of contracts (or orders) for a similar scope and complexity to the requirements in Attachment I (SOW) supporting similar National and/or Military Museum Design and Fabrication contracts.

The Coast Guard will not restrict its evaluation to review of Offeror-provided information. The USCG will obtain past performance information from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Corporate Experience references previously provided by in this RFP. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources. An Offeror will be afforded an opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment.

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes, but please refer to the Coast Guard’s previous response to question 9 regarding an increase in the number of Key Personnel.

Question: To confirm, is the Government established amount of $30,000,000 in place and set aside specifically for the design and fabrication of exhibits for the Coast Guard Museum?

Answer:

Answer: The Performance Bond and Payment Bond shall be required for fabrication Task Orders only. As the Government issues fabrication Task Orders, the Contractor shall adjust the bonding amount to reflect the fabrication work’s net value under the orders. Each fabrication Task Order affects the price of the IDIQ contract’s overall price. At this time, the Government intends to issue one fabrication Task Order.

Answer: Attachment I Statement of Work § 2.2 Task are not related to “Task Orders”. Task One, Two, and Three are to identify the type of work that may be included under the header title, such as TASK ONE: Exhibit Planning and Design Services or TASK TWO: Fabrication Services. The services required shall be identified on each individual Task Orders awarded If that Task Order includes fabrication work, it will require a bond equal to the cost of the fabrication.

Answer: The resultant award will be a single award Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity contract.

Answer: At this time, we are in a phase of the solicitation where we are not holding one-on-one conversations with vendors. We want to maintain a fair and transparent environment thought-out this process. We would have happy to address any questions or concerns you have by responding to the presolicitation.