Response to Vendor Questions_8_29_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.

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: 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: 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.

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: Based on a review of costs associated with similar museums of quality and size, the bonding requirement for this contract will be 100% of the Task Orders directly tied to 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.

Answer: At this time, the requirement will be edited to “recent corporate experience means work performed on a contract, which has been completed or is currently in progress, within the past six (6) years of the solicitation release date.”

Answer: Yes the Request for Proposal will include the current design documents.

Answer: Please refer to the Due Date listed on SAMs. The Government’s intent at this time is to have the RFP Due Date be Friday September 16th 2022 at 1:00pm EST

Question: It appeared to indicate that a complete redesign was required.

Answer: No, a complete redesign is not required. Attachment IV (Solicitation Provisions) FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph (b)(6), Price TAB 3 has been edited as follows:

TAB 3- The offeror shall provide a firm fixed-price price proposal for Design Services in accordance with Attachment I (SOW) on Tab 3 of Attachment II (Price Schedule). The contractor shall include the necessary Labor Category(s), Rate(s) (as established per this IDIQ or at a discounted rate), and Hour(s), to perform the following:

1) Review the current design (see Appendix D through Q) to ensure the existing design incorporates all applicable codes, laws, regulations, Executive Orders, standards, and design parameters

2) Conduct required edits to the existing design (see Appendix C(Exhibit Design Changes Additions Revisions))

3) Provide all required changes needed for fabrication purposes

4) Provided any recommended changes

5) Provide a plan, schedule, and a cost estimate to incorporate all required changed and all recommended changes

6) Provide a schedule and cost estimate to produce Fabrication (also referred to as Contraction) Drawings

Question: The SOW indicates three phases of design including Concept, Schematic and Design Development. That would require respondents to team with an independent design practice to essentially propose a design/build scenario.

Answer: The SOW is an IDIQ that is intended to incorporate any and all services necessary for Museum Design and Fabrication. If the Government had a need to develop the Concept, Schematic and Design Development for future exhibits, this need would be “in scope” of the IDIQ.

Question: The answer to Question No. 1 indicates that the SOW requires the contractor to edit Eisterholds design and incorporate Government revisions. This represents an entirely different scope of work from what the Draft documents state. It requires a different approach and potentially different team members to accomplish.

Answer: Please refer to answer 27 for the purpose of the SOW and for Attachment IV (Solicitation Provisions) FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph (b)(6) edits. The Government is asking for quotes for.

Tab 1-Labor Rates to establish IDIQ Pricing Tab 2- Project Management Team Tab 3- Design Services (to review current design) Tab 4- Conservation Services

Answer: The Design Review, which had a notion timeline, is to review the current design and the Government has estimated the time needed for this is three months. There is not established timeline for “other design phases” because at this time, we have not requested these services. Please refer to Factor 4: Project Management: Project Schedule and Teaming/Subcontractors for the Government required timeline. It is the Governments intent for the offeror to provide their timeline to complete the project.

Answer: The Conservation Services are separate to the Design Review. Each are called out separately under different Tab.

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 report that prioritize artifacts based on current conditions and coupled with a recommended treatment plan and cost estimate. The Government will review all recommendations which 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.

Answer: Majority of the museum has been designed, minus eight (8) exhibits. Any new Design Services will be included in future Task Orders.

Answer: No

Answer: Fabrication will be covered under this IDIQ, but we are not asking for it at this time. Any Fabrication work will be covered in a future Task Order.

Questions and Answers Dated 8/26/2022

Question: The schedule provided in the RFP indicates Construction Documents completing by 3/1/2023.

Answer: This is a notional schedule which is subject to change based on proposals received

Question: Is this for preliminary engineering and facility impact for the General Contractor to pull permits for the building, with additional construction documentation & shop drawings being provided as the design is finalized and we are moving into the fabrication phases of the project?

Answer: Building construction documents were completed, pending conforming set. This contract is for the contractor to create and provide the exhibit construction documents and shop drawings to proceed to fabrication -- they will not be provided.

Answer: Yes, this is the intent of Factor 4, from Attachment IV Solicitation Provisions.

Question: Please advise as to the status of Payette’s design schedule. At what stage are the construction drawings and what is the latest design and construction schedule?

Answer: Building 100% Construction Documents have been completed pending conforming set, which will be finalized December 2022.

Question: What is the USCG’s opinion of the present design?

Answer: The intent of the design review is to provide the contractor an opportunity to become familiar with all of the documents, determine any gaps, finalize design in a few discrete spaces, potentially, ensure ADA and code compliant and address mounting needs and any changes needed to achieve fabrication.

Question: Is it the intent of the USCG Museum team to continue into exhibit construction documents using the Eisterhold Design Development exhibit design drawings? Meaning is the Design/Build team being engaged to execute the exhibit design as-is?

Answer: Per Attachment IV Solicitation Provisions, Factor 6 Price Paragraph (b)(6), Price TAB 2, the offeror shall provide the necessary labor to conduct the following using the current design:

1) Review the current design (see Appendix D through Q) to ensure the existing design incorporates all applicable codes, laws, regulations, Executive Orders, standards, and design parameters

2) Conduct required edits to the existing design (see Appendix C (Exhibit Design Changes Additions Revisions))

3) Provide all required changes needed for fabrication purposes

4) Provided any recommended changes

5) Provide a plan, schedule, and a cost estimate to incorporate all required changed and all recommended changes

6) Provide a schedule and cost estimate to produce Fabrication (also referred to as Contraction) Drawings

Question: Where do we start in the design process?

Answer: See answer to question #5.

Question: Does the Owner intend to start from developing a new concept design or is the intent to utilize the existing design?

Answer: Utilize the existing design.

Question: The RFP and schedule indicate Design Services for additional exhibits. Is this in addition to the current design provided?

Answer: The IDIQ SOW include all the work that we could potentially need for the USCG Museum. At this time, we are not soliciting for design services for additional exhibits.

Question: Would you kindly provide an organization chart and CVs of the owner/client team? This will assist the Design/Build team understand the hierarchy of the organization and the approval process.

Answer:

· Director, National Coast Guard Museum:

· Approves major decisions and any review impacting design, contract changes (with KO) and cost. Oversees all museum staff. Experience at multiple museums; MA in the field. Crucial member of exhibit design for the museum.

· Director of Exhibits and Programs:

· Oversees project and curatorial team. Experience with historic sites and exhibit renovation and fabrication.

· Curator:

· Review work and develop government responses. Experience with graphic design. Crucial member of exhibit design for the museum.

· Curator:

· Review work and develop government responses. Experience with multiple museums and exhibits. Crucial member of exhibit design for the museum.

· Museum tech:

· Review text and storyline. PhD in history and experience in public affairs.

· COR:

· Manage contract elements and communicate with contractor. Experience as USCG KO and contract auditor respectively.

USCG reserves the right, and will, change staffing during the lifetime of this project.

Question: Can you outline a preferred protocol for fabrication reviews and art direction during the fabrication phase?

Answer: Please refer to Attachment I, Statement of Work § 2.1 (j), … “Unless otherwise agreed to in advance by both the Contractor and the USCG, in writing, the review period shall not exceed ten (10) business days, exclusive of any federally-observed”.

Question: Who will be responsible for the buy-off of samples, materials, and overall design intent for the duration of the project?

Answer: The Contracting Officers Representative is the sole Point of Contract for material review and approval.

Question: Who will be responsible for the structural engineering of any large artifacts that need special support? Will this be the responsibility of the building’s structural engineer, or will the Exhibit Fabricator be required to engage those services independently?

Answer: The exhibit fabricator is expected to perform all work needed to get this exhibit from the current documents in the solicitation to installation. This includes structural engineering.

Question: Would the Owner’s team be willing to grant an extension to the proposal date, particularly given the holiday week during the proposal phase?

Answer: No, the due date is not subject to change due to our intent to award prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Question: We understand that your 10MB email limit may require multiple emails in order to submit the proposal. Will you accept a single email with a file transfer download link?

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.

Answer: The page limitation includes all documentation in support of Factor 1 through Factor 4 from Volume I and Factor 5 from Volume II.

Answer: No, for the purpose of maintaining the same references for both Corporate Experience and Past Performance we are following the FAR guidance at 42.1503 (g).

Question: Are the PPQs required for the Past Performance and Corporate Experience sections required ONLY of the prime firm

Answer: No it is not required.

Question: What qualifications material do you seek from subcontractors in this submission? And in what section would that material be included?

Answer: None and N/A

Question: Please change the qualification date for the (3) corporate experiences to six (6) years from project opening date (currently it says six years from solicitation date)

Answer: Each offeror’s proposal shall contain information on a maximum of three (3) corporate experience references, performed within the past six (6) years (from solicitation release date), that are relevant to this requirement.

This time frame is August 23, 2016 to August 23, 2022 which applies to BOTH Corporate Experience and Past Performance.

Questions and Answers Dated 8/29/2022

Attachment II - Price Schedule

Tab 3 Question: Answer 28 (Pre-Solicitation) states that Tab 3 should only include the design costs required to perform the Design Review. Please confirm that all other design tasks outlined in Appendix C will be estimated at the end of the Design Review and performed in a following task order.

(For reference purposes)

#28 Question: The answer to Question No. 1 indicates that the SOW requires the contractor to edit Eisterholds design and incorporate Government revisions. This represents an entirely different scope of work from what the Draft documents state. It requires a different approach and potentially different team members to accomplish.

#28 Answer: Please refer to answer 27 for the purpose of the SOW and for Attachment IV (Solicitation Provisions) FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph (b)(6) edits. The Government is asking for quotes for.

Tab 1-Labor Rates to establish IDIQ Pricing Tab 2- Project Management Team Tab 3- Design Services (to review current design) Tab 4- Conservation Services

Answer: The Government has edited Attachment I (SOW) Appendix C (Exhibit Design Changes Additions Revisions) to remove the first page. See list of attachments

The offeror shall use the information listed on page 10 of Attachment IV Solicitation Provisions, TAB 3 which includes “Design Services” (used as a generic title) and refered to in Answer #28 as “Design Services (to review current design)” as a summary. The offeror shall propose labor for the services specified on page 10 of Attachment IV Solicitation Provisions, TAB 3.

All “other design task outlined in Appendix C” shall be provide by the offeror in their report of findings as a result of the review. The findings shall identify all required and recommended changes, and include a “plan, schedule, and a cost estimate to incorporate all required changes and all recommended changes” and shall include the items identified in Appendix C.

Attachment I – Statement of Work

Page 2 of 4, 1.2.1 Project Schedule Question: Some of the task durations appear too long to us while others are too short. As long as the museum opening date remains the same, may we recommend different task durations than those shown in this section?

Answer: Refer to Answer #29

(for reference purposes) #29 Question: Design Review is listed as a 3 month phase, and other design phases are not identified (i.e: Concept Development, Design Development, Schematic Design) in the schedule but are mentioned later on in the document. What are the expectations for the Design Review? @ end of 2022? Is Program Management meant to accommodate the usual design development process?

#29 Answer: The Design Review, which had a notional timeline, is to review the current design and the Government has estimated the time needed for this is three months. There is not established timeline for “other design phases” because at this time, we have not requested these services. Please refer to Factor 4: Project Management: Project Schedule and Teaming/Subcontractors for the Government required timeline. It is the Governments intent for the offeror to provide their timeline to complete the project.

1) Should “Signage” include graphic design for all graphic types (signage, exhibit graphics, murals, labels, etc.)?

2) Should graphic design be assumed to include Final Digital Artwork (FDA)? (FDA files include all final text, images, illustrations, and preliminary colors, and are ready for the production process).

Answer: Attachment I Appendix C Exhibit Design Changes Additions Revisions has been edited to remove the first page. This information will be provided, if required, in a future Task Order.

Answer: Yes

Answer: The offeror shall provide information regarding recent and relevant corporate experience, in accordance with Factor 2. An increase level of confidence will be given to offerors whose instances of proposed corporate experience in the design and fabrication of museum exhibitions demonstrates all the following elements:

· National and/or Military Museums of at least 30,000 square feet

· A minimum design and fabrication contract value of $40M or more

· Efforts containing

· at least 500 artifacts

· at least fifteen (15) macro artifacts

· at least fifteen (15) audiovisual components

· 2,000 images and art pieces

· Interactive exhibits

· Virtual reality

End of Questions and Answers