MACC_Contracting_Questions_3-14-19.pdf

QUESTION #1 PAGE / ART. / PARA. P. 103, SECTION L/L.7 VOLUME 2 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2), PARAGRAPH(S) L.7.1 AND L.7.3

Paragraph L.7.1 states in part… “Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), Attachment 2. A completed Past Performance Information Sheet is required for each project the offeror submits as part of this volume. This information is required of the Offeror, all teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation…” Subsequently in Paragraph L.7.3 Recent and Relevant Contract states, “Offerors shall submit information on the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) on a minimum of four (4) and maximum of six (6) recent contracts from the prime contractor considered most relevant in demonstrating performance abilities on the MACC. In addition, Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the

MACC…”

Per the above paragraphs in Section L and Subfactor 3 – Construction Experience under Section M, which in part states, “Offeror shall have acted as the prime contractor on submitted projects.

Offeror’s experience performing as subcontractor will not be considered nor will experience of companies proposed to work as subcontractors on the awarded contract…” Would the project experience of a (proposed) Subcontractor (acting as a Prime on a project with the proposed Offeror as a subcontractor) be accepted/submitted for the offeror’s project experience.

ANSWER: No, subcontractor experience or past performance will not be accepted. Please see Amendment 0001, Amendment 0002 and 0003 and Sections L & M.

QUESTION #2 DESIGN TEAM EXPERIENCE

Will the construction team need to submit their design team’s experience and past performance for this submission?

ANSWER: No, this will be evaluated at the task order/per Design-Build project level allowing prime construction contractor the maximum flexibility to team with the most highly qualified AE firm for that task order/project.

QUESTION #3 CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE SUBFACTOR 3/ATTACHMENT 2

Per the subfactor-Construction experience states ”Projects submitted for the offeror shall be completed within five (5) years of the date of issuances of this RFP (recency)”. Attachment 2 past performance sheet states “projects may be on-going (at least 90% complete) and cannot have been completed any later than 5 years before the solicitation release date”. Can the project submitted for construction experience be in progress (at least 90% complete)?

ANSWER: No, past experience and past performance are not the same. Factor 1, subfactor 3 is experience whereas Factor 2 is past performance. Projects submitted for Factor 1, Subfactor 3 must be 100% completed. Projects submitted for Factor 2, that have not yet been completed must have at least 90% completed by the date of issuance of this solicitation. For experience please refer to Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (page 107-108) and its guidance.

QUESTION #4 SF 1442 SECTION L.5.1, L.8 AND L.9.1, PAGES 102 AND 104

Please confirm that we should include the SF 1442 twice in our proposal –an SF 1442 with price in Vol 3 and an SF 1442 without price in Vol 4.

ANSWER: Correct, the volume four SF 1442 should have acknowledgement of all amendments and wet signature with blocks 14 through 20C completed as directed by paragraph L.9.1 and L.9.1.1.

QUESTION #5 ELECTRONIC/CD SUBMISSION RFQ SECTION L.5, L.5.1 (PAGE

102/114) Section L.5.1 states that “Separate CDs are not required for each volume.”

- 1. Can the Government clarify if Offerors should group all non-price volumes onto one CD and Volume 3 (Price) on another CD?

- 2. Can the Government clarify how many electronic versions should be submitted?

- 3. Are redacted and non-redacted versions of the electronic/CD version required?

ANSWER:

1.All volumes shall be on one (1) CD

2. One (1)

3. No the CD should be non-redacted version Also see Q and A # 32 for additional clarification.

QUESTION #6 VOLUME #2 PAST PERFORMANCE; L.7.2. PPQ’S

Can we use past PPQ’s on our projects that we are submitting?

ANSWER: Please refer to Amendment 0002, question #2.

QUESTION #7 SECTION H.6.16 COMMUNICATION

Section H.6.16 directs contractors to transmit controlled unclassified information by electronic mail using an NIH‐approved encryption software. Is password protecting a pdf or MS word attachment in an Outlook email approved?

ANSWER: This section will apply after award of the MACC IDIQ at the task order level for projects that require this level of classification.

QUESTION #8 SECTION H.5.3 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

Please confirm key personnel required for the Seed Project TO and confirm if they are required to be full time on the TO?

ANSWER: Key personnel for the seed project are Project Manager and Superintendent.

Project Manager is not required to be full time on the job. The Superintendent should be on the site daily and be able to respond accordingly if not on-site. The Superintendent should be on site during active work.

QUESTION #9 SECTION H.5.3 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

Please confirm Security Manager (SM) is required full time. Additionally, we request clarification on item b.7. & b.8. they are in conflict?

ANSWER: A security manager will not be required for the seed project.

QUESTION #10 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SECTION F OF SOLICITATION, PAGE 17

Per contract clause 52.211-12 Liquidated Damages, the Government is to provide, by task order, the liquidated damages for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

Please confirm the cost per calendar day required for the Seed Project Task Order.

ANSWER: The Liquidated Damages (LD) clause is not applicable to the seed project. Not every task order under the MACC IDIQ will include LDs; if applicable they will be part of any future task order Request for Proposal.

QUESTION #11 SF 1442 SOLICITATION PAGE 1

Reference Section 11 on Standard Form 1442, states the contractor shall begin performance “TBD per TO” calendar days after receiving Notice to Proceed. Please confirm calendar days the contractor shall begin performance.

ANSWER: This reference is for the MACC IDIQ for which no work is actually performed against. For the seed project, once awarded work shall begin within 10 calendar days and be completed within 240 calendar days as directed in the SOW Para 3(A)(i)(c).

QUESTION #12 PROJECT REFERENCE

In the submission, we would like to use a project that has restricted information / confidential aspects to it that cannot be disclosed (value of Contract). If we list those items as confidential in the response, will that project be considered non-responsive?

ANSWER: The Government would deem the project not relevant as the value could not be determined.

QUESTION #13 HHS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN ATTACHMENT 6 – HHS

SUBCONTRACTOR PLAN TEMPLATE PAGE / ART. / PARA. 1 OF 7

The HHS Subcontractor Plan Template in Attachment 6 - Paragraph one notes a subcontractor plan is required if the estimated cost of the Contract may exceed $700,000 ($1,500,000 for Construction). Since the seed project Construction cost is estimated between $500,000 and $1,000,000, is a plan required? Please clarify

ANSWER: A Subcontractor Plan is not required for the seed project as the estimated cost is less than $1.5 M.

QUESTION #14 VOLUME 3 SOLICITATION PAGE 104

Item L.8 on Page 104 of the solicitation calls for the page limit to be 5 pages (not including the NIH Division 50 Construction Cost Template). Please clarify what is to be submitted. The paragraph notes the SF 1442 (which is 2 pages) as One (1) original and (3) Three copies. Are the copies included in the 5-page limit? If so, this would be 8 pages total. If not what other information than the 1442 is being requested as part of the five pages?

Additionally, due to the bid nature of the Seed project, can the NIH Division 50 Construction Cost Template be submitted the next day by 14:00 hour

ANSWER: Page limits are maximums, please follow the instructions provided in the reference provided in your question. And a complete proposal as detailed in the solicitation is due at the place specified by the provided date (unless otherwise amended).

QUESTION #15 SBA MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ OR JV AGREEMENTS, L.9.5.1, PAGE 105

Given the government shutdown, SBA has informed us that the “All Small Mentor Protégé” application approval process is now anticipated at 90+ days (versus the 14 days initially announced), would NIH consider adopting similar language to other current RFPs on the street.

JOINT VENTURE AND LIMITIED LIABILITY COMPANY PROPOSAL

REQUIREMENTS

a. Types of Firms: Firms with status as a Certified 8(a) concern in accordance with FAR 19.8.

For the purposes of this solicitation, no distinction is made between formally organized entities and project-specific associations. Both are referred to as the offeror (or simply “offeror”) or the contractor (or simply “contractor”) after award of a contract.

b. Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set-asides. SBA must receive the joint venture agreement and all supporting documentation no less than twenty (20) working days prior to the scheduled date for contract award which is anticipated ADD DATE. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) in writing as soon as possible. The joint venture must be approved by the SBA prior to contract award. Offerors organized as a 8(a) joint venture must complete the following:

Obtain a Tax Identification Number (TIN) as an 8(a) joint venture.

(ii) Prepare the Reps/Certs as an 8(a) joint venture (For example, provide the TIN of the joint venture. Do not use a TIN from one of the parties of the joint venture.)

(iii) All parties to the 8(a) joint venture must sign the proposal

c. All 8(a) Joint venture offerors are advised that if they are the successful offeror, they must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as an 8(a) joint venture. We advise that they begin this process when they prepare their proposal in order to ensure this registration is in place should they be selected for the award. Lack of registration in the SAM database will make an offeror ineligible for award. (Reference Solicitation Provision 52.204-7, System for Award Management).

d. Offerors shall submit a list of the names and telephone numbers(s) of persons authorized to conduct negotiations in their proposals and provide a completed Certificate of Corporate Principal. An 8(a) joint venture (JV) must submit a copy of the 8(a) JV Agreement and an LLC must submit a copy of the article of organization. JV’s and LLC’s must provide evidence that the person(s) signing the offer has the authority to bind the organization.

ANSWER: See L.9.5.1 “At the time of award, the Government will notify all Offerors who have declared their intent to apply for SBA approval of a SBA Mentor/Protégé or JV that they must submit their approved Agreement. An Offeror's response to this solicitation does not, in any way, imply that the Government will make award to any particular Offeror.

The Government will not withhold award of this effort pending receipt of any Offeror's approved SBA Mentor/Protégé or JV Agreement beyond the three-day notice period.”

NIH began industry engagement in June of 2018, thereby allowing sufficient time for formulation of joint ventures and SBA Mentor/Protégé.

QUESTION #16 VOLUME 3-PRICE PROPOSAL SECTION L PARA L.8

Volume 3 – Price Proposal requires one original hard copy (unredacted), three redacted hard copies, and one electronic copy. Pricing is not finalized until minutes before the bid due date.

Request that the electronic copy be eliminated or be allowed to be submitted without final pricing shown. Another solution is to allow the hard copies to be blank and allow us to email the final pricing sheets.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer to Question #14.

QUESTION #17 EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE; EXPERIENCE STANDARD

FOR ALL OFFERORS, PAGE 107

The solicitation states that “Offeror’s experience performing as a subcontractor will not be considered, nor will experience of companies proposed to work as subcontractors on the awarded contract. Previously it was stated (page 103, Para. 1.7.1) that PPIS are required of the offeror, all teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. Please clarify if the experience of subcontractor teaming partners may be submitted as part of Volume 2, Factor 2, Past Performance, including the experience of key construction partners and A/E design team partners. (emphasis added)

ANSWER: Please refer to Amendment 0001, 0002 and 0003 and the answer to question #1.

QUESTION #18 FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE, RECENT AND RELEVANT

CONTRACTORS, PAGE 103, PARA L.7.3

Please clarify whether the PPIS in Factor 2 for a minimum of four and maximum of six recent contracts are separate and distinct from the PPIS in L.7.1 for four projects submitted in Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Construction Experience and that these contracts in Factor 2 may be IDIQ contracts as a whole (rather than limited to individual task orders) (i.e. a total of 10 PPIS may be submitted (4 project PPIS and 6 contract PPIS) for the prime)

ANSWER: Please refer to answer to question #3 and to Factor 1, subfactor 3 and Factor 2.

No work is completed on an IDIQ, please refer to Section M, Factor 1, subfactor 3 “A project is defined as a complete construction effort performed under a single TO or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a TO as a project.”

QUESTION #19 FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE, RECENT AND RELEVANT

CONTRACTS PAGE 103, PARA L.7.3

Please confirm that the additional recent and relevant contracts submitted by each teaming partner may be submitted for firms who will be performing on this contract as a design or construction subcontractor.

ANSWER: That is incorrect. Please refer to Amendment 0001 and 0002 and the answer to Question #1.

QUESTION #20 FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE, RECENT AND RELEVANT

CONTRACTS PAGE 103, PARA L.7.3

Please confirm that PPQ are not required for the Recent and Relevant Contracts addressed in Section L.7.3

ANSWER: PPQ are required for Volume 2-Past Performance as directed by paragraphs L.7 and M.2 unless paragraph L.7.2 “IMPORTANT: Offeror's shall only submit PPQ(s) for those projects that do not have a completed report in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)(individual project or task order). If CPARS for individual project or task order has been completed, do not send PPQ; rather include the CPARS in this volume” applies.

QUESTION #21 FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE, RECENT AND RELEVANT

CONTRACTS PAGE 103, PARA L.7.2

May a PPQ previously obtained for another effort be submitted in lieu of requiring our customers to provide an additional PPQ (for projects without CPARS reports), provided it is in the same or substantially similar format?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer to Question 6.

QUESTION #22 QUALIFIED PERSONNEL, C.6.13 PAGE 10

This paragraph discussed failure to provide personnel that meet the stated requirements. We were unable to identify the location of these requirements. Would NIH please provide insight into the requirements for key personnel.

ANSWER: The referenced section makes it the responsibility of the Contractor to provide qualified personnel and not key personnel. Future Task Order Request for Proposals may require more stringent personnel qualifications/usage, which may or may not be determined key.

QUESTION #23 PROPOSAL FORMAT, SECTION L.4.2, PAGE 100

May Volume 3 (Price) and Volume 4 (Administrative) be placed in the same notebook, provided they are separate and clearly identified?

ANSWER: It is unclear what you mean by “notebook” but please follow the instructions provided in the RFP. Please refer to the answer to Question #179.

QUESTION #24 PROPOSAL FORMAT L.4.2 PAGE 100

Please confirm that all four volumes, inclusive of all pricing data, may be placed on a single CD

ANSWER: Please refer to answer to Question 5.

QUESTION #25 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ OR JV

AGREEMENTS; L.9.5.1 PAGE 105

Please confirm, as indicated in Paragraph L.9.5.1, that offerors who can evidence that they have submitted their application to the SBA for participation in the Mentor/Protégé program, and who intend to perform as a joint venture under the SBA’s Mentor-Protégé program once approved, will be treated the same as offerors under approved agreements for the purposes of the proposal submittal (acknowledging that approval by the SBA will be needed by time of award.) (This paragraph appears to conflict with the paragraph on page 108 immediately above the header for Subfactor 4 which requires a copy of the signed M-P agreement and a signed JV Agreement.)

ANSWER: We remove the following language from page 108 “For a JV, the Offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For 8(a) Mentor- Protégé Joint Ventures, the Offeror shall submit the signed and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor- Protégé agreement.” NIH will follow the instructions under Paragraph L.9.5.1.

QUESTION #26 “SISTER” COMPANIES UNDER A PARENT ORGANIZATION

Please confirm if two companies owned by the same parent organization can each submit separate responses under two categories based on their individual designation, experience, and staff (e.g., one small business and one 8(a))

ANSWER: Yes, two companies owned by the same parent organization can each submit a separate response, as long as they can individually meet the requirements of the RFP.

QUESTION #27

I respectfully request a Woman owned sub Goal on this contract the fact there are no woman small business requirements shows a lack of diversity and discrimination by the contracting department

ANSWER: A WOSB sub goal already exists. Please see the small business subcontracting goals list on page 108 where NIH lists a 5% subcontracting goal for WOSB.

QUESTION #28 NIH MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION M, FACTOR 1, SUBFACTOR 3

Section M, Evaluation Factor for Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (Construction Experience) requires that we provide demonstrated experience with two of the following project Types: Biomedical Research Laboratories, Health Care Facilities, Hospitals, Animal Care Facilities, or predominantly utility project. Please clarify the difference between a health care facility and a hospital.

ANSWER: Medical facilities only operate during office hours, all procedures are done as an out-patient or during daycare. A hospital is a place where patients can be admitted, and treated as in patients, if needed, so offering 24/7 nursing and medical services.

QUESTION #29 NIH MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION M, FACTOR 1, SUBFACTOR 3

Section M, Evaluation Factor for Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (Construction Experience) includes a note that states “Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL four (4) types of relevant construction projects shall be considered a deficiency; thus unacceptable.”

Please clarify the meaning of “all four types of relevant construction projects” – is this referring to criteria (a) through (d) listed above this note in Section M, or each of the project types listed in Block 7 on Attachment 1?

ANSWER: Yes, this statement is in reference to the criteria listed directly above in (a) through (d) of that section. Please follow the instructions provided in Section M, Factor 1, Subfactor 3, (a) through (d). Attachment 1 is just a means to document these efforts.

QUESTION #30 NIH MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION M, FACTOR 1, SUBFACTOR 2

Do projects submitted for Factor 2 (Past Performance) need to include the four projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (Construction Experience)?

ANSWER: The reference is not correct, however Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (experience) is different than Factor 2 (past performance). They do not have to be the same projects, just ensure offeror follows the instructions for these different factors/subfactors.

QUESTION #31 NIH MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.4.15

Section L para L.4.15 states that the same identifying data (as the cover sheet) should be placed on the spine of each binder, if applicable. Please confirm that if the binder does not have a spine to accommodate this, the required identifying data is only required on the cover sheet.

ANSWER: Cover sheet satisfies this requirement.

Question #32 NIH MACC Proposal, Section L, para L.4.15 Section L para L.4.16 (Electronic Copies) directs us to use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactor required plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments, if any.

Please confirm that subfactors are not required to be separate files, and that only the four volumes need to be separate files (for a total of four files on the disc).

ANSWER: Yes, the 4 volumes need to be separate but should be on one 1 disc.

QUESTION #33 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.7.2

Will completed PPQs from previous solicitations be acceptable in lieu of Attachment 2? If so, would this negatively impact the evaluation rating?

ANSWER: Please refer to answer to Question 6.

QUESTION #34 MACC PROPOSAL, ATTACHMENT 2, PAGE 1

Attachment 2 indicates that the total page limit (including this attachment) per project is 5 pages.

Does this page limit apply only to the Past Performance Information Sheet, or does it include PPQs/CPARS? (some CPARS can be quite lengthy).

ANSWER: Only to the PPIS, also note the maximum page limit for Volume 2 is changed from 60 pages to 80 pages.

QUESTION #35: MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.7.4

Section L para L.7.4 states that submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. What if we don’t have adverse information (i.e. letters of concern, cure and/or show cause notices, terminations for cause/default, etc.) to submit?

ANSWER: Do not submit if it does not apply to you.

QUESTION #36 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.7.4

Section L para L.7.4 states that submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Please clarify what the Government is looking for pertaining to “quality performance indicators”.

ANSWER: Please refer to Section L, paragraph L.7.4.

QUESTION #37 MACC PROPOSAL

Are we required to submit the first page of the SF 1442? If so, will it count against proposal page limitations?

ANSWER: No, properly completed page 2 is sufficient when and where applicable.

QUESTION #38 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.8): VOLUME 3 has a five-page limit, not including the NIH Division 50 Construction Cost Template pages (Attachment 5).

Attachment 5 requires us to submit subcontractor backup. Please confirm that this will not count toward the page limitation.

ANSWER: This additional information would be considered a part of the NIH Division 50 Construction Cost Template, attachment 5 and would not count toward the 5 page limit.

QUESTION #39 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.8.1

Is it acceptable to PDF the various pages contained in Attachment 5 and include within Volume 3, or does Attachment 5 need to be submitted in Excel format on the electronic copy?

ANSWER: PDF is acceptable in accordance with Section L, paragraph L.4.16

QUESTION #40 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.8.1 AND L.9.1

Section L para L.8.1 discusses the SF 1442 (to include price and signature) for Volume 3.

Paragraph L.9.1 indicates that the SF 1442 is to be included with Volume 4.

Please clarify whether we are to include the SF1442 in both Volumes 3 and 4, or advise which volume to include this.

ANSWER: Yes, in both volumes, one is a pricing volume the other is an administrative volume to verify responsiveness to the solicitation. Ensure to follow the instructions provided by your references.

QUESTION #41 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION L, PARA L.9.1

Section L para L.9.1 indicates that the SF 1442 is to be included with Volume 4.

As pricing information is only to be included in Volume 3, are we to omit pricing on the SF 1442 in Volume 4?

ANSWER: The SF 1442 in Volume 4 is only reviewed for responsiveness to the solicitation, so if pricing is left on the SF 1442 it would not effect the Gov’t review in the indicated volume.

QUESTION #42 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION M, PARA M.4.3.

The first paragraph under Section M indicates that past performance will be considered significantly more important than price, and that this may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced offeror.

However, Section M.4.3 describes the evaluation steps and indicates that Step 3 will conclude when three of the lowest priced offerors that are rated Technically Acceptable remain in that respective reserve category. Step 3 occurs before evaluation of past performance (Step 4) so this seems to indicate a “Low Price, Technically Acceptable” evaluation process. Please advise

ANSWER: Please read this section in its entirety to include all the steps. In particular Step 4 reads “The past performance evaluation process in the HUBZone reserve ceases when three (3) Technically Acceptable, Substantial Performance Confidence [emphasis added here] proposals are identified, or, when all proposals in the HUBZone reserve have been evaluated, whichever occurs first. Once the team identifies three (3) Technically Acceptable, Substantial Performance Confidence [emphasis added here] proposals, the past performance of all remaining Offerors in the HUBZone reserve will not be evaluated.

Note: For the full and open/unrestricted only, the evaluation process ceases when four (4) is achieved.”

Offerors must understand there is no higher rating than Substantial Performance Confidence, so if you receive an acceptable rating for your technical and a substantial performance confidence, the only other factor is price, in that case price would be the distinguishing factor for award as an offeror cannot achieve a higher than substantial performance confidence.

QUESTION #43 MACC PROPOSAL, SECTION M, FACTOR 1, SUBFACTOR 3

For Construction Experience submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 3: will submitted projects be considered that are substantially complete at the time of proposal submission; or as of the date of issuance of the RFP? If so, please provide the minimum percentage complete a project needs to be in order to be considered substantially complete

ANSWER: No, projects for Factor 1, Subfactor 3 must be 100% complete.

QUESTION #44 SUBFACTOR 3, JV, PAGE 108

For a JV, the offeror shall submit the signed JV agreement. For a 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, the offeror shall submit the signed and US SBA approved Mentor-Protégé agreement.

If the offeror has submitted the SBA 8(a) JV application to the SBA Office, is the signed JV agreement sufficient or do you need acknowledgement from the regional SBA Office that approves the JV?

ANSWER: Please see the answer to Question #15.

QUESTION #45 GENERAL CONDITIONS, C2, PARA 5&6

There is a reference to campuses which will be funded by this MACC Bethesda, Frederick, and Poolesville, MD, New Iberia, LA, Research Triangle, NC and RML, MO. Can you provide and estimate of how much funding would be allocated to each campus and more specifically the Research Triangle, NC Facility.

ANSWER: Please see the attached forecast for possible projects that may utilize the MACC award. Given the historical MACC TO information provided (see the FBO posting for the June 2018 Industry Day presentation), NIH has sufficiently demonstrated capacity to support the majority of task orders going towards small businesses. Given that the previous Task Order maximum order limit was $25M, the forecast attached to this amendment provides information of the sizable projects that may be competed under the new MACC given the Task Order Maximum Order Limit being raised to $700M.

QUESTION #46 SF 1442, SECTION 10, PARA 1

The total aggregate maximum amount expendable under all MACC contracts shall not exceed $2 billion. Can you provide an estimate of allocation to the (4) unrestricted offerors, and a projected breakdown of the allocation of funds to the 8(a) offerors, HUBZone, SDVOSB, and Small Business offerors.

ANSWER: Not at this time; however, please see the attached forecast for possible projects that may utilize the MACC award.

QUESTION #47 SECTION M BONDING, PAGE 106 & 107

Will the NIH consider lowering the 8a bonding limits to match the typical size of historical awards for 8a firms that are not in a mentor protagee. Can you provide the typical/average historical awards sizes to 9a firms from the prior MACC.

ANSWER: Please refer to Amendment 0002.

QUESTION #48 PARAGRAPH M, SECTION M

The last paragraph of Section M, Sub-Factor 3 consists of six (6) sentences and there appears to be an internal inconsistency or an ambiguity that should be clarified.

In Sentence 4, it says that "Offerors who fail to submit relevant and recent experience (as defined in the Sub-factor) for all JV members will be rated unacceptable." In Sentence 5, it says that "Offerors are still limited to a total of four (4) projects combined."

1. If "all" is construed to mean "each", then if each JV member must offer 4 projects, there could never be a limit of 4 total projects - it would have to be a multiple of 4 based on how many JV members constitute the Offeror.

2. However, it could be that the Government used the word "all" meaning that each joint venture member had to be able to meet all 4 project types, but the Offeror would include its collective 4 best projects for inclusion in the proposal.

3. Or, it could be that the Government used the word "all" meaning that each joint venturer had to have at least 1 of the 4 required project types (i.e. a joint venture partner without any of the 4 types of project experiences would exclude the joint venture).

The Government should clarify the Sub-factor 3 as it relates to joint ventures and mentor-protege joint ventures.

ANSWER: The Government expects Factor 1, Subfactor 3 submission to be a combination of the Joint-Venture’s individual experience, unless the Joint-Venture has performed the stated requirements of the subfactor as the Joint-Venture.

QUESTION #49 ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF PAST PERFORMANCE CONTRACT

CITATIONS, L.6 SUBFACTOR 3 CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE PAGE 102

Subfactor 3-Construction Experience states that each offeror shall submit (4) four relevant construction projects. Attachment 2 Past Performance Information Sheet, Part 1 excerpt states:

“Provide the following information requested in this format for each of the projects/contracts you intend to have considered for evaluation of past performance. A minimum of 4 projects are required with a maximum of 6 projects…”

Is it required that all four of the Construction Experience Projects under Volume 1, Subfactor 3 be covered under four of the Offeror’s Attachment 2 Past Performance Information contract selections?

ANSWER: No, please refer to answer to Question #30.

QUESTION #50 COMPERABLE PROJECTS FOR THE MACC. SOLICITATION,

SECTION B, SECTION L

Section B of the Solicitation indicates that the task orders will have a minimum amount of $2,000, with a maximum amount of $700,000,000, and indicates that the work to be performed is in the general construction category any buildings and facilities leased or owned by NIH. The generator replacement "seed project" has been disclosed to have a magnitude of construction between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Section L of the solicitation indicates that the Offeror's technical response shall include four relevant construction projects demonstrating their experience on relevant and recent projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the projects contemplated under this MACC. Based on the maximum task order amount indicated and $2 billion aggregate amount of the MACC, Offerors might infer that the program will include work of a larger scale than the seed project, which may lend itself to a different set of comparable projects than those relevant to the seed project. If possible, please provide more detail on the NIH master plan and the projects or types of projects that are anticipated to be included in the MACC.

ANSWER: The Government understands this question in two parts:

1.) Can the Government define relevant and recent as it pertains to Section L?

a. The Government has defined these terms in Section M.

2.) Can the Government provide a forecast of anticipated projects?

a. Please see the attached forecast for possible projects that may utilize the

MACC award.

QUESTION #51 CONTRACTOR A/E, SOLICITATION ATTACHMENT 10

The Generator Replacement "Seed Project" is a design/bid/build opportunity, for which a design partner would generally not be required on the Offeror's team (the "Contractor A/E" as defined in Attachment 10 of the Solicitation). The Solicitation indicates that future task orders will be issued as Design/Build. Given the fact that the specific task order requirements and project type for the future design/build opportunities may lend themselves to different designers based on the type of work required for those specific task orders, it could be recommended that the Offerors respond to the Solicitation without a Contractor A/E. The Contractor A/E could then be proposed by the awarded Offerors as part of their response for the future Design/Build Task orders. Please confirm if there is a preference for the Offerors to include a "Contractor A/E" partner as part of their team at this time for this initial MACC and Seed Project pricing response.

ANSWER: NO, please refer to answer to Question #2.

QUESTION #52 SECTION L.7 VOLUME 2 PAST PERFORMANCE, PAGE 103

Are the projects selected for Vol. 2 Factor 2 “recent and relevant contracts” required to be the same as and correspond in order of presentation to those selected for Vol 1 factor 1 subfactor 3 “construction experience”, or is it intended for those to be different/additional Projects?

ANSWER: No, please refer to answer to Question #30.__________________________________________________________________________

QUESTION #53 SECTION L.6 VOLUME 1, PAGE 102

Having calculated the likely number of pages used to meet Volume 1 requirements for submission (1-2 pages for SF 1, 1-2 pages for SF2, no more than 8 pages for SF3, and an additional 7 pages for SF4 where applicable; indicating a maximum counted total pages 19 pages there is an discrepancy of 6 pages between what we count needed and what is presented as the maximum. This has raised concern that we are missing a key element of the volume. What is the cause of this discrepancy? Is a sub-factor missing from the instruction or has there been an error in counting?

ANSWER: No, the page limits are maximums and do not necessarily mean every offer will have the maximum page limits.

QUESTION #54 ATTACHMENT 2 PART 4

For Part 4 of the attachment #2: Shall this information be separated from the individual project reports to make a more cohesive answer in one portion or must it be included in one (or per) project response? Dependent upon the answer: 1) if separated, shall we take into account the total page availability of the Factor, rather than the form, or 2) if included, may the responding pages be spread through the individual projects so as to take 1-2 pages from each total allowable 5 for that purpose?

ANSWER: Each PPIS (attachment 2) would have a page 2 as there are project specific questions that shall be addressed. The only part of this form that would be consistent for all PPIS is Part 4.

QUESTION #55 SECTION L.4.10 PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT, PAGE 101

For the sake of legible reproduction, may we disregard margin requirements on pages constraining only forms provided in attachment and maintain their true dimensions, or must we shrink them to appear within the prescribed margins – which may potentially distort text contained therein and reduce readability?

ANSWER: Any attachments to the solicitation are at the necessary margins for the form produced by the Government.

QUESTION #56 VOLUME 2 PAST PERFORMANCE; L.7.3. RECENT & RELEVANT

CONTRACTS, PAGE 103

Offerors shall submit information on the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) on a minimum of four (4) and maximum of six (6) recent contracts from the prime contractor considered most relevant in demonstrating performance abilities on the MACC. In addition, Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the MACC. Offerors shall include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see Evaluation Criteria.

The projects that is already submitted in Subfactor 3 Construction Experience of Volume 1. Can the same projects be included under L.7.3. Recent & Relevant Contracts in Volume 2?

ANSWER: Yes, be mindful of the relevancy and recency as written in Section M, Factor 2, Past Performance.

QUESTION #57 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE MACC, SECTION C.4.15 PAGE 7

Where the Contractor A/E is the designer of record, the contractor shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of the BIM using the specified version of REVIT/BIM. In either case, the Construction Contractor shall keep its BIMs current throughout the construction project and at the completion of the project shall deliver As-Built BIM and BIM Record Documents to the Government.

The sources sought submitted on February 16, 2018 required the architect’s information however, the proposal does not specify where our A/E should include their experience. What Volume does the A/E qualifications need to be included?

ANSWER: Sources sought is used for market research; the solicitation contains evaluation criteria, please read and follow Section M of the solicitation. Additionally, please refer to Amendment 0002, Answer to Question 2 of that Amendment.

QUESTION #58 VOLUME 1-TECHNICAL-SUBFACTOR 3-CONSTRUCTION

EXPERIENCE, SUBFACTOR 3-CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Can Attachment 1, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet include a second page? On Attachment 1 it indicated that you can but on page 108 it says: The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 1) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form.

ANSWER: As indicated on the form “A page 2 can be used if information will not fit in blocks provided below.”

QUESTION #59 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL - SUBFACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS

UTILIZATION; SUBFACTOR 4-SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION

L.4.11 states: “All pricing information shall be address ONLY in the Price Proposal volume” but on the HUB Subcontracting Plan Template it asks for “Total Contract Amount” that is in Volume 1. Do you want the Total Contract Amount filled in?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer to Question #41. Further Factor 1, Subfactor 4 only applies to Large Businesses and has amounts in the instructions for that factor.

QUESTION #60 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL – SUBFACTOR 3 – CONSTRUCTION

EXPERIENCE AND VOLUME 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE L.7.1 AND L.7.3

Subfactor 3 asks for 4 completed relevant projects (Att 1). L.7.1 asks for 4 – 6 projects (Att 2) at least 90% completed (5 years). L.7.3. asks for 4 – 6 recent (5 years) contracts. Does this mean you want a total of 16 projects? L.7.2 – Should PPQs be filled out on the projects shown in L.7.1 only?

ANSWER: No, there are four projects required for Factor 1, Subfactor 3 Past Experience and 4-6 projects required for Factor 2, Past Performance. Additionally, refer to the answers to Questions #30 and #56.

QUESTION #61 VOLUME 2-PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2); SECTION L.7.3

RECENT & RELEVANT CONTRACTS, PAGE 103/1.7

A typical small business is limited in the amount of work it can accept due to available resources and financial capacities of small businesses. When the past performance requirements are narrowly defined, such as this solicitation, it takes a small business a longer time to gain the required experience to meet the more restrictive past performance requirements, especially for a dollar value project over $1 million.

1. Will the Government consider extending the years to past 8 years so a small business can use for project past performance?

2. At the very minimum, will the Government consider extending the period for projects over the $5M project size since a predominance of small business set-asides are under $4M?

3. Alternatively, would the Government consider lowering the larger project size to $2M since that is the limitation for HUBZone awards?

4. Will the government consider including similar projects under $1million since the SEED project is only $500K to $1million?

Modifying RFP requirements will provide more benefit to the Government by allowing a stronger and more competitive pool of small business Offerors submitting for this solicitation.

ANSWER: For answers to all four questions, please refer to amendment 0002 and recency is defined at five (5) years.

QUESTION #62 PARAGRAPH L.7.1 AND L.7.3

Paragraph L.7.1 and L.7.3 of the solicitation describes the requirement to use the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), Attachment 2 to submit past performance projects by the Offeror, all teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. It also states that Teaming Partners shall include up to three projects; however, Sections L and M do not specifically address how the Teaming Partner PPIS can be used towards the past performance requirements of the RFP.

1. Can the Teaming Partners’ experience be used for one or more of the Offerors past performance projects?

2. If the Joint Venture is an SBA approved mentor/protégé, can the relevant experience be submitted for projects completed with by the mentor, the protégé or the Joint Venture entity.

ANSWER:

1. No teaming partners experience or past performance other than SBA approved Joint- Ventures and Mentor-Protégé agreements will be accepted.

2. Yes a combination is acceptable.

QUESTION #63 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE MACC, SECTION C.4.15 PAGE 7

Where the Contractor A/E is the designer of record, the contractor shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of the BIM using the specified version of REVIT/BIM. In either case, the Construction Contractor shall keep its BIMs current throughout the construction project and at the completion of the project shall deliver As-Built BIM and BIM Record Documents to the Government. The proposal does not specify where our A/E projects should be included in Volume 1 or Volume 2. What Volume does the A/E qualifications need to be included?

ANSWER: Please refer to answer to question #2 and Amendment 0002, Question #1.

QUESTION #64 MINIMUM ORDER, RFP PAGE 79

Page 79 says $2,000 minimum order, elsewhere it is $1,000.00

ANSWER: $2,000 is the order minimum whereas $1,000 is the minimum guarantee for the MACC IDIQ awardees.

QUESTION #65 PRICING RFP PAGE 4 AND PAGE 104

Please confirm we can disregard clin 0001 on page 4 and just follow page 104 instructions

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION #66 PROPOSAL EVALUATION RFP PAGE 112

M.4.2 says past per performance is more important but M.4.3 says you may not even look at PP depending on initial review of price this seems to imply that price is most important, not PP or technical. Will offerors have the opportunity to discuss pricing before their Vol 1 & 2 are disqualified?

ANSWER: No, please refer to the answer to Question #42 and Section M.

QUESTION #67 PROPOSAL DELIVERY

Three different rooms and MSC are given in the RFP; please confirm Building/room/MSC for proposal delivery on 3-14-19.

ANSWER: Please refer to the address indicated for deliveries at L.4 (PAGE 99).

QUESTION #68 ATTACHMENT 7 SOCIO, RFP PAGE 105 L.9.6

Please confirm only one attachment 7 is required not one for each socioeconomic category

ANSWER: Correct only one is needed.

QUESTION #69 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTION, L.7 PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR

Can a single entity company use past performance from past contract where they acted as part of a joint venture?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION #70 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, SECTION F, PAGE 17

Please provide the liquidated damages applicable to the “seed project” task order.

ANSWER: Please refer to answer to Question #10.

QUESTION #71 PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT, L.4.10 PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT PAGE

The RFP states: Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be legible. What does the NIH deem acceptable? Is there a font size requirement?

ANSWER: There is no font size designated; legible, we expect that the document content must be capable of being read or deciphered.

QUESTION #72 PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT, L.4.10 PAGE SIZE AND FORMAT PAGE

Is there a font size requirement for tables, charts and graphs’

ANSWER: See answer to question #71.

QUESTION #73 NO REFERENCE

1. How many awardees will be admitted to the MATOC

2. Will a firm be rated higher for having multiple designations (SDVO and HUBZone)?3. If an awardee out grows the small business size standard after award, will that firm be allowed to stay on the MATOC? If not, can the firm novate their contract to a Joint Venture that is still small for the NAICS code?4. What do you expect to be the smallest project task order under this contract?

ANSWER:

1. Please read the solicitation Section M, Step 8

2. No

3. Please read clause 52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Representation. (JUL 2013). Specifically for long term contract, note that Within 60 to 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the contract the Contractor shall re-represent its size status. If at that time, the contractor no longer fits a particular small business concern, it will not be eligible for set-asides under that concern, but may continue to receive fair opportunity consideration based upon the re-represented eligibility.

4. $2,000 is the contract minimum order.

QUESTION #74 RFP CLARIFICATIONS

SECTION F Para. 52.211-12 states that the Contractor shall be responsible for paying liquidated damages, but it appears that no amount has been specified in the RFP or project specifications.

Please specify the amount of liquidated damages.

Section 13.d. of the solicitation (Standard Form 1442) requests that bidders provide proposals that are valid for a period of 180 days from the bid closing. An acceptance period for this length of time not only creates a substantial amount of risk to all bidders (due to the volatility of the current market), but it will also be a cause for inflated pricing in an effort to predict what construction costs will be 6 months from the close of bid. Please consider reducing the acceptance period from 180 days to 90 days.

ANSWER: Please see answer to Question #10; the acceptance period is indicated in block 13 please adhere to this time period or your offer will be deemed nonresponsive.

QUESTION #75 PARAGRAPH L.4.10, PAGE 101

RFP Paragraph L.4.10 states: “Pages shall be single-spaced with 1.5 line spacing.” Can NIH confirm if this language was intended as “…single-sided with 1.5…”, or otherwise clarify?

ANSWER: Yes, single-sided with 1.5 line spacing; however double sided is acceptable to conserve paper.

QUESTION #76 RFP SECTION L.4.11, PAGE 101

RFP Paragraph L.4.11 states that pricing information be only be provided in the Price Proposal (Volume 3). If the SF 1442 must be provided in Volume 4, shall we omit the price information from the form?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answers to Questions #40 & 41.

QUESTION #77 RFP SECTION A SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL PAGE 3

Will NIH consider amending the RFP to allow offerors to submit proposals via email only?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION #78 EXTENSION ON DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE

We respectfully request an extension of the deadline from March 14th to March 28th.

ANSWER: The response time and date are driven by Government needs.

QUESTION #79 TEAMING AGREEMENT/PPQS

How does the non-primary company within a teaming agreement identify that there is a teaming agreement in place when submitting ppqs? How will they know that these ppqs belong to the primary company submitting all of the required information?

ANSWER: Please refer to Amendment 0001; no teaming agreements or arrangements will be accepted or considered for experience or past performance. Only SBA Approved Joint- Ventures and Mentor-Protégé agreements. Further, it is the responsibility of the offeror to identify to the Gov’t in the proposal, Volume 2, of this information; if offeror fails to clearly identify it will be at their own cause the PPQ is not considered.

QUESTION #80 NO REFERENCE

Request guidance and clarification with regards to the NIH MACC concerning the PPQs. I am having difficulty to ensure that the PPQs will be provided to the correct proposal submission.

We are planning to use the projects in multiple proposal submissions. For example, Sample Project #1 completed by the ABC Company is being submitted in TWO different proposals. Do I need request the client complete two PPQs for the same project that will be submitted in two proposals?

Also, for NIH projects, do I need to request NIH complete 3 PPQs for the same project that will be submitted in multiple proposals?

ANSWER: No, if an Offeror will submit multiple proposals under this RFP, they do not need to submit duplicative PPQs for each submission. However, it is the responsibility of the offeror to identify to the Gov’t in the proposal, Volume 2, of this information; if offeror fails to clearly identify it will be at their own cause the PPQ is not considered.

QUESTION #81: SOLICATION

As there are multiple small business categories that are listed in the solicitation that may receive an award, would it be possible for a company to receive multiple awards in multiple categories?

For example, can business A receive an award in the small business category as well as…