8(a) MACC RTP - RFI Log (Amendment 03).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NIH 8(a) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for Construction Services at Research Triangle Park, NC
- Solicitation number
- 75N99023R00003
About this file
This solicitation is for an NIH 8(a) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) to provide construction services at the Research Triangle Park campus in North Carolina. The solicitation seeks proposals from 8(a) certified small businesses to serve as prime contractors for individual task orders valued between $100,000 and $5 million each. Key dates include a pre-proposal conference on December 14th and a proposal due date of January 11th, 2023. The period of performance for individual task orders is 120 calendar days from notice to proceed.
The solicitation includes an RFI log and seed project details as examples of the type of work that may be issued under the contract. Questions cover clarification of past performance evaluation criteria, facility photos, interstitial space access, and mechanical equipment information. The seed project scope involves office renovations and installation of GFCI shelving and carpet tile. Responses provide additional project details, confirm scope items, and clarify evaluation criteria.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
| RFI # | Section | Question | Answer |
| 12 | Pg 113 (M) | There is a statement on page 113 of the RFP that Relevant projects are to be completed within three years of the dateof the issuances of this RFP (recency). Whereas the Recency Assessment Chart on page 115 and under paragraph M.2.4 state that the performance is ongoing or has been performed during the last five years. |
Can you clarify if Recency Relevance is 3 years or 5 years, and if the project can be ongoing? Please see Amendment 0003. Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within five (5) years of the date of issuances of this RFP
| 13 | Pg 117 (M) | Amendment 2 language is as follows: | |
| a) | Demonstrated experience from one (1) of the following project types must be included: Biomedical Research Laboratories, Animal Care Research Facilities, Hospitals, or predominantly utility project. b) Demonstrated experience from one (1) of the following remaining project types, which must be different from the facility type experience demonstrated in (a) above: Biomedical Research Laboratories, Animal Care Research Facilities, Hospitals, or predominantly utility project. c) Demonstrated experience must include at least one renovation/repair project d) Demonstrated experience must include at least one design-build project | ||
| b) | NOTE: Failure to demonstrate experience in ALL four (4) types of relevant construction projects shall be considered a deficiency; thus unacceptable. |
Under M2.5 it states
‘ii. (SCOPE) - Efforts/projects showing the capability to perform and manage a wide range of construction trades including: design, carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior and exterior electrical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry, and welding, as well as the ability to manage multiple relevant efforts simultaneously, with greater consideration (relevancy) for medical/laboratory/animal care center experience, design/build and renovation projects.’
The note under amendment 2 states that failure to demonstrate experience in all four types of relevant construction shall be considered a deficiency, thus unacceptable. The statement under M2.5 states that medical, lab or animal care work etc. would be given greater consideration but does not infer that the projects scope would be considered unacceptable, thus the proposal could be deemed acceptable.
Step 3 of the proposal evaluation on page 117 states:
‘Step 3: Evaluate Technical Acceptability: The three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. If a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable it will be eliminated, and their past performance will not be evaluated, thus being eliminated from competition.’
| Would the government consider relaxing the specificity of the language for past performance projects? Or can the note regarding the proposal being unacceptable be removed from the RFP if the proposing contractor can show relevant projects within the description under M2.5? It seems that the RFP as written would highly benefit incumbents on this contract. Whereas work performed in sensitive areas such as flightline, and highly classified areas that match the seed project areas would not be taken into consideration. Lessening the specificity of the relevant projects would allow for greater competition for this MACC. Otherwise per Step 3, any proposal that does not meet the very specific requirements would be eliminated from competition. | Please see Amendment 0002 for the relevant projects in the evaluation criteria. | |||
| 14 | M | Can Construction Experience be provided by a Teaming Partner as one of the 4 construction experiences, if we provide an executed Teaming Agreement and Letter of Intent with the Proposal? | Please see Sections L & M for information regarding Joint Venture requirements. | |
| 15 | Seed Project | 1. | What is the existing ceiling in each office space? Does each area have concrete above? | |
| 2. | Please clarify what MEP systems goes up and down through each ceiling/floor. Engineering mentioned electrical and plumbing runs up through each floor, but HVAC runs down. | |||
| 3. | What is the floor to deck height? | |||
| 4. | Confirm what loading dock contractors will have access to? | |||
| 5. | Are Temporary walls and floor protection required? If required and much of an area would the contractor provide? | |||
| 6. | The TOPT sheet mentions to install a fume hood/ countertop but no information on scope sheet, please clarify this scope? | |||
| 7. | The Door in C138 seems to be new, but is not listed in the SOW, please clarify this scope? | |||
| 8. | Please provide the electrical room location? | |||
| 9. | Please provide MEP As-builts? | 1. Ceilings are precast concrete slabs supporting the interstitial space above. |
2.Please refer to mechanical drawings
3. C Module First Floor finished floor elevation is 315' and C Module First Floor Interstitial finished floor elevation is 324'6"
4. Contractors may request usage of loading dock at C module.
5. No temporary walls or floor protection required. Contractor shall provide means and methods during construction to not damage existing spaces.
6. There is no scope to install new fume hoods or countertop and therefore those lines should remain blank in the TOPT.
7. There is an existing door at C138 to the corridor.
8. Electrical room is located in the new C Module Communications Tower.
9. Refer to mechanical drawings
| 16 | Seed Project | "Any utility outages required shall be coordinated a minimum of 14 days in advance.” __Please clarify if “14 days” _in this sentence refers to calendar days or work days? | 14 Calendar Days |
| 17 | Seed Project | What specific design submissions are required for the C112694 project? For example, 65%, 100% etc. | C112694 is a construction only project and therefore no design submissions are expected. Design is not anticipated. |
| 18 | Seed Project | The Contractor shall create, manage, and make available to NIH a Web-based collaboration system |
to share and store files. This Web-based product to share and store files must be mutually agreed on by
| both parties. Each task order will provide detailed instruction(s). Please confirm that this requirement is applicable to C112694 project. | It is acceptable to utilize email transfer and an NIH secure file transfer for task order C112694. | |||
| 19 | Seed Project | Is the existing laydown area fenced? | No; Contractor is responsible for properly storing and securing materials in the laydown area. | |
| 20 | L | Considering the holiday break and Gov’t POCs vacation, will NIH consider extending the proposal deadline to accommodate delayed PPQs? | Please see Amendment 0003 revised proposal due date | |
| 21 | Seed Project | Is a Design expected for this seed project? | C112694 is outlined as a construction only project per the SOW. Design is not anticipated. | |
| 22 | M | “Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within three (3) years of the date of issuances of this RFP (recency).” Considering the global pandemic impact on small businesses over the last two (2) years, will NIH consider extending the recency requirement to have been completed within five (5) years of the date of the issuance of this RFP please? | Please see RFI #12 response | |
| 23 | M | “Offerors 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.” Many subcontractors perform turnkey projects for prime contractors, which means many subcontractors perform (liaison between Gov’t and prime) and acquire prime contractor experience on projects that meet the relevant project type this RFP seeks. Will NIH kindly reconsider the offerors role on relevant projects? | Please refer to Section M. | |
| 24 | Seed Project | 1.Please provide general photos (if exist) of rooms C110, 112, 114, 136, 138,140, 142 since amendment and slide show made them redacted. |
2.Is the Collateral safety officer the same as Site Security Manager (SM) as outlined in 5.2.5? If so, can this person be the same person as outlined in SOW 1.C or does it need to be a second set of eyeballs? If different description than SM, please provide detail 3.POP is 120 calendar days form NTP per SOW 1.B. Is the NTP issued with contract award or after all submittals are approved? In either instance, coupled with global supply chain and lead time issues, especially with the 20 calendar day GA review and long lead AphaSorb Acoustic Panels, this POP of 120 calendar day may prove unrealistic. Please advise.
4.SOW II.E requires single source owner required vendor Johnson Controls. Please provide base POC contact information for pricing estimates
1. General photos are not available.
2. It is acceptable to have the Collateral Safety Officer also serve as the Site Security Manager for this task order only if the proposed individual meets all of the qualifications for both positions.
3. The Government considers 120 calendar days to be reasonable. NTP will be provided at the pre-construction meeting after bonds and insurance have been received.
4. JCI site representative is Michael Trimberger, michael.a.trimberger@jci.com, (919) 215-5426.
25 Seed Project 5.SOW III.B.i calls to ‘cover unused holes…with compressible concrete’. Please provide detail to achieve the same. Will it require fieldwork floor below to install formwork (10x10 fireproof plywood tapconed to the bottom floor) and also access (Hard ceiling versus acoustic). Please advise.
6.SOW III.B.f - What is the size of the individual GFCI carpet tile noted for the 310 SF?
7.No mention of scope for security or fire alarm local or mass notification systems/tie in. Please confirm no scope.
8.Page 17 of 18 in the SOW calls for contractor to install up to 200 lnft of GFCI shelving. What are the blocking requirements and/or fastening requirements? Are all materials truly GFCI? 5. It is acceptable to cover unused holes through floor and ceiling only in lieu of backfilling with compressible concrete. Contractor to select floor covers that do not present a tripping hazard as applicable.
6. Carpet tile is expected to be 24"x24".
7. No scope is anticipated for security or fire alarm in this task order.
8. Shelving, fastening and brackets will be Government Furnished for Contractor Installation only. Blocking for new shelving to be provided by Contractor.
| 26 | Seed Project | Is the current HVAC system a duel-duct system? | Please refer to mechanical drawings |
| 27 | Seed Project | What is the composition and thickness of the floor of the interstitial space? | Typical interstitial flooring system consists of 4" precast concrete slabs. |
| 28 | Seed Project | Are the electrical and communication junction boxes located within the interstitial space? | Yes |
| 29 | Seed Project | Is there workable space within the interstitial areas? | Interstitial space varies throughout. Utility congestion may occur in various areas within the space. However, there is workable space within the intertsitial. |
| 30 | Seed Project | Is the mechanical duct located in the interstitial space? | Yes |
| 31 | Seed Project | Describe the access to the interstitial decks. | Interstitial spaces may be accessed via elevator or stair access. |
| 32 | Seed Project | What are the thicknesses of the existing corridor walls? | The existing corridor walls are anticipated to be 3" thick. |
| 33 | Seed Project | What is the distance between the floor slab and the deck above? | C Module First Floor finished floor elevation is 315' and C Module First Floor Interstitial finished floor elevation is 324'6" |
| 34 | Site Visit | Provide sign-in sheets for the pre-bid site walk/meeting | Please see attachments provided in Amendment 0002 |
| 35 | Seed Project | Room C116A is within the clouded area on the left side of the drawing. This room is not referenced in the SOW. Confirm that this room is not included in the scope of work for the seed project. | C116A is not included in the SOW and no work is anticpated for this room. |
| 36 | L | Confirm that the Government will allow proposers a minimum of seven (7) business days to respond to the RFP starting from the date that the Government responds to 100% of the RFIs received | Please see Amendment 0003 for the revised proposal due date. |
| 37 | L | Are contractors required to submit the TOPT document in Excel format or can it be submitted as a pdf? | The completed TOPT shall be submitted in Excel format. |
| 38 | L | Per the referenced spec section, the QC person shall be separate from the SSHO. Where should the cost for the SSHO be included on the TOPT form | Per Specification 01 35 26 Secion 1.5.1.2, the Contractor Quality Control Person shall be separate from the SSHO unless specified otherwise on an individual project basis. It is acceptable for the seed project for the Collateral Duty Safety Officer to be performed by the same individual (Project Manager, Quality Control Manager or Superintendent) for this task order provided the designated personnel are qualified and meet the requirements set forth in the 01 35 26 Specification, Contractor’s approved Site-Specific Safety Plan and Site Specific Quality Control Plan |
| 39 | Seed Project | No fire alarm or fire suppression is mentioned in the RFP. Is there any required | No fire alarm or fire suppression work is anticipated for this task order. |
| 40 | Seed Project | How many HVAC units are servicing the areas being remodeled? Provide specs for these units (tonnages, cfm, make, and model). | Please refer to mechanical drawings |
| 41 | Seed Project | What floor of the facility is this work? | C Module, 1st Floor and associated interstitial spaces |
| 42 | Seed Project | What type of HVAC system is being used? | Please refer to mechanical drawings |
| 43 | Site Visit | Considering that the site walk for this project was not mandatory and scheduled during a time when many people were already on vacation and could not attend, there is information that cannot be deduced from the documents provided. At a minimum, provide: |
- photos of the mechanical equipment that controls the spaces to be renovated, including nameplates indicating manufacturers, model numbers, and capacities.
- 7 photos of each room where work is being performed (room sign @ entry door, all 4 walls, floor, and ceiling).
- photos of the interstitial spaces.
| - location of fire alarm control panel, electrical rooms, and mechanical rooms | No additional photos will be provided. | |||
| 44 | M | Attachment 2 instructions state “Projects may be on-going (at least 90% complete) and cannot have been completed any later than 5 years prior to the solicitation release date. RFP paragraph L.7.3. Recent & Relevant Contracts states “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.” If submitting design team experience, does the project need to be 100% design complete? In other words, may the project be in construction so long as the issue for construction drawings have been accepted by the government? | Please see Section M for evaluation criteria regarding the relevant projects. | |
| 45 | M | RFP paragraph L.7.3. Recent & Relevant Contracts states “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.” If submitting a joint project between the offeror and one of our “team partners” (e.g. a design firm), are we to submit a separate form for the offeror and designer to receive credit for both firms’ work? Or is it acceptable to designate a project as joint and only submit one firm for both the offeror AND design firm’s experience? | No. If submitting a Design-Build project, please follow the instructions in Section L. | |
| 46 | M | RFP paragraph L.7.3. Recent & Relevant Contracts states “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.” Are we safe in our assumption that “team partner” refers to design team members? | Please see Section L for Joint Venture Agreement requirements. | |
| 47 | M | Amendment 2 modified Factor 1 acceptable facility types to: a) Demonstrated experience from one (1) of the following project types must be included: |
Biomedical Research Laboratories, Animal Care Research Facilities, Hospitals, or predominantly utility project.
b) Demonstrated experience from one (1) of the following remaining project types, which must be different from the facility type experience demonstrated in (a) above: Biomedical Research Laboratories, Animal Care Research Facilities, Hospitals, or predominantly utility project.
| Question: Will attachment 1 be updated within box 7 accordingly? If not, should we adjust the checkboxes within the form to align with the requested facility types? | Revised Attachment 01 and Attachment 02 is included in Amendment 0003 to reflect the changes in Amendment 0002. | ||
| 48 | M | Attachment 2, 2nd page of the form, states If there is no CPARS for a project “ensure there is a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) completed by the Customer/Owner and returned to the Contracting Officer by the closing date of this RFP.” |
The ability to get responses to this request from our customers through the holidays is a virtually impossible task as most government agencies take time off during this time of year. This is placing a proposal risk on proposing firms.
| Would the government consider previously completed PPQs that we may either mail directly into the government or submit with our proposal? If permissible to submit with the proposal, will they be excluded from the page limitations? | No. If a project does not have a completed CPARS, PPQs are to be submitted using Attachment 3 (PPQ). | ||
| 49 | M | Attachment 2, 2nd page of the form, states If there is no CPARS for a project “ensure there is a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) completed by the Customer/Owner and returned to the Contracting Officer by the closing date of this RFP.” |
The ability to get responses to this request from our customers through the holidays is a virtually impossible task as most government agencies take time off during this time of year. This is placing a proposal risk on proposing firms.
| Would the government consider at least a two week extension to allow enough time and interaction with our customers to accomplish this task? | Please see Amendment 0003 for the revised proposal due date. | ||
| 50 | M | Attachment 2, 2nd page of the form, states If there is no CPARS for a project “ensure there is a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) completed by the Customer/Owner and returned to the Contracting Officer by the closing date of this RFP.” |
The ability to get responses to this request from our customers through the holidays is a virtually impossible task as most government agencies take time off during this time of year. This is placing a proposal risk on proposing firms. Additionally, the government does not typically respond to requests for team partner PPQs (e.g. for design team members).
| If submitting PPQs for team partner experience we submit within Factor 2, may we include previously completed PPQs? If not, for design team partner projects, would the government consider PPQs submitted directly from the prime contractor? | No. If a project does not have a completed CPARS, PPQs are to be submitted using Attachment 3 (PPQ). | |||
| 51 | M | Attachment 2 instructions state “A minimum of 4 projects are required with a maximum of 6 projects.” This statement does not confirm if the 4-6 projects is for the whole Factor 2, or for the offeror and each team partner. Please clarify if we are required to submit at least 4 projects per team partner, or a maximum of 6 for the whole factor. | The JV should submit 4-6 projects performed by the JV or its individual members, as prime with no additional projects. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .