(r)QA Government Response W9124P-24-R-0004 1 Sept 2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Competitive 8(a) SATOC JOC 2025
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This document contains a set of questions and answers related to a federal Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Job Order Contract (JOC) to provide new construction, alterations, maintenance, repair, and modernization services for the U.S. Army Garrison at Redstone Arsenal.
The key details include: The solicitation is a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside with a Period of Performance from June 2025 to June 2030. Potential projects include administrative facilities, vehicle maintenance shops, airfield structures, utilities, and research facilities. The RFP includes a seed project and trial proposal requirements. Offerors are asked to provide pricing using an eGordian unit price book, with instructions on how to apply coefficients and weightings. The RFP also details proposal submission requirements, including page limits, file formats, and the need for a bid bond.
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
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
| Comments /Questions | Govenments Response | |
| 1 | With the upcoming site visit slated for September 19th, will there be an opportunity to submit RFIs afterwards since the response date for the proposal is Sept 26th? | The site visit will only discuss the seed project; therefore, technical questions about the seed project will be entertained at the site visit. No other questions regarding the RFP will be answered at the site visit. |
| 2 | Several staff members, in which we would like to attend the site visit, do not have a badge for access into base. Please provide direction as how to acquire access for the site visit. | The site visit location is outside of the gate; therefore, a badge for access to the base is not required. If you would still like access beyond the gate the date of the site visit, a one day pass may be requested with the individual's full name (first, middle, last). |
| 3 | Will we be allowed to submit general questions regarding the newly provided solicitation and documents once thoroughly reviewed? | Per the solicitation, all questions were required to be submitted by 4:00pm, CST, on 26 August 2024. |
| 4 | Please confirm it is contractors’ choice of scheduling software. We need to understand this as soon as possible so that our scheduler does not utilize a software the GOV will not accept within this proposal. | The contractor may use any scheduling software, but the submission to the government needs to be in a word/pdf document format viewable without any special software. |
| 5 | Will the Prime Contractor be required to hold a General Contractor (GC) License in the state of Alabama? | Because performance will take place on a federal installation, it does not have to be in the state of Alabama. |
| 6 | RFP document page 29, C.3.3.2: Is the Government allowing a dual-hatted QC/Site Superintendent for projects? | The terms "Quality Control Representative" and "Site Superintendent" are used interchangeably in C.3.3.2, but a distinction is made between that role and the Quality Control Manager in C.3.2.4. The Quality Control Manager should not be dual hatted as a Quality Control Representative/ Site Superintendent. |
| 7 | Subsection L.4.2 says “Files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled “W9124P-24-R-0004 zip” using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., .docx, .xlsx, .pptx, .pdf, etc.” Except for the pricing spreadsheets (which must be provided in Excel), is it acceptable to provide each volume as a combined searchable and bookmarked PDF file (one combined PDF per volume) rather than in Word (*.docx)? | Every volume must be provided as a separate file. Both .docx and .pdf are acceptable file formats per L.4.2, but the separate volumes cannot be combined into one PDF file. |
| 8 | Is a cross-reference matrix required for all volumes or just Volume I? | Just Volume I |
| 9 | Is a Glossary/Acronyms List required for all volumes or just Volume I? | Just Volume I |
| 10 | Subsection L.5.1.1 says “Each Offeror shall submit with his offer a Bid Bond (Standard Form 24) with good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, or other bid guarantee or notes in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).” Is the project bid being bonded the seed project? | No. The RFP/Solicitation number itself should be referenced in the bid bond. |
| 11 | Subsection L.5.1.1 says “The Offeror shall provide a Certification from its Surety validating the Offeror’s ability to provide and maintain, for this solicitation, up to $120 million in bonding.” Will a letter from the offeror’s surety that provides the requested information satisfy the “certification” requirement? | Yes. |
| 12 | Subsection L.4.1.1 says “The cover letter, title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against page count limits.” Is the Cross-Reference Matrix referenced in Subsection L.5.1 also excluded from page limitations? | Yes. |
| 13 | Subsection L.4.1.1 identifies several items that do not count against page count limits. To the list of excluded items, would the Army please consider adding the bid bond and the surety certification required in Section L.5.1.1 or, alternatively, consider increasing the page Volume I page limit to 60 pages? Our standard bid bond is 5 pages in length. | Yes. Section L.4.1.1 will add "bid bond and surety certification" to the list of excluded items. |
| 14 | Attachments B and C look the same. Is one of them supposed to have different content? | Attachment C will be removed |
| 15 | Section L.4.2.1 says that the preferred method for transmitting proposal files is upload through PIEE. It does not appear as though this solicitation is available in PIEE. Does the Army plan to put the opportunity into PIEE so that contractors can use the solicitation module to upload their proposals? | Yes, if this requirement changes, the government will issue an Amendment notifying the pubic of the change. |
| 16 | Can offerors have more time to submit questions? What if there are questions on the seed project site visit observations? | Questions regarding the seed project and only the seed project may be asked/answered on the day of the site visit, but no other questions will be entertained. |
| 17 | We do not yet have access to eGordian. When will the eGordian UPB be available? | Access to the eGordian UPB should be available now. Any issues with access should be directed to the eGordian POC listed in L.5.1.3.1. Please note that access requests take 48 hours to process. |
| 18 | Section L.5.3 says “The Offeror shall submit, in Attachment J24 of this solicitation, the price coefficient factors to accomplish the tasks described herein. The Offeror shall also submit the Contractor’s proposed weight of the UPB. All price proposals that are not submitted in Microsoft Office Excel format will be rejected by the Contracting Officer and will not be considered for award. For evaluation purposes, all formulas shall be viewable in the Excel spreadsheet.” With the formulas presented in J24 (notably column G in the “Task CLIN Price Summary”), the Army is proposing a new way to calculate contractor-proposed costs. Usually, this is done by multiplying the contractor’s coefficient by the bare cost prices in the Construction Task Catalog (CTC). And usually, the contractor’s estimated “weight of the UPB” is included in the contractor’s coefficient. Typically, coefficients are developed to include all cost elements not included in the CTC (including any adjustments necessary to correct for the UPB’s net deviations from current, local pricing for work that would be estimated using the UPB). The more complex method presented in J24 involves multiplying CTC bare costs by the contractor’s “proposed UPB weighting” and then multiplying that product by the contractor’s coefficient. Contractors will need to remove the “weight of the book” from the calculations used to develop their coefficients if the formulas in J24 are to be used. Alternatively, The Army could consider revising the “Task CLIN Price Summary” worksheet in Attachment J24 to remove columns D and E and changing the title of Column 5 (cell G12) from “Total proposed TO Price (Proposed UPB Weighting*Proposed Coefficient)” to simply “Total Proposed TO Price.” For simplicity, would the Army consider revising J24 as suggested so that there is no need to perform the added step of multiplying bare costs by the “weight of the UPB” and so that contractors can keep the “weight of the UPB” as part of their formula for developing coefficients? | The weight of the UPB will be removed. |
| 19 | If contractors are instructed to calculate their coefficients without the weight of the UPB (that is, if task order prices will be calculated by multiplying the UPB weight by the UPB bare costs and then multiplying that product by the appropriate coefficient) then can the UPB weights be changed/negotiated in the future? | The weight of the UPB will be removed. |
| 20 | The way Attachment J24 is set up, it seems to be forcing offerors to take the “weight of the book” outside of their coefficients, which is not the standard approach. If the Army wants estimates developed by multiplying bare costs separately by the “weight of the book” and the appropriate coefficient(s) then this might be difficult using the eGordian software as currently set up because the software only allows for bare costs to be applied by a coefficient – not for bare costs to be multiplied by two adjustment factors. Would the Army consider revising J24 so that contractors can build the “weight of the book” into their coefficients? | The weight of the UPB will be removed. |
| 21 | Please clarify whether the coefficients put in Section B are supposed to exclude the “weight of the book” or whether the coefficients put in Section B should have the “weight of the book” built into them. | The weight of the UPB will be removed. |
| 22 | Section L.5.3.2 says “The offeror shall also include the proposed price for the task order in the Price template provided at Attachment J24 and apply the UPB weightings (if applicable) and coefficients proposed in Attachment J24 of this RFP. The application of proposed UPB weightings and coefficients to the awardable task order shall be detailed in Attachment J24 of Volume III only.” The instructions to multiply the UPB bare costs by two separate factors (the UPB weighting and the coefficient built without a UPB weighting) rather than one factor (the coefficient with the UPB weighting built in) represents a deviation from the typical process. If the UPB weighting cannot be applied in eGordian, will Attachment J24 or some similar worksheet be used for all JOC task order proposals? | The weight of the UPB will be removed. |
| 23 | For Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Element 3 (Seed Project), two RFP numbers and tracking numbers are shown. The subject line in the RFP shows A002 (2024112-4) and RFP Section 1 shows A001 (2007150-3). Which RFP number and tracking number should offerors reference in their seed project proposals. | The seed project number is A002(2024112-4). We will correct section L.5.1.3.3.2. |
| 24 | For Factor 1, Subfactor 3, Element 1 (Trial Proposal) there are two different tracking numbers shown. The Site Visit Memorandum and the subject line in the Trial Proposal RFP shows the tracking number as 2024196-24. But in RFP item 1b, the tracking number is identified as 2007150-3. Which tracking number should offerors reference in their trial proposal? | The trial proposal number is A001(2024196-24). We will correct section L.5.1.3.1.2. |
| 25 | Please clarify whether offerors should include signed SF30 forms to acknowledge amendments in Volume IV. Is it acceptable omit the SF30s and simply list the amendments in SF33 Block 14? | Yes |
| 26 | In Attachment J26, there are some estimated quantities in the notes that do not match the quantities we measure on the drawings. On Sheet C2 for example, a note at the northern end of Marvin Shields Road says “PROVIDE 1 EA. 4” X 52’ LONG DOUBLE YELLOW CENTERLINE STRIPING” and we measure this as closer to 70’ long. Also on Sheet C2, a note says “OVERLAY 2” OF NEW WEARING SURFACE OVER EXISTING ASPHALT WEARING COURSE (APPROXIMATELY 10,644 S.F.)” and we measure this closer to 18,400 from the shaded area on the drawing. Near the southern match line on Sheet C2, a note says “PROVIDE 1 EA. 4” x 58’ LONG DOUBLE YELLOW CENTERLINE STRIPING” where we measure this drawn line as closer to 78’ long. Contractors cannot know at this time whether they will be able to measure all of the pertinent distances during the September site visit. For places where the distances and areas measured on the drawings exceed the estimated quantities provided in a drawing’s notes, which source of quantities (notes vs. drawn areas) should contractors use as the basis of their seed project proposal? | The indicated scale on the drawings of 1" = 40' is incorrect. The correct scale is 1" = 30'. |
| 27 | Sheet AR-3 in Attachment J25 (Trial Proposal) includes Door and Window Notes and a Door and Frame Schedule. In the Door and Window Notes, Note 11 says “Doors 3, 4, 10, 12, 14 and 15 shall be overhead door ‘Overhead Door Corp.’, Thermacore type doors. The doors shall be Series 595, minimum R-Value of 14.86, 20 gauge galvanized, flush exterior surface, and motorized. Size as on Schedule Color shall be tan.” The overhead doors identified in Note 11 do not match the specifications for those same doors listed on the Door and Frame Schedule. Will the Army please correct the discrepancies? | Door and Frame schedule and floor plan are correct per sheet AR-3. Note 11 should state doors 8,9,12,14,18, and 19 to reflect schedule. |
| 28 | On Sheet C-1 in Attachment J25, would the Army please verify the width of the sidewalk being demolished? Offerors can scale the length and width if needed. | Scale drawings for sidewalk length and width. |
| 29 | On Sheet C-1 in Attachment J25, contour lines for site grading are not shown. General Civil Note #1 on Sheet C-1 says “all necessary dimensions and elevations of existing structures and topography shall be verified by the contactor in the field prior to construction operations.” What should offerors assume regarding site topography? | Assume existing spot elevations and topography are correct per sheet C-3. |
| 30 | On Sheet C-2 in Attachment J25, Parking Area Note #3 says “patch/ repair approximately 1000 SF of existing asphalt.” There is no patch detail provided. If no detail or clarification is provided through an amendment, should offerors use asphalt driveway notes? | Use Asphalt driveway notes on C-2. |
| 31 | Sheet AC-2 in Attachment J25 indicates to install dryer duct to vent. The pipe size and vent cap are not verified. | Dryer vent to be 4” duct with a flush mount louvered vent. |
| 32 | On Sheet AR-7 in Attachment J25 there is one canopy size labeled. There appear to be six canopies, some larger than others. Would the Army please provide the canopy sizes and quantities? | Canopy sizes as follows- Doors #21&30 -10’6” x 5’6” , Door #20-5’6”x 5’6” , Door #13-6’6”x 5’6” , Door #7-5’6”x 5’6” , Door #6-5’6”x 5’6” , Door #1-5’6”x 5’6” , Door #4-No Canopy |
| 33 | On Sheet AC-4 in Attachment J25 there is a VAV schedule that includes VAV-3, but there is no VAV-3 shown on Sheet AC-3. Where is VAV-3 and what are the plans for it? | VAV 3 is shown on sheet AC-1 / Sheet AC-3 needs to be revised to show VAV 3 and associated hot water piping. |
| 34 | On Sheet EL-2 in Attachment J25 there are telephone and data outlets shown on the plan and identified in the Receptacle Legend. There are no communications drawings included in Attachment J25 (Trial Proposal Drawing Set). Please clarify what work pertaining to the phone and data outlets, if any, is part of this trial proposal project’s scope. | Install Telephone and data conduit, boxes, etc. per sheet EL-2. Communication wiring and terminations not in scope. |
| 35 | Section M.8.2 and Section M.9.2 indicate that the offeror’s past performance will be rated on three aspects (recency, relevancy, and quality), which “will be combined to produce one overall performance confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance Factor for each offeror.” The combining of performance suggests that the overall performance confidence assessment would be lower if the offeror includes projects that are not “of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the efforts required by this solicitation.” If an offeror has one or two highly relevant contracts plus other less-relevant contracts (all recent with approximately equal quality), is there any benefit to including less-relevant contracts in Volume II? | Please refer to section L.5.2 for Past Performance submission requirements. The RFP states that "up to six contracts" may be submitted for past performance evaluation. All information provided will be evaluated as described in Section M.8.2 and M.9.2 for the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. |
| 36 | Paragraph L.4.2 says that files submitted in PDF file format shall be 100% searchable. Can exceptions be made for the bid bond and CPARS? Or can the requirement for 100% searchability be clarified to apply only to the proposal spreadsheets, tables, resumes, and narrative sections? | Yes, CPARS and bid bond documents may be excluded from the 100% searchable requirement. |
| 37 | Is there a Time set for the Proposals to be submitted on Sept 26, 2024. None mentioned. | All propoals shall be submitted by 4:00 p.m. CST 26 September 2024 |
| 38 | L.5.1.3.1.2 states that the Trial Proposal Paragraph 2 (A) Material submittals and color samples are YES for this project. L.5.1.2.3.3 Site Visit Memorandum for Trial Proposal, Submittals Required Page 14 0f 38 Paragraph 1 states . (Submittals will not be required for this trial proposal). Can we get conformation if the submittals will be required or not required | Submittals are not required. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .