Amend 0001_Contractor RFI and Responses 2023 07 12.pdf

Contractor RFI and Responses WMATOC Solicitation No. 47PL0123R0035

Amendment 0001

1. L-3.6 states the projects submitted for Relevant Experience must have been executed in the past 5 years. However, M-6.1.1 states Past Performance Relevance and Recency are to be provided for projects over the last 6 years. Please clarify if the timeframe for relevancy is six years or five years?

Answer: The correct time frame is five (5) years. Attached to this Solicitation Amendment is a Revised Solicitation which corrects section M-6.1.1 for consistency. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

2. The requirements for Factor 1 are confusing. Paragraph M-5.1.1, evaluation of Factor 1, the RFP states “only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor should be submitted.” Yet, paragraph L-3.6 states projects should “have been executed by the offeror and its team members as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor.”

Answer: Section L-3.6 of the Solicitation cited above provides the submission requirements.

Section M-5.1.1. Provides the offerors information on how submissions will be evaluated by defining the term “Relevant.” Section L-3.6 states, in total, that “[t]he Proposal shall include up to, but not more than; five (5) construction projects and include up to, but not more than; five (5) project examples demonstrating relevant design experience that have been executed by the offeror and its team members as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor.” Later in section M-5.1.1 the Solicitation states that only those projects for which the Offeror was the prime contractor “should” be submitted. Should is permissive language. An Offeror may submit projects for which it was not the prime contractor but those projects may not be viewed as favorably as projects for which the offeror was the Prime Contractor under the definition of “Relevant” provided in the Solicitation.

A. If the intent is for offerors to provide 10 total projects under Factor 1 – Relevant Experience (5 projects demonstrating construction experience and 5 projects demonstrating design-build experience), must all projects be contracts that were awarded to the offeror as prime, or can the design projects be project examples of our Design Team’s experience, possibly as a subconsultant to a different Prime Contractor?

Answer: See response to Question No. 2 above. Offerors are instructed to consider the definition of “Relevant” in selecting submissions, but such submissions are not prohibited.

B. Or, is the intent to provide 10 projects total from the Offeror as the Prime, that include up to 5 design-build projects awarded to the Offeror?

Answer: See responses above.

C. If the intent of Factor 1 – Relevant Experience is to provide 5 construction projects from the offer and 5 design projects from our designer of record, will the 5 design projects be rated higher if projects show the offeror and the designer working together on a design-build project?

Answer: See responses above.

4. L-3.7.1 paragraph 2c. states that resumes must be provided for Design Project Managers. It then goes on to state “provide information relevant to each anticipated subconsultant discipline, at a minimum:

architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, and industrial hygienist.

Please confirm that a resume for an individual in each of these design disciplines is required (i.e, a minimum of 5 design project manager resumes).

Answer: The Solicitation requests that contractors provide resumes or CV of the proposed Design Project Managers. Contractors should submit a resume for each Design Project Manager proposed to be part of their team that includes information relevant to their experience with the following design disciplines: architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, and industrial hygienist. It is possible that one Design Project Manager could demonstrate relevant experience in each discipline stated.

5. L-3.7.1 Factor 2, Subfactor 1 – Organization History and Key Personnel: Will resumes for design project managers that have experience working on projects with the offeror be rated higher than resumes for design project managers that have no experience working with the offeror?

Answer: The Standard for Evaluation of this Subfactor is outlined in Section L-3.7.5 of the Solicitation. The evaluation does not include any assessment of “partnering.” However, Offerors are also required to submit project examples under Evaluation Factor 1 which demonstrate design experience. Those project examples may be viewed more favorably (“Relevant”) if they demonstrate that the design project manager worked with the Prime Contractor.

6. L-3.7.1 Factor 2, Subfactor 1 – Organization History and Key Personnel: On resumes, can the three project examples showing experience be IDIQ-type contracts or shall they be individual projects/task orders?

Answer: As noted on Exhibit 4 - Key Personnel Resume Format, the three project examples should be “Relevant.” Information relating to what constitutes a Relevant project is more fully described in Solicitation Sections L-3.6 and M-5.1.1. Offerors should review these sections when selecting projects to include on the Key Personnel Resumes.

7. Throughout the RFP, there are references to completing an SF 1442, specifically in Volume I, Tab 1 and Volume II – Tab 2, Factor 5. An SF 1442 was not issued with the original RFP and associated attachment. Can the government please provide the SF 1442 for this solicitation?

Answer: Provided with this Amendment are “WMATOC SF 1442.pdf” and “Seed Project SF 1442.pdf.”

8. RFP Page 3, paragraph C-1 states “Projects will be delivered using one of four possible project delivery methods including: Construction, Design-Bid-Build, Hybrid Design Build and Design/Build.”

However on page 21, paragraph L-3.6, submission requirements, bullets 3, c. states “Variety of delivery methods as identified in the solicitation Statement of Work: i. Non Complex Construction ii.

Design-Bid-Build, iii. Design-Build, and iv. Bridging Design-Build” Can the government please clarify if the delivery methods in Section C are correct and if offeror’s are to demonstrate experience in those delivery methods rather than the list provided in L-3.6?

Answer: The four project delivery methods are: (1) Non-Complex Construction /Construction; (2)

Design-Bid-Build; (3) Bridging Design-Build; (4) Design-Build. The attached revised Solicitation removes the term “Hybrid Design Build.” Associated changes have been made to the Solicitation provided with this Amendment.

9. RFP Page 21, paragraph L-3.7.1, Firm History request firm history regarding “the four project delivery methods, growth objectives” .In paragraph C-1 the delivery methods are listed as “Construction, Design-Bid-Build, Hybrid Design Build and Design/Build.” but in paragraph L-3.6 the delivery methods are listed as “Non-Complex Construction, Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build and Bridging Design-Build” Can the government please clarify what four delivery methods are to be addressed for this prompt?

Answer: See response to Question 8 above.

A. Can the government please clarify what “growth objectives” are to be referred to under this prompt? Is this referring to the offeror’s overall company growth objectives or specifically the growth objectives of the R10 WMATOC? If it is referring to the R10 WMATOC growth objectives, can the government please provide a list of these growth objectives?

Answer: The cited language refers to the overall company growth objectives and requests an overview.

10. RFP page 22, paragraph L-3.7.1, The order of the requests for Factor 2, Subfactor 1 prompt currently flows as 1) Firm History, 2) Project Team/Key Personnel and 4) Resumes. Can the government please clarify if prompt 4) Resume is meant to be prompt 3) Resumes or if there is additional information that needs to be provided under a prompt 3) in Factor 2, Subfactor 1?

Answer: This is a clerical error. “Resumes' ' is the third section of Factor 2, Subfactor 1. This has been revised in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

11. RFP page 23 paragraph L-3.7.3 refers to subfactor 3 as “Contract Execution Plans”. However, page 19, Table L-1 Format refers to subfactor 3 as “Project Execution Plan.” Can the government please clarify the title of subfactor 3?

Answer: The Solicitation contains a titular inconsistency. Solicitation Section L-3.7.3 contains the submission requirements to which an offeror should adhere. The title has been revised to “Contract/Project Execution Plans'' in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

12. RFP page 23 paragraph L-3.7.3, prompts 5 and 6, the government has requested “Project Quality Control Plan – Provide a corporate level project QCP….” and “Corporate Safety Plan”. Corporate level QC and Safety Plans are large documents, typically more than 25 pages each, that cover the overall QC and safety for the company as a whole. As the page limit for Factor 1 and 2 of this Volume II is limited to 25 pages, can the government please clarify if prompts 5 and 6 are requesting QC and Safety Approaches specific to the R10 WMATOC? Or if the government does want offerors to include their full corporate QC and Safety Plans, can it be confirmed that they will be excluded from the page limits for Volume II?

Answer: Offerors should provide a Project Quality Control Plan and a Corporate Safety Plan in conformance with the description provided after the titles. GSA makes no specific request for pre existing documents. Offerors should employ their own discretion in supplying the requested plans and ensure conformance with the page limitations.

13. RFP page 23 paragraph L-3.7.3, prompt 6 the government asks “Corporate Safety Plan – Provide corporate level safety and health plan. Project closeout – Provide project closeout coordination processes and procedures.” The formatting of this prompt makes it appear that Project Closeout should be its own prompt 7) rather than the requested information under the Corporate Safety Plan. Can the government please clarify if Project Closeout is meant to be a specific narrative to the safety portion of project closeouts or if it is its own prompt and the offeror is to address project closeouts for the R10 WMATOC as a whole.

Answer: See the Solicitation provided with this Amendment which corrects the formatting issue identified in this question and add “7) Project closeout -Provide project closeout coordination processes and procedures' ' to Section L-3.7.3 and M-5.2.3. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

14. RFP Page 28, paragraph L-5.2, has labeled this section “Tab 2, Factor 1 – Cost/Price Proposal for the Seed Project” However, page 19, Table L-1 Format refers to this section as “Factor 5 – Cost/Price Proposal for the Seed Project”. Can the government please clarify the title of this section is Factor 5 not Factor 1?

Answer: Section L-5.2 has been revised to reflect “Tab 2, Factor 5 - Cost/Price Proposal for the Seed Project'' in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFPpdf)

15. The government issued GSA Form 527 Contractor’s Qualifications and Financial Information with the solicitation documents. Does this form need to be completed and submitted within the proposal response? If so, will it be located in Volume I with the other administrative documentation?

Answer: Yes, the form needs to be completed and submitted to demonstrate financial capability to perform under the IDV. Financial capability is a component of both Factor 2, Subfactor 2 - Resource Management (See Section M 5.2.2.) and a Determination of Responsibility (See Section M-13).

16. RFP page 31, Table M-1, its has [sic] titled Volume IV as “Seed Project Price” However, page 19, Table L-1 Format has title Volume IV as “Price”. Can the government please clarify the title for Volume

IV?

Answer: The correct title for Volume IV is “Price” as it contains pricing information for both the Base IDV and the Seed Project, this title is revised in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

17. On RFP page 35, paragraph M-5.2.3 has the prompts for Subfactor 3 numbered as 7), 8), 9), 10), 11) and 12). However, on page 23, paragraph L-3.7.3 the prompts for Subfactor 3 are numbered 1), 2), 3), 4), 5) and 6). Can the government confirm the prompts for Subfactor 3 are to be numbered 1 – 6 as indicated in Section L?

Answer: The question submitted identifies a formatting issue. See the revised Solicitation provided with this Amendment which corrects the numbering in Section M-5.2.3. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

18. On RFP page 37, paragraph 6.1.1 the government states “The requirements for this factor are met when the Offeror demonstrates itself as a business providing verifiable information and references for five (5) projects completed over the last six (6) years that:” However, in all of the Section L and other

Section M references for Factor 1 and Factor 4 it states that past performance relevancy is “Only relevant projects currently in progress (at least 75% construction progress complete) or completed within the past five (5) years from the date proposals are due shall be submitted.” Can the government please confirm that project submitted for Factors 1 and 4 must be 75% or more complete in [sic] within the past five years from the date proposals are due, not six years?

Answer: See Response to Question Number 1 above.

19. For Volume III – Past Performance, Subfactor 2 – Performance Quality Assessment (sections L and M) the government has requested offerors to send out Exhibit 4 Form PPQ for completion and submission directly to the GSA if a CPARS is not available for a project. Exhibit 4 Form PPQ was not issued with the solicitation. Can the government please provide this exhibit?

Answer: Exhibit 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire was provided via Contract Opportunities.

The numbering of the exhibits has been revised in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment.

(Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

20. In RFP page 25, paragraph L-4.2, the government states “In addition to CPARS, the use of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs, Section J - Exhibit 4 Form PPQ of this solicitation) may be utilized to present relevant and recent past performance information.” Can the government please clarify if this means that offerors can submit previously completed PPQs within Subfactor 2 – Performance Quality Assessment in lieu of having our project reviewers complete a new Exhibit 4 Form PPQ and submit it directly to the GSA POCs?

Answer: GSA is not clear what is meant by “previously completed PPQs.” To the extent GSA understands this question, offerors should note that only PPQs submitted directly to GSA POCs in conformance with the Solicitation requirements will be considered.

21. The government references in Section L and M of the RFP for Volume II, Tab 1: Factor 1 that offerors are to complete Exhibit 2 - Project Experience Form for five construction projects and five design projects. The government issued an Exhibit 3 Project Experience Form that when opened is titled “Specialized Experience Form (Similar Projects)”. Can the government confirm this Exhibit 3 is what is to be completed and submitted for the five construction and five design projects in Volume Tab 1: Factor 1

Answer: The numbering of the exhibits has been revised in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

22. In Exhibit 3 – Project Experience Form that was issued with the solicitation, the third cell in the right-hand column currently requests “D/B Contract Amount” Can the government please clarify if the cost that needs to be provided in this third cell is supposed to be the overall contract value not a specific value for D/B contracts only. It is currently stated that offerors may provide projects under any of the four identified delivery methods, not just D/B. If this is the case, then the overall contract value would make the most reasonable sense to be provided in this third cell.

Answer: The number to be supplied is the overall contract value. Offerors may use “N/A” for the “Design Contract Amount” if it is not applicable to the project described.

23. On RFP, page 21, paragraph L-3.7.1, the government has requested “Provide resumes or CV of the proposed Project Manager(s) and Superintendent(s) for this project. Additionally, incorporate resumes or CV relevant to key A-E team members to include, at a minimum; the firms (including key subconsultants) Principals and Project Managers.” Then under the role of Design Manager within the same paragraph, the government states “Provide information relevant to each anticipated subconsultant discipline, at a minimum; architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, and industrial hygienist.”

According to these instructions, offerors need to provide a resume or CV for the three identified key personnel AND a Principal or Project Manager for any A/E firms to support the disciplines of architecture, mechanical, electrical, structural and industrial hygienist. Can the government please confirm that resumes will be excluded from the page limit for Volume II, Factor 1 and 2? The current number of resumes required on the Key Personnel Resume Format would make up a minimum of 18, as each resume has a two pages limit, and there are 9 identified positions between the construction management team and the A/E team principals and PMs

Answer: There is no minimum number of resumes identified in the Solicitation. Offerors must supply a CV/resume for the proposed Project Manager(s), Superintendent(s) and key A-E team member(s)/Design Project Manager(s). GSA has not dictated the size of the teams. See response to Question Number 4 above. Resumes/CV are subject to the page count limitations stated in the Solicitation.

A. If the understanding that a resume or CV is required for all of the identified A/E disciplines is not correct can the government please state the required A/E positions that would require a Key Personnel Resume Format.

Answer: See Response to Question Number 4 above.

24. On RFP page 20, paragraph L-3.6 under Submission Requirements, the government states “five (5) construction projects and include up to, but not more than; five (5) project examples demonstrating relevant design experience that have been executed by the offeror and its team members as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor within the last five (5) years” Then on RFP page 33. Paragraph M-5.1.1 at the end of the paragraph it states “In addition, only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor should be submitted.” Can the government please confirm that for the five construction projects the offeror is to submit five construction projects where they performed as the Prime Contractor on the project?

Answer: See Response to Question Number 2 above.

A. Can the government please confirm that for the five design projects, the offeror’s key A/E Firm is to submit five design projects though they are a subcontractor to the Offeror?

Answer: See Response to Question Number 2 above.

25. On RFP page 20, paragraph L-3.6 and on RFP page 33. Paragraph M-5.1.1 the government states that past performance areas that are considered especially relevant included “… Conveyance systems…” Can the government please further clarify the scope of work that is categorized as a conveyance system?

Answer: Offerors should refer to Division 14 of the Construction Specifications Institute for further information.

26. The reference to the page limits for Factor 1 and 2 was incorrect - RFP page 23 paragraph L-3.7.3, prompts 5 and 6, the government has requested “Project Quality Control Plan – Provide a corporate level project QCP....” and “Corporate Safety Plan”. Corporate level QC and Safety Plans are large documents, typically more than 25 pages each, that cover the overall QC and safety for the company as a whole. As the page limit for Factor 1 and 2 of this Volume II is limited to 25- 50 pages, can the government please clarify if prompts 5 and 6 are requesting QC and Safety Approaches specific to the R10 WMATOC? Or if the government does want offerors to include their full corporate QC and Safety Plans, can it be confirmed that they will be excluded from the page limits for Volume II?

Answer: See Response to Question Number 12 above.

27. On RFP page 37, paragraph M-6.1.1 Factor 4, Subfactor 1, bullet 4. The government has stated “Demonstrate effective management and business relations to include collaborative contractor performance with successful integration of Conservation Team members, effective integration with 3rd parties, and management of resources” This is the first and only use of the term Conservation Team Members. Can the government please define the role and scope of these team members?

Answer: The Solicitation should state “Design Team'' not “Conservation Team.” This has been revised in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

28. On RFP Page 28, paragraph L-5.2 the government states “The offeror shall complete, in its entirety, all of Section A (SF1442), Attachment D, that applies to the Seed Project TORFP and it shall be signed and dated by an official with the authority to legally bind the company.” On the SF 1442 provided, there is not [sic] section A but pages 3 and 4 of the SF 1442 have CLIN pricing. Can the government please confirm if pages 3 and 4 of the SF 1442 are to be completed and submitted within Volume IV, Tab 2: Factor 5 – Cost/Price Proposal for the Seed Project within Factor 3?

Answer: See revised Section L-5.2 in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

A. In addition, there was not [sic] Attachment D issued with the solicitation. Can the government please clarify what other attachment needs to be provided within this section?

Answer: See revised Section L-5.2 in the Solicitation provided with this Amendment.

(Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

29. On RFP 14, Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments the government has provided a list of all the attachment [sic] and exhibits that would be issued with the solicitation.

However, several of the exhibits and attachment number and title do not match the actual documents that were issued. Can the government please clarify this list as well as the referenced Exhibits and Attachments throughout Sections L and M to ensure offeror’s are completing the correct forms?

Answer: See the revised Solicitation provided with this Amendment correcting numbering and title issues. (Amend 0001 WMATOC Solicitation RFP.pdf)

30. On RFP page 25, paragraph L-4.2 the government states “The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a required system and one source of past performance information, when available. In addition to CPARS, the use of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs, Section J - Exhibit 4 Form PPQ of this solicitation) may be utilized to present relevant and recent past performance information. Completed PPQs should be submitted utilizing the questionnaire shown at Section J - Exhibit 4 Form PPQ of this solicitation.” Can the government please clarify if offerors are allowed to submit CPARS in lieu of completing new Exhibit 4 – Form PPQ in Factor 4 – Subfactor 2 – Past Performance or if offerors are required to have new Exhibit 4 – Form PPQ completed and returned directly to the GSA from the reviewer for all 10 projects provided in Volume II, Factor 1 – Past Performance?

Answer: The Government will review CPARS as an indispensable part of the evaluation process.

The offeror is required to submit PPQs in conformance with the Solicitation. Submission of CPARS is not requested.

31. Both Section L of the solicitation and the task order solicitation for the seed project indicate that proposals are to be submitted electronically, however, the SF1442, Section A, indicates that one original and one copy are due to the GSA office in Tacoma.Is GSA requiring proposals be sent both electronically and via hard copies?

Answer: Hard copies are not requested. Proposals must be submitted electronically.

[End of Document]