Atch 21 - Gov Response to RFI - 2 Apr 21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA480021R0005
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide maintenance, repair, minor and new construction work at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia. The contract is set aside for 8(a) small businesses headquartered in SBA Region III, which includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington D.C. and West Virginia. The single-award IDIQ contract includes a base year and four option years with a total ceiling of $95 million. A site visit for the seed project will be held on 19 March 2021. Offerors must submit proposals by 9 April 2021 for consideration.
View the file
Other files
Show all 40
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
| Pre-Proposal Inquiry Submission Form: SABER IDIQ and Seed Project Solicitation | ||||
| DOCUMENT / SECTION | PARAGRAPH / REFERENCE | QUESTION / ISSUE / CONCERN | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| Solicitation | Clause 52.219-18 | Please confirm that an offeror with an approved Bona Fide Office in SBA Region III is eligible to bid on this contract, even if the offeror is headquartered and serviced in another SBA region | No, the offeror is not eligible to submit an offer since it is not headquartered within the SBA's Region III. | |
| Solicitation / Section I | 52.216-19 Order Limitations | What is the average task order size anticipated on this contract in terms of dollar value? | It is anticipated that a majority Task Orders will be less than $1M. | |
| Solicitation / Section I | 52.216-19 Order Limitations | What percentage of task orders are expected to be over $1M on the new contract? | It is expected that approximately 10 percent of tasks orders will be over $1M. | |
| Solicitation | N/A | Is it the Government’s intention to have this SABER be bonded with a blanket bond? If so, please provide amount of necessary blanket bond. | Yes, the annual blanket bond will be needed to cover the estimated annual amount of $19M and will need to be increased should the actual annual amount exceed $19M. | |
| Solicitation | N/A | Is it the Government’s intention to require payment and performance bonds for each individual task order awarded under this SABER? If so, would the Government please provide the expected bonding limitations. | Yes. Performance and payment bonds will be required for any SABER task order that exceeds $150K. Performance and Payment bonds must equal 100 percent of the original contract price and 100 percent of any increase. | |
| Solicitation / Section B | Section B, entire section | Please confirm Section B on pages 4-6 of the solicitation does not need to be included in the proposal response | The Offeror shall submit a completed Section B, pages 4 - 6 of the SF 1442 and Section B, Atch 3, Pricing Schedule with its proposal. | |
| Solicitation pg. 1 | SF1142 Box 10 (d) Section I – Complete fill-ins as applicable | Would the Government please confirm whether an Offeror’s “FAR & DFARS Report” generated from the System for Award Management would be acceptable to submit in lieu of filling in Section I of this Solicitation. | The System for Award Management (SAM) report is acceptable as long as it answers/covers all requested fill-in data. Failure to complete all fill-ins could result in a non-responsive/unacceptable proposal. | |
| Solicitation pg. 1 | SF1142 Box 10 (d) Section I – Complete fill-ins as applicable | If the Government confirms it is acceptable for the Offeror to submit their “FAR & DFARS Report” generated from the System for Award Management instead of filling out Section I, would the Government please provide proposal instruction of exactly where this report should be placed. | The SAM report shall be included as an attachment to the Model Contract. IAW L-3.4. Table 1: Naming Conventions, save document file name as, "Offeror name BUS Kt#, Atch#". | |
| Attachment 1- (General Provisions) Section 3.2.4 | Paragraph 3.2.1 shows that AF Form 3064 is the Construction Work Schdule (CWS) howver further in the same attachment, Section 3.2.6 defines AF Form 3064 as the Contract Progress Schedule. Please confirm that these are the same. | Paragraph 3.2.4 has been revised to read Contract Progress Schedule (CPS). | ||
| General Provisions | 1.4.1 | Please confirm that the contractor will only be allowed and expected to maintain an office at Fort Eustis. | This is correct. The contractor will only be allowed and expected to maintain an office on Ft Eustis. Contractor must supply its own trailer. | |
| General Provisions | 1. Scope of Work, 1.4.1 and 2.1.1 | Please clarify how the Program Manager is to be located on LAFB if the contractor cannot have an office on base? | Paragraph 1.4.1. has been revised. No office space will be available on LAFB. The Contractor has the option to set up a trailer on Ft Eustis. | |
| General Provisions | 1.4.1. Office Facilities | This paragraph states, “The contractor will not be provided office space in a Government facility or be allowed to use an office trailer on Langley AFB. However, the contractor is allowed to set up an office trailer on Ft Eustis.” How does this conform to the requirement to have an office at Langley and for the Program Manager to be based there? | Paragraph 1.4.1. has been revised. No office space will be available on LAFB. The Contractor has the option to set up a trailer on Ft Eustis. | |
| General Provisions | 2.1.1. Program Manager (PM) | “The Contractor shall provide a qualified PM who shall be responsible for the performance of all aspects of the work, and shall be located on LAFB.” How does this conform with the prohibition of setting up office space at LAFB? | Paragraph 1.4.1. has been revised. No office space will be available on LAFB. The Contractor has the option to set up a trailer on Ft Eustis. | |
| General Provisions | 2.2.1.1. Quality Control Plan | “In compliance with the contract clause entitled "Inspection of Services" (FAR Clause 52.246-4), the Contractor shall provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) with their proposal that contains, as a minimum, the items listed in paragraph 2.2.1.1.1.” Does the Government intend that offerors submit a full QC plan with its proposal? If so, can this be excluded from the page limitations? Where shall this plan be included? | The QC plan can be excluded from the page limitations. The Offeror shall provide one (1) QC plan for the IDIQ and not at the individual Task Order level. | |
| General Provisions | 3.2. | What percentage of task orders is anticipated to require design to the 35% level, as defined by the General Provisions? | It is anticipated that approximately 95 percent will require 35 % drawings. | |
| General Provisions | 2.1.2. | The SABER General Provisions, Section 2.1.2 indicates that all engineering disciplines shall be on-site at LAFB and/or Fort Eustis. Please confirm that it will be acceptable to provide these requirements via a subcontracted off-site A/E firm when needed rather than a full-time member of the offeror’s personnel. | Engineering disciplines shall be project on-sites. All other disciplines shall be onsite at LAFB and/or Ft. Eustis on an as needed basis. | |
| General Provisions | 2.1.2.2. | SABER General Provisions Section 2.1.2.2 indicates that QC Managers must report directly to the corporate president. As a joint venture, we do not have a named president but rather are governed by a management committee of high-ranking executives of each member of the JV in accordance with the SBA approved agreements. Please confirm that QC Managers may report to this management committee in lieu of a president. | The QC managers will report to either the corporate president or ranking executives but never to the SABER Program Manager. | |
| General Provisions | 2.2.2.2. | The General Provisions indicate that contractors are to comply with all provisions of EM 385-1-1. EM 385-1-1, Paragraph 01.a.17, notes that a Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), or a Designated Representative as appropriate to the contract requirements, should be on site at all times when work is being performed. Please confirm that, in the context of an IDIQ contract such as this SABER, “on site” refers to Joint Base Langley-Eustis and not individual project sites. | Active construction projects should have repesentatives/superintendants on Langley-Eustis and review projects daily. | |
| General Provisions | 3.2.1.2 | Please clarify if RS Means data is to be updated annually or quarterly. | RS Means data is to be updated quarterly. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 3.2.1.2.1.1 | In the 2021 RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data manual, there is a new section, 01 21 53.65, incorporating items for infectious disease precautions. Please clarify if contractors will be allowed to use these line items on the new contract as long as COVID-19 protocols are mandated on projects? | COVID-19 protocols or any other infectious disease precautions should be considered personal protective equipment (PPE) and are a part of the contractor's coefficient. | |
| SABER General Provisions | Technical Exhibit 1 | Technical Exhibit 1 contains several items (testing and balancing, fencing, safety and environmental barricades, dumpsters for demolition, erosion control plans, abatement plans, etc.) that are not required on most task orders, and thus we find are more cost-efficient to price on a task order basis rather than including in the cost of every task order by carrying the costs in the coefficient. Would the Government consider excluding these task-order specific costs from the coefficient and allowing the contractor to include the costs on task orders as needed? | Testing and balancing are now considered a separate item. The Technical Exhibit 1 of the General Provisions has been revised. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 4.2.2.1.2 | Paragraph 4.2.2.1.2 indicates that GIS data is required to be part of the contractor’s coefficients. Our understanding is that GIS data would not be required on interior projects, which we expect to make up a significant portion of the overall contract. Would the Government consider excluding GIS costs from the coefficient and allowing the contractor to include the costs on task orders as needed? | GIS Data shall be a separate priced item on applicable Task Orders. Paragraph 4.2.2.1.2 and Technical Exhibit 1 of the General Provisions have been revised. | |
| SABER General Provisions | Technical Exhibit 1 | Technical Exhibit 1, paragraphs 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.7 indicate that the cost of stormwater management and abatement plans and permits are required to be included in the contractor’s coefficients. These plans are not required on most task orders. However, when state permits are required, the price for these plans can exceed $10,000. Would the Government consider allowing the contractor to include the cost for providing such permits on a task order basis? | The cost of stormwater management and abatement plans and permits shall be a part of the contractor's coefficient. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 4.5.2.3 | Please confirm the Government will be responsible for storage of all GFE/GFM until the equipment/ material is turned over to the contractor for installation. | Yes, the Government will be responsible for storage of all GFE/GFM until the equipment/material is turned over to the Contractor for installation. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 4.5.3.1.2 | Paragraph 4.5.3.1.2 indicates that the cost of dumpsters for demolition and bulk debris is required to be included in the contractor’s coefficients. This is a significant cost on those projects resulting in a large amount of demolition waste. Would the Government consider excluding dumpsters from the coefficient for bulk demolition projects and allowing the contractor to include these costs on task orders as needed? | The cost of dumpsters for demolition and bulk debris should be included in the contractor's coefficient. | |
| SABER General Provisions | Technical Exhibit 1 | Technical Exhibit 1, section 4.5.3.1.2 indicates that the cost of recycling, to include hauling, tip fees, and onsite sorting, is required to be included in the contractor’s coefficients. Is a recycling dumpster (and sorting, tip fees, etc.) intended to be included on every job, and the cost included in coefficient? Will LAFB provide recycling dumpsters as part of their recycling programs, or is the contractor to provide their own dumpster and assume the cost for this in their coefficient? | The dumpster recycling, sorting, tips, fees, etc. should be included on every job that require a dumspter to included recycling, hauling, tips fees, etc. Langley will not provide a recycle dumpster. The Contractor shall provide their own dumpster as a part of the contractor's coefficient. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 4.5.4 | |||
| 4.5.4.3.1 | Paragraph 4.5.4 indicates that the cost of providing worksite safety requirements is required to be included in the contractor’s coefficients. Subparagraph 4.5.4.3.1 goes on to specify, “The Contractor shall provide all barricades, traffic control signs and construction safety signs IAW the approved Detour Plan paragraph 4.2.2.5.3.” On the few projects where traffic control is required, items such as jersey barriers and traffic control signs are a significant task order expense. Would the Government consider excluding traffic control from the coefficient and allowing the contractor to include these costs on task orders as needed? | Traffic control, as defined in 4.5.4.3.1, will be treated as a separate priced item. | ||
| SABER General Provisions | 4.6.1.2 | Paragraph 4.6.1.2 indicates that concrete testing is included in the coefficient. This is testing that is performed by a third-party firm, and will not be handled by the installing contractor. Would the Government consider excluding concrete testing from the coefficient and allowing the contractor to include these costs on task orders as needed? | Concrete testing should be included in the contractor's coefficient. | |
| SABER General Provisions | 4.6.1.3.2 | Paragraph 4.6.1.3.2 indicates that HVAC testing and balancing is included in the coefficient. However, paragraph 3.3.2.4.1.4 indicates payment for testing and balancing will be made IAW RSMeans pricing. Please confirm that the cost for testing and balancing may be included on task orders IAW 3.3.2.4.1.4 and RSMeans pricing. | Testing and balancing are now considered a separate item. Paragraph 4.6.1.3.2 of the General Provisions has been updated. | |
| Attachment 1 – SABER General Provisions, Section 2.2 – Programs | Paragraph 2.2.1, Quality Control Program, and Paragraph 2.2.1.1, Quality Control Plan. | Two Questions: |
1. Is the QCP required for the Seed Project, or is this a reference to requirements after award of the SABER for future task orders? There is no reference to this in either Attachments L or M.
| 2. If it is a requirement for the Seed Project, would the Government consider excluding this from the page-limit? | The Contractor shall provide one (1) QC plan for the IDIQ and not at the individual Task Order level. | |||
| Seed Project SOW | 6.7 | Please confirm that the (2) existing lighting motion sensors are to be demolished and not replaced. | Only one lighting/motion sensor is located in the space to be demoed and replaced with a new lighting/motion sensor. | |
| Seed Project SOW | 4.1 | Please advise if the existing lighting circuits for the 2x4 lights can be reused for the new 2x2 lights? | Yes, the existing electrical wiring and conduits can be re-used | |
| Seed Project SOW | 4.1 | Please advise if new conduit and wiring is to be run for the new 2x2 fixtures. | Existing conduits and wiring can be re-used. | |
| Seed Project SOW | 4.2 | Please advise if the new can lights are to be square shaped like the existing or round. | New can lights should be round LED can lights. | |
| Seed Project SOW | 3.1 | Please advise if the new HVAC diffusers are to be slot diffusers like the existing. | Yes, the new HVAC diffusers are to be slot diffusers. | |
| Seed Project SOW | 6.7 | Can you please advise what size drawings are required for the proposal drawings? | 11 X 17 | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 5.1 – FIRE SYSTEMS | What is the current fire alarm system? | Monaco. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 5.1 – FIRE SYSTEMS | What is the current heat detector installed? | One time use pancake style. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 3 - MECHANICAL | What is the current thermostat installed, what control system? | Thermostats are to remain in place. Do not replace. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 2 - ARCHITECTURAL | What is the current wall covering to be removed? Type, manufacturer. | The current wall covering is cloth. The manufacture is unknown. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 2 - ARCHITECTURAL | Is there a certain type of window blind required? | No, window blinds should be 2 inch and submitted on AF Form 3000. Windows are Eighty Six (86") inches high and thirty five (35") inches wide. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 2 - ARCHITECTURAL | What is the ceiling height of the room? | Ceilings are nine (9ft) high. | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW | 2 - ARCHITECTURAL | Does the new theater seating require foldable desk-type attachments to them? | Yes, the new theater seating requires a foldable desk-type attachment. The SEED Project SOW has been updated. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 3.1 Mechanical | Will test and balance be required for the new supply diffusers that will be installed? | No | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 3.1 Mechanical | Will a pre demo test and balance be required for the auditorium area only? | No | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 2.7 New Theater Seating | Please provide a specification for the new Theater Seating to provide the seat finish and Style to include seating fabric, color, arm rest materials, tablet arms and will it be a #14 end panel? | Seat finish should be fabric with arm rest, and table arms. Colors will be submitted on AF Form 3000. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 2.7 New Theater Seating | Please provide a current seating diagram or shall the contractor install the new theater seating in the same format as is shown? | 92 seats and 4 handicap. The SABER Seed Project SOW has been updated. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 2.7 New Theater Seating | Are the Theater seats surface mounted with screws? | The theater seats are mounted with screws and bolts. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 2.7 New Theater Seating | Once the Theater seating is removed, will they become government property or is the contractor to dispose of them? | The Contractor is to dispose of the old theater seating. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Can the superintendent act as the QC and Site Safety and Health Manager also for this SEED project? | The superintendant and the Quality Control will be two different people. | ||
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Attachment 2 | Please provide a specification for the HVAC supply diffusers? | The HVAC supply diffusers should be replaced with a like item. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Does the contractor need to set up an office trailer outside of the facility or can the contractor set up inside the work space for this SEED project? | For the SEED project, the contractor can work from the work space. | ||
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Will escorts be required for this SEED project and if so, will the government provide the escorts at no cost to the contractor? | No escorts will be required for the SEED project. | ||
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Has the Auditorium area been tested for asbestos or lead based paint? If so, can the government provide the report? | The facility was constructed in 1984. Per Environmental no asbestos/lead base paint exist. | ||
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Item 1 | Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW item 1 describe preparing minimal design documents. Please confirm if a 35% design level effort is required or the extent of design documents necessary prior to the bid submission for this SEED proposal? | 35% design level of effort is required for the SEED project. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 3.1 Mechanical | What is the basis of design and type of diffuser required? | Replace with existing style diffusers. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 3.1 Mechanical | Is there a requirement to run new flex to the diffusers? | New flex duct is not required, replace flex as needed. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | 3.1 Mechanical | Do the tops of the diffusers need new insulation? | Replace as needed. | |
| Attachment 2 SABER SEED Project SOW | Please confirm no asbestos nor lead is anticipated to be encountered on this project, and all hazardous material handling and abating can be excluded from pricing. | The facility was constructed in 1984. Per Environmental no asbestos/lead base paint exist. | ||
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW | 6.7. Drawings Required | The Required Drawings table indicates that an Existing Site Plan and New Site Plan are required. This is an interior renovation and there are not expected changes to the site plan. Please clarify whether site plans are required, or if the Government intended to request floor plans instead. | No site plans are required; only floor plans. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Please verify that the curtains will be removed and reinstalled by the contractor. | Yes, the curtains will be removed and re-installed. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Please verify that the new configuration will have 95 new seats plus 4 space for wheelchairs (in lieu of 4 actual handicap seats). | 92 Seats and 4 handicap seats. The Seed Project SOW has been updated. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Can you provide any specifications on the type and accessories for the new seats. | Seat arms rest and folding table arms. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Please verify that the existing ceiling speakers are not to be replaced. | The ceiling speaker will be removed and replaced. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Please verify lighting voltage is 208V. | The voltage is 208V. | |
| Attachment 2, Seed Project SOW; Site Visit | N/A | Please confirm the space above the ceiling is the HVAC return air plenum. | The space above the ceiling is the return air plenum. The existing lights have return air around space at each light. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | Section 6.7 | Section 6.7 (Drawings Required) of the scope of work requests the team to provide a Cover Sheet, an Existing Site plan, and a New Site plan. This is an interior renovation of an existing building. Should the drawings the team provides be a demolition floor plan and a new work floor plan? | Yes, both should be provided for the construction area only. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | Section 6.7 | Will any other drawings be necessary for design? (IN HOUSE: It would appear based on the SOW an architectural RCP and a details sheet may be needed at a minimum) | Only 35% in-house drawings will be necessary for the SEED project. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | Section 6.5 | Section 6.5 of the SOW mentions that signed sealed drawings, calculations, and a design analysis is not required for this project. How many design submittals are anticipated for this project? | Any materails in the proposal will be submitted. i.e. paint colors, LED lights, switches, electrical outlets, ceiling tile/grid, supply/return registers, flooring,carpet, coverbase, heat detectors, seating, blinds etc. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | General | Is the existing seating in the space tiered? | No. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | General | Is there existing handicap access in the space? | Yes. The room has two (2) 6 ft. openings and 4 ft. access around the seating area. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | General | Is a floor plan of the existing seating layout available? | Yes. The floor plan is included in the Scope of Work. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | General | Can photos of the existing space be made available? | Unfortunately photos are not available. | |
| SEED Scope of Work | Section 5.1 | Section 5.1 mentions that the only fire protection work is to replace the heat detectors. Please confirm there are no sprinklers in this space. | No sprinklers are located in the space. | |
| Site Visit | Please provide a specification for the new Mini Blinds. | Window blinds should be 2 inch, submitted on AF Form 300 for color selection. Windows are Eighty Six (86") inches high and thirty five (35") inches wide. | ||
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-3.8. Pre-Award Clearances | Please confirm if the VETS-4212 documentation sufficiently covers the requirement for any “Notices of Compliance” as FAR 22.805 Pre-Award Clearances exclude Construction Contracts | The requirement to provide documentation to show the offeror and its subs are current with their Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report (VETS-4212 Report) is required IAW FAR 22.13. The reference made in this question, FAR 22.805 is applicable to Affirmative Action Programs. Section L-3.8. has been revised to remove the pre-award clearance information request IRT EEO. | |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions. |
Solicitation pg. 59 L. L-4.1.3 Section 8(a) Status
| L-3.4 Naming Conventions – Sections (Business) | Please confirm if and where the Government would like to see the requested 8(a) Status Letter provided by the SBA as it is requested in Atch 17 Section L-4.1.3, but not shown in the Solicitation pg. 59 L-3.4. | The Offeror shall include the requested 8(a) Status Letter provided by the SBA with its Pre-award Clearances documentation. | ||
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-3.9. Table 2: Proposal Page Limits | It is indicated that Factor 2 Past Performance is limited to 3 pages. Would the Government please confirm what documentation should be submitted under this specific page limitations as PPIs and PPQs submitted under this Factor have separate designated page limitations | The Offeror is to submit a Past Performance overview not to exceed 3 pages that provides a narrative of its Past Performance in relation to the solicitation requirements. | |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions |
Solicitation pg. 59 L. L-4.1.1 Cover Page & Model Contract
| L-3.4 Naming Conventions – Sections (Business) | The Government has indicated in the Solicitation (pg 59) that Section B should be provided under Model Contract however, Atch 17 Section L-4.1.1 should only include Section K (Reps & Certs) Please confirm where Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost should be placed within this proposal. | Paragraph 4.1.1. has been revised. A completed Section B should be included in the Model Contract. | ||
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.4.8 Responsibility Determinations | Would the Government please confirm the extent of documentation desired from the Offeror’s Financial Institution in order to satisfy the request to show adequate financial resources as stated in L-4.4.8.(ie. Prior 3 years of Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Information) | As prescribed in FAR 9.104-3(a), acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement, that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel. Furthermore, the letter could state how long the account has been maintained, the average daily balance over the last few years, any open line of credit amount (noting balance still available -- option to increase), etc. | |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.3.6 Past Performance Questionnaires | The Government indicated that PPQs can be provided in lieu of CPARS as long as they are submitted by the Respondent indicated in Section 3 of Attachment 2 – PPQ via DoDSAFE. Would the Government consider changing the requirement to have either the Respondent and/or Offeror submit the completed PPQ via email to the 3 POCs listed in L-2.1 prior to the Proposal Submission date? If not, would the Government please issue instructions on how the Offeror should request the DoD SAFE drop-off in order to coordinate with Respondent on submission of the completed PPQ. | Paragraph L-4.3.6. has been revised to delete the DoD SAFE requirement and reference the 633 CONS personnel emails. |
As instructed in the PPQ (attachment 2, bottom of last page), the Government respondent should return the questionnaire to:
phillip.nease.1@us.af.mil ian.barnes.11@us.af.mil valarie.fleming.1@us.af.mil
Please note the following in the subject line:
"PPQ: SABER Sol FA480021R0005"
Any PPQs submitted directly by an Offeror will not be considered.
Atch 17 Section L-Instructions N/A Would the Government please confirm if a Bonding Letter is desired in the submission of this Proposal. If so, please provide where the Government would like the desired Bonding Letter to submitted in the Proposal Submission and Format. An offer guarantee is not required for this acquisition. No bonding information is required to be submitted with the proposal. Upon award, an annual blanket bond will be needed to cover the estimated annual amount of $19M and will need to be increased should the actual annual amount exceed $19M.
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | N/A | If the Government confirms that a Bonding Letter is desired, please confirm the bonding program amount for single job and aggregate. | Not required. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.3.5 Past Performance Information | If the Offeror is a joint venture, is each company within the joint venture permitted to submit up to 6 separate projects (for PPIs and/or CPARS PPQs) to total maximum of 12 separate projects? | No, the Offeror shall submit a minimum of three and a maximum of six separate PPIs with its proposal. Three of the submitted PPIs should be for the Prime Offeror if available. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-3.4. File Naming Convention | Would the Government please confirm that they would like to receive a potential total of 7-10 separate documents for submission of this proposal via DoDSAFE. If so, would the Government also confirm that only 1 DoDSAFE drop-off link would need to be issued to the Offeror in order to submit a potential of 10 separate documents. | The Government will provide one (1) DoD SAFE link for the offeror to submit its proposal. Up to 25 files per package can be uploaded at one time. The maximum file size of a package is 8 GB. Should the need arise, another DoD SAFE link could be provided. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L.3-6 Virus Free Electronic Submission | The Government has requested that the “Offeror should specify the software, version, and virus definition used to check the data.” Please confirm where the Government would like this information stated in order to satisfy the requirement. | The Offeror shall certify in the proposal cover letter that all electronic proposal information delivered is virus free. Offerors should specify the software, version, and virus definition used to check the data. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.3.2 | Would the Government please confirm if they would like the Offeror to supply a copy of the final CPARS that would accompany their chosen past performance projects or is it the Government’s intent to search for the Offeror’s CPARS for the chosen projects within that system via the Offeror’s DUNs #? | It is the Offeror's responsibility to submit CPARS that would accompany their chosen past performance. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.3.6 Past Performance Questionnaires | Is the Offeror permitted to submit PPQs for each of their chosen past performance projects even if the chosen project(s) may have a final CPARS? | No, PPQs should be used for PPI that does not have a CPAR finalized. |
| Atch 17 Section L-Instructions | L-4.3.2 | The Government states that they may use additional information at its discretion to evaluate past performance. Would the Government please elaborate if this could include letters/emails of appreciation/recognition, etc. received by the Offeror from current and previous Customers? If the Government confirms that Offerors may submit this material, please provide instructions of where the documents should be placed within the proposal. | The Offeror may include additional information it deems relevant to the Solicitation in the Past Performance volume. The Past Performance volume is limited to 3 pages. Additionally, the Government may use additional sources of information in its evaluation, at its discretion. Additional information can come from any sources available to the Government. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-3.7 | Section L-3.7. on page 60 indicates offerors are to avoid scanned images. Please confirm that scanned copies of signature documents are acceptable. | While scanned images should be avoided, scanned copies of signature documents are acceptable as long as the document is legible. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.2.3. | Please confirm that offerors are not to apply their bid coefficient to the seed project, as this would reveal offerors’ pricing in the technical proposal. | The Offeror shall submit a technical proposal for the seed project without pricing information. The Offeror shall also include a separate price proposal for the seed project that identifies the necessary line items/tasks from the applicable R.S. Means guides dated 2020. The price proposal for the seed project shall include the Offeror's bid coefficient. Paragraph L-4.2.3. has been revised. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.2.3. | Please clarify what coefficient offerors are to apply to their seed project estimate. | The Offeror should apply their proposed coefficient, as described in L-4.4.2, to the seed project. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.3. | This paragraph requires, “written consent from all subcontractor or team members to allow the Government to address any evaluated past performance directly with the Prime Offeror.” Please confirm that any consent letters provided to meet this requirement are excluded from any page limitations. | Consent letters provided to meet this requirement are excluded from page limitations and should be included in Partnering Documentation as described in L-4.1.4 |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.5 | For a firm proposing as a Joint Venture, please confirm if Prior Experience meeting the following scenario is acceptable: If Company A was previously in a joint venture with Company B and Company A performed in JV A/B in the same role as they hold in the proposing joint venture between Company A and Company C, may the experience of JV A/B be submitted for Company A as part of JV A/C on this contract? | In the noted scenario, the Past Performance belongs to Joint Venture A/B and not solely Company A. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.6. | Are offerors to include copies of CPARS reports for submitted Past Performance projects/contracts? If so, are these excluded from any page limitation on this section of the proposal? | The Government will collect CPARS from submitted PPIs. If a submitted PPI does not have a CPAR, the Government shall use a PPQ as a tool for evaluating as described in L-4.3.6. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Section L: Attachment 2) | Please clarify how references should return PPQs. Section L-4.3.6. requests that these be returned using DoD SAFE, while the PPQ states that they should be returned by email: |
Section L-4.3.6.: “All PPQs are to be submitted to the Government by the POC identified in Section 3 of the Attached PPQ, via DoD SAFE as described in paragraph L-3.2. above.” PPQ says: “Please return this completed questionnaire to:
phillip.nease.1@us.af.mil chanda.jarmon.1@us.af.mil valarie.fleming.1@us.af.mil Please note the following in the subject line:
"PPQ: SABER Sol FA480021R0005" Paragraph L-4.3.6. has been revised to delete the DoD SAFE requirement and reference the 633 CONS personnel emails.
As instructed in the PPQ (attachment 2, bottom of last page), the Government respondent should return the questionnaire to:
phillip.nease.1@us.af.mil ian.barnes.11@us.af.mil valarie.fleming.1@us.af.mil
Please note the following in the subject line:
"PPQ: SABER Sol FA480021R0005"
Any PPQs submitted directly by an Offeror will not be considered.
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Section L: Attachment 2) | If PPQs are to be submitted using DoD SAFE, please clarify the process for providing SAFE submission links to customer references. Are offerors required to request these links on behalf of references or are references expected to go through this three-step process to submit their PPQ? | PPQs are not to be submitted using DoD SAFE. PPQs are to be returned via email to the 633 CONS POCs noted solicitation Section L, paragraph L-2.1. Paragraph L-4.3.6. has been revised. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Section L: Attachment 2) | If PPQs are to be submitted using DoD SAFE, would the Government allow PPQs to be received up to one week after the proposal due date due to multi-step submission process and the potential delay in receiving submission links? | PPQs are not to be submitted using DoD SAFE. PPQs are to be returned via email to the 633 CONS POCs noted solicitation Section L, paragraph L-2.1. Paragraph L-4.3.6. has been revised. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.3.4. | May any organizational change history submitted in response to this paragraph be excluded from the page limitations on PPI? This prevents any unequal restriction on response length for offerors having experienced such a change. | Organizational change history as required for an Offeror's PPI shall comply with the stated page limits. |
| Solicitation / Section L | Clause 52.217-9 | Clause 52.217 indicates the contract shall not extend past 5 years. However, other sections of the proposal indicate that the optional 6-month extension for a total of 5 years, 6 months may be utilized. Is the optional 6-month extension beyond five years applicable to this contract? | Yes. FAR Clause 52.217-9 allows only 5 years of performance under that clause; however, FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, allows the contract to be extended, at the Government’s sole discretion, for a period up to an additional six (6) months. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.4.3 | Solicitation, L-4.4.3 states, “The concept of the SABER program provides for a 35% design level of effort…All labor, equipment, materials and rentals/fees required to provide a 35% design to include design analysis for projects not requiring PE certification shall be as per the minimal design fee bid schedule.” Please confirm that 35% design effort is expected to be required on every task order, and that it will be paid for using the contractor’s design fees as bid. | The Contractor will be paid using the Offeror's design fees as bid for the ranges listed in L-4.4.3.1. Minimum design requirements will vary based on each Task Order. |
| Solicitation / Section L | L-4.4.3.1 | Please confirm that the dollar values of the design ranges provided refer to the task order value. (For example, Category 1 would be used for task orders less than $50,000.) | Yes, the dollar values refer to the task order value. Category 1 would be for task orders $50,000 and less. |
| Solicitation, Section L, Instructions | L-3.4, File Naming Conventions – “*Offerors may submit either one file to address all three subfactors, or three separate files for each individual subfactor.” | The asterisked statement, when combined with the separation of “Business” documents and “Factors” in Table 1, seems to imply that the Business requirements should be a separate file from the Factors files.. Please clarify | Offeror shall submit separate files as described in L-3.4. "Table 1: NAMING CONVENTIONS" under column File Name. |
| Solicitation / Paragraph L.4.3.5 & Section M-2.2.6. Evaluating Factor 2: Past Performance | Paragraph L.4.3.5 & Section M-2.2.6. Evaluating Factor 2: Past Performance | Paragraph L-4.3.5 indicates 3-6 PPIs are required for "contracts, task orders, or calls that are recent and relevant as defined in Section M". Section M defines relevant as "scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires," but recency is defined as "an active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last five years as of the release date of this solicitation". Individual task orders of the magnitude of projects included on this SABER are often completed in fewer than 12 months. Will individual task orders of larger IDIQs be considered relevant/recent if the IDIQ contract performance is longer than 12 months, but the task order performance was less than 12 months? | Sections L and M have been updated to revise the recency requirement from 12 months to 6 months. Please see highlighted areas. IDIQs may be considered recent if the IDIQ performance is longer than 6 months, but the task order performance is less than 6 months. |
| Solicitation / Paragraph L.4.3.5 & Section M-2.2.6. Evaluating Factor 2: Past Performance | Because it is unclear what is considered relevant/recent for Past Performance Evaluation factors, We request a proposal due date entension from 9 April 2021 to 23 April 2021. This will allow us to better determine based on RFI responses forthcoming which contracts/projects to showcase and give ample lead time for clients to provide PPIs by deadline. | Sections L and M have been updated to revise the recency requirement from 12 months to 6 months. Please see the highlighted areas. |
Past Performance Relevancy is evaluated based on scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as it relates to this Solicitation's requirements.
| Solicitation / Sections L, M | L-4.2.3 and M-2.2.4 | Please confirm the 2021 RSMeans price book should be used to price the seed project. | No, the 2020 RSMeans price book should be used to price the SEED project. Future projects will be priced using the 2021 RSMeans price book. |
| Solicitation / Sections L, M; Pricing Schedule | L-4.4.6 and M-2.2.7.1; Pricing Schedule | Paragraph L-4.4.6 states, “The TEP consists of all offeror proposed amounts for the base and all option periods (including the 6-month extension of services period IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services).” Paragraph M-2.2.7.1 states, “The TEP consists of the total proposed prices for the base period, option years 1 through 4, and 50 percent of the option year 4 price to represent the price for the optional extension of services in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.” However, the Pricing Schedule doesn’t appear to include the optional extension of services, to be represented by 50% of the Option Year 4 price. Is any adjustment to the Pricing Schedule needed to incorporate the optional six-month extension? | No, the Pricing Schedule should only include pricing for the base and four (4) option years. |
| Atch 18 Section M-Eval Factors | M-2.2.6.2 Recency | So long as the Contract has a minimum of 12 months active performance period during the last 5 years, would the Government deem a specific task order(s) awarded under that contract as recent regardless of the performance time associated with that specific project/task order? | Sections L and M have been updated to revise the recency requirement from 12 months to 6 months. Please see highlighted areas. A Contract with a Period of Performance of at least 6 months with multiple task orders less than 6 months may be considered recent. |
| Section M – Eval Factors | M.2.2.4 Subfactor C Seed Project | Would the Government please provide fillable forms for AF 3064 and AF 66. | A sample AF Form 3064 can be found at: |
https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1941571&FileName=VA250-15-B-0093-026.xls
A sample AF Form 66 can be found at:
https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/jcchb/Files/Topical/Construction_files/template/form_66_lat.xlsx
The Offeror should update the sample Form 3064 accordingly.
Attachment 18- Section M-2. M-2.2.4. Subfactor C, Seed Project Submission requirements include AF Form 3064. Please provide blank AF Form 3064 for submission. A sample AF Form 3064 can be found at:
https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=1941571&FileName=VA250-15-B-0093-026.xls
The Offeror should update the sample Form 3064 accordingly.
Attachment 18- Section M-2. M-2.2.4. Subfactor C, Seed Project Submission requirements include AF Form 66. Please provide blank AF Form 66, Schedule of Material Submittals for submission. A sample AF Form 66 can be found at:
https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/jcchb/Files/Topical/Construction_files/template/form_66_lat.xlsx
The Offeror should update the sample Form 66 accordingly.
Solicitation / Section M M-2.2.6.2 Paragraph M-2.2.6.2 defines recency as a minimum of 12 months of active contract performance within the past 5 years. For offerors providing individual projects or task orders as relevant past performance, rather than entire IDIQ contracts, is it required that these projects had a duration of 12 months if they were entirely performed within the past 5 years? For example, would a $500k renovation project performed in 2019 that had a duration of 9 months meet the relevance standard of “Recency”? Sections L and M have been updated to revise the recency requirement from 12 months to 6 months. Please see the highlighted areas.
For the example, under the revised terms of Sections L and M, the project would be considered recent since the duration exceed the 6 month minimum.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .