FARM ll FA910121R0001 DRFP Q and A 7May21.pdf

FARM ll FA9101-21-R-0001 Draft RFP Questions & Answers

Reference Document Document Page/Para # Question Answer 1 Draft Statement of Work, 9 April 2021 Page 2 Section 1.1 Question: This version of the Statement of Work states, "The contractor shall serve as the Prime or Lead for projects integrating multiple capabilities." However, if we refer to the Draft Statement of Work dated 23 Oct 2020, this paragraph reads, "The contractor shall serve as the Prime or Leader for projects integrating multiple capabilities and is required to self-perform 51% of the work." Also, slide 22 from the Industry Day presentation on 18-19 February 2021 states, "Need capacity to surge FARM work to reduce downtime and complete multiple task order concurrently." Our initial interest in this contract was based on the customer placing a value on having engineering, fabrication, field crews, and the capacity to surge exist with a prime contractor. Given the sensitive mission of AEDC, prime contractors with the ability to fabricate off-site, deliver, and install with in-house resources greatly increases reliable outcomes (quality, schedule adherance, and cost control) while at the same time reducing on-site disturbances and safety risks.

Question: Can additional evaluation priority and/or higher ratings be given to prime contractors demonstrating self-perform fabrication, installation, testing, and surge capacity capabilities, for at least one of the key disciplines (mechanical, electrical, and ID&C)? Having Prime Contractors with self-perform capabilities certainly lowers the risks identified in Section M-2.2.1 Technical Rating.

The requirement of the prime to self-perform work is 15% in accordance with (IAW) contract clause 52.236-01 Performance of Work by the Contractor. "The contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivilant to at least 15 percent of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract."

Ratings will be assigned using definitions IAW Section M Table M-2.2.2-1: Evaluation Definitions .

A strength will be assigned if an aspect of the offerors proposal has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

2 Section L Page 7, Paragraph L-2.4 In lieu of hardcopy and CD/DVD submission of the proposal, please consider receipt of proposals via DoD SAFE. No, the Government will not accept proposals via DoD SAFE due to sporatic connectivity issues.

3 Section L Page 5, Paragraph L-2.3 The last paragraph of L-2.3 requires submission of electronic copies of the proposal in a format readable and searchable by MS Office 2016 applications (except for items as noted). Please allow electronic content to be in searchable PDF format.

No, in order to ensure compliance with section L-2.3, the Government will not accept proposals in formats other than those readable and searchable by MS Office 2016 applications.

Section L Page 12, Paragraph L-3.3.3.2 Client past performance ratings are required to be obtained via PPQ. In order to lessen the administrative burden to our clients, if existing past performance documentation exists (CPARS, CCASS, ACASS, existing PPQs), please allow such existing material to be used to meet this requirement.

No, IAW L-3.3.3.2 the offeror shall send PPQs on each identified contract to the points of contact for that contract. Additionally, IAW M-2.3.1, "In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)."

4 SOW Appendix B Appendix B-1 The Appendix B drawings were not included with the files. When will these be made available? Attachment 7 Seed Project SOW, Appendix B drawings will be released with the final RFP.

5 Given the spread of the various installations covered under the program and the variety of the scale and complexity of the work, the reliance on key named subcontractors will be important. Request that the RFP reads that the past performance of key named subcontractors will have equal relevance as the prime contractor’s past performance.

The Government will assign relevancy ratings IAW M-2.3.1.2. This section provides, in part, that "In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated."

6 Draft Task Order Paragraph 2.11 Please clarify the bolt pattern of existing flanges. The bolt pattern of the existing flanges on the spool section contains 28 holes equally spaced on a 123.75” diameter bolt circle. The holes are 2.13” diameter. This information will be included in the attached drawings in the final version of Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW. The existing bolt pattern straddles the vertical centerline as described in Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW, Appendix C, Section 23 09 13, Configuration Valves paragraph 2.13.

7 Draft Task Order 2.8 Please confirm that 60 second open/close time is required Yes, Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW, Appendix C, Section 23 09 13, Configuration Valves paragraph 2.8 requires a stroke time of 60 seconds or less to open or close the valve.

8 Draft Task Order 3.4.1.A Is the existing spool piece able to be reused after the valve is installed? The intent is for the valve to be interchangeable with the existing venturi spool section. The valve and contractor supplied spool section are to be supplied as described in Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW Task 1, Paragraph 3.4.1.A to maintain the existing spacing. Paragraph 3.4.1.A will be updated to clarify this.

9 Draft Task Order Section 23 09 13; Para 1.3 Is the inspection and fabrication of the spool piece & valve required to have the associated documentation by an ASME authorized inspection agency?

Yes, design, fabrication, installation and inspection should be accomplished in accordance with ASME Section VIII Division I as described in Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW paragraph 3.4.1.C.

Seed Project SOW, Appendix C, Section 23 09 13 Configuration Valves requires certifications to be submitted to the Contracting Officer per paragraph 1.3.

10 Draft Task Order N/A Is the U-stamp required for the spool piece or valve? No, there is no requirement for a U-Stamp on any component in Attachment 7, Seed Project

SOW.

11 Draft Task Order N/A Will the spool piece or valve require registration with the ASME National Board? Registration of the valve or spool with ASME is not required in Attachment 7, Seed Project SOW.

12 Please confirm if this will be the actual Seed Project in the final RFP. Yes, Attachment 7 Seed Project SOW will be included in the final RFP. Minor modifications may be made to the SOW.

13 Attachment 8 - Section L (Instruction to Offerors)

Page 12/L-3.3.3.3 Please confirm the stated Early Proposal Information Dates are accurate. (1) The Past Performance Volume is to be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. CDT, 29 June 2021. (2) The PPQs are to be submitted no later than 13 July 2021. Note:

Attachment L-3 PPQ Cover Ltr indicates the due date as TBD.

The final dates will be determined in the final RFP.

14 CONFLICT IN TITLE OF VOLUME III AND IV This will be corrected in the final RFP.

15 SECT. L - ATTACHMENT #8 TABLE L-2.3.1.1-1 (PG 7 OF 16) Table shows Price Proposal as Volume III and PPI as Volume IV This will be corrected in the final RFP.

16 Section L-3.3 (PG 12 OF 16) Titled: Volume III - PPI This will be corrected in the final RFP.

17 Section L-3.4 (PG 15 OF 16) Titled: Volume IV - Price Proposal. This will be corrected in the final RFP.

18 SECT. L - ATTACHMENT #8 Section L-3.4.1 Referece to "Price Narrative" without instructions on what is required in Price Narrative. Please advise. Further direction will be provided in the final RFP.

19 SECT L - ATTACHMENT #8 Section L-2.3 Para 2 & 3 Instead of requiring hard copies and CDs for proposals, recommend each Offeror be provided with a DoD Safe Drop Off link for electronic submission of proposals - to be arranged in the format specified. An example of RFP language DoD agencies are using is as follows: Submit the electronic proposal package to the Government [insert agency name] via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) as indicated on the Standard Form 1442 (SF 1442) in this solicitation. The Government must receive your proposal no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of SF 1442. Any and all amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged by signing on each amendment (SF30) and by completing Block 19 of the SF 1442. To confirm proposal receipt, you may call the Point of Contact listed on the SF1442.

The Government will not accept proposals via DoD SAFE due to sporatic connectivity issues.

20 STATEMENT OF WORK Processing/review of Requests for Information (RFIs) is not covered in the SOW. Request that processing from submission to response time be added as seven (7) days. RFIs often drive schedule and impact work in the field until resolution is reached. Speedy processing enhances productivity.

RFIs are task order specific and are not part of the basic contract statement of work. As such, response time cannot be determined based on the unknown complexity of the RFI.

21 ATT 8 - SECTION L SECTION L-3.3.3.1 Please confirm that an Offeror may submit one or more task orders from within a single IDIQ contract to meet the requirements for the recent and relevant contracts (up to 5 for the Prime Contractor and up to 3 for Major Subcontractors). The language throughout Section L and the PPI tool both indicate that a task order performed under an IDIQ contract would count as a single contract and a single reference (PPI project). This makes sense as IDIQ contracts can include multiple task orders and one task order can be very different from the next, with different Program Managers and Contracting Officers assigned. As such, for clarity purposes, it appears that the following sentence should be revised to read, "Multiple task orders under a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract (insert "MAY") and (delete "will") be combined and assessed as a single reference." (Or this sentence should be removed in its entirety to avoid confusion and conflicts with the other areas in section L and with the PPI document).

While multiple task orders under a delivery order or job order type of IDIQ may be similar in scope and combined under one contract, most IDIQ contracts consist of projects/contracts with very different scope and function as individual contracts.

This sentence will be deleted in the final RFP.

22 ATT 8 - SECTION L The RFP states, "…the text size shall be no less than 12-point Times New Roman font…" Will AEDC allow Offerors to use a sans serif font (for example Airal) for proposal section headings, graphic and table which allows these items to stand out from the paragraph text? This improves readibility of the doucment as well as make it easier for reviewers to find the outline proposal sections when scoring the document.

No, in order to ensure consistancy among all offerors' proposals, offerors shall comply with Section L, L-2.3.1.3.