Q&A_1.02.2018.pdf

Project: Western Region Pavement Preservation MATOC

# General Technical Question Answer Date

1 x Please verify no written notice to the CO stating the reason to not bid a Task Order is required for the MATOC RFP.

Offerors are not required to submit a written notice to the CO stating the reason for declining a project on the initial MATOC

TO‐RFPs.

12/5/17

2 x

Does “headquarters” on page M‐5 of the

MATOC RFP refer to contractor’s headquarters or contracting agency headquarters?

“headquarters” is referring to contractor’s headquarters.

12/5/17

3 x

Does submission requirement ii, page M‐5 of the

MATOC RFP, have to follow requirement i of “75 miles from headquarters”?

No 12/5/17

4 x

There is a discrepancy in the point system for

Factor 2 of the MATOC RFP. Factor 2 states that all subfactors are equal to 90 points, but all subfactors combined equal 100. Please clarify how many points Factors 2 and Subfactors of

Factor 2 are.

An error was made, which will be corrected via an Amendment to the

MATOC. Factor 2 is worth 100 points.

Subfactor 1 is 30, Subfactor 2 is 40, Subfactor 3 is 10, and Subfactor 4 is 20.

12/5/17

5 x

On page L‐5, the MATOC RFP references

“bound volumes”, can you clarify if the envelope is considered bound or shall the contractor bind together contents within the

Each original and each copy of the Volume must be bound separately. The envelope is not considered bound.

12/5/17

6 x

Referencing page L‐5 on the MATOC RFP, shall the five copies required for volume 1 be submitted within volume 1’s envelope or have their own separate envelope titled the same with “original” and “Copies”?

Offerors may choose to submit the original and separate copies in different envelopes or can submit them in one envelope.

Original and copy submittals must be independently bound.

12/5/17

7 x

The Federal Montana Davis Bacon Wage rates are structured with different zone pays depending on how far projects are from certain cities in Montana. The line between Zone 2 and Zone 3 wage classifications appears to fall somewhere in the middle of Mill Creek project.

Will government make the determination of what Zone this project would fall under?

The road miles over the shortest practical maintained route from the County Court

House of Bozeman to the center of the Mill

Creek job is 50.3 miles. This will be further addressed in a forthcoming amendment. 12/11/17

8 x

Please clarify the requirements of Subfactor 3:

Quality Control System in the MATOC RFP. Is the intent to provide a QCP for all required work features stated in SCR 153.03 of the RFP we are providing pricing or are we to choose one of the required work features?

Provide a QA/QC plan for each Task Order

RFP that you are providing pricing. Each

QA/QC plan should address all contract work categories, as outlined in FHWA

Specifications Section 153.03 – Quality

Control Plan.” 12/11/17

9 x

Are we able to use our team/key subcontractor recent and relevant experience?

Evaluation factors of the MATOC RFP call for prime contractor experience. See page

M‐1 for additional information. 12/12/17

Check General or Technical

10 x

Under Section M.2, Factor 1 of the MATOC RFP there is a disconnect from the Area of

Surfacing requirement of 130K square yards and minimum project value of $2.0M. If

Government is only qualifying area of surfacing to be microsurfacing and/or chip seal, can the minimum project value be reduced to

$500,000?

If Government wants to hold the minimum project value of $2.0M, can asphalt or aggregate surfacing be added to the requirements for area of surfacing?

The $2 million minimum contract award amount applies to the entire contract award, inclusive of Pavement Preservation or Rehabilitation items.

The contract award amount applies to all contract work awarded, which can include aggregate and asphalt surfacing. 12/13/17

11 x

Both seed projects are going to be evaluated under a full and open basis. Does HUBZone price preference apply based on 52.219‐4?

FAR Clause 52.219‐4 is not incorporated in the soliciations and thus not applicable.

Both TO‐RFPs will be awarded to the lowest priced offerer who receives a

MATOC (see page B‐1 of the MATOC RFP or Specail Notice page of either TO‐RFP).

The TO's will not be awarded under full and open competition but limited to competition between MATOC contractors. 12/13/17

12 x

In reference to the MATOC RFP, Factor 2, please define a work site? Is it a staging area or a road having work performed?

See FAR Definition “Building or Work”. Will be addressed in forthcoming Amendment 12/13/17

13 x

In reference to the MATOC RFP, Factor 2, is it

25 miles measured by road miles or as a crow flies?

Road miles. Will be addressed in forthcoming amendment. 12/13/2017

14 x

In reference to the MATOC RFP, Factor 2, does a single project containing 4 or more separate worksites spanning 60 miles from the northern most end to the southernmost end, with additional intermittent work sites throughout, qualify for full credit?

Per the stated criteria, to receive full points, the Project must include 4 or more worksites each separated by 25 miles or more. 12/13/2017

15 x

In reference to Factor 2, Subfactor 1, Section II, how shall the information be delivered to WFL? See section L.4 (pg 80) of the RFP MATOC. 12/15/2017

16 x

In reference to Factor 2, Subfactor 1, Section II, how should the contractor show submittals were completed prior to construction?

Submittals are compared to the corresponding project schedules submitted in Factor 2, Subfactor 1, Section I. 12/15/2017

17 x

The technical information form 2 wording appears to be cutoff under project description, please provide complete form.

Technical Information Form 1 wording was cutoff and subsequently corrected under

A002 MATOC RFP. Please see A002 MATOC

RFP for correction. 12/15/2017

18 x

Is the master subcontracting plan (found in

MATOC RFP) and subcontracting plan (for

Joshua Tree solicitation) both required?

Does the Master subcontracting plan go into volume I and the subcontracting plan go into volume II envelopes?

The Master Subcontracting Plan and the

Subcontracting plan for each TO‐RFP are both required if applicable. Both subcontracting plans will be approved prior to award. Offerors are not required to submit either with their RFP submittals. 12/18/2017

19 x

We would be bidding as a prime and teaming with another contractor to create a Technical and Price proposal. Would the combination of both our companies be able to meet this criterion (technical), or does the aforementioned statements specifically relate to the Prime contractor?

Futher information will be provided in a forthcoming amendment. 12/18/2017

20 x

With respect to Factor 1 of the MATOC RFP, rating iii. Does a city park or sport center qualify?

public work contract and recreational are are defined on technical form 1 12/18/2017

21 x

Does an asphalt rubber chip seal qualify as a

"chip seal" for factor 1 evaluation? Yes 12/18/2017

22 x

On technical form 1, shall the contractor list all suppliers for the project including subcontractors suppliers or those only for microsurfacing/chip seal?

Suppliers includes subcontractors who performed (or are scheduled to perform) work on the project. 12/18/2017

23 x

With respect to Factor 4 of the MATOC RFP, submission requirement ii, Can a contractor submit a project not ran by a federal agency? Yes 12/19/2017

24 x

Our understanding is two of the eight IDIQ contracts for the above project are reserved for small business concerns. Looking at Section

M – Evaluation Factors for Award we note there is no consideration of business size when evaluating proposals. Will WFL consider adding a fifth evaluation factor, Business Size?

The two small business firms that represent best value will be awarded indpendent of the ranking of large business firms (page L‐4) 12/19/2017 x MT Mill Creek Project. Can the waste material from the sub excavation be wasted at the

Pierce Pit?

no. 12/8/17 x MT Mill Creek Project. Does this mean that the material must meet the 703.05 specifications that sections 301 and 302 refer to?

No. Please see Subsection 105.02(b), Subsection 301.08 and table 301-1 for requirements.

12/8/17 x MT Mill Creek Project. Which gradation is to be used?

Please refer to Subsection 703.05(c) and table 703‐3 for target value ranges for surface course gradation.

12/8/17 x MT Mill Creek Project. Will LA Abrasion, Soundness, Durability, Fracture, PI and Liquid

Limit be required?

Please refer to Subsection 301.08.

Aggregate gradation, plasticity index, and liquid limit will be evaluated.

12/8/17 x MT Mill Creek Project. We believe we would have to blend a significant amount of outside material into the current material in order to meet any of the specifications. This would be very expensive. Is that the intent of the contract?

Please see subsection 105.02. It is expected the material located at Pierce Pit does not meet the requirements of 301 and 302. Material may require mixing, screening, blending or processing to be in compliance

12/8/17 x MT Mill Creek Project. Can the material from the Pierce Pit be used as fill material for the

Subexcavation item? No

12/8/17

31 x

Is there any intention to extend the due date of the MATOC RFP?

No, not at this time. If it is extended it will be extended via amendment on FBO 12/21/2017 x Technical Form 2. In regards to experience as a xxx on a Federal Lands Project. Does working for the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) qualify as

Federal Lands Project?

A Federal Lands project would be one that was awarded by one of the Federal Lands

Offices, Western Federal Lands, Central

Federal Lands or Eastern Federal Lands 12/21/2017

33 x

In response to the “Response to Questions,”

#18; Since Offerors are not required to submit the Master Subcontracting Plan or subcontracting plan, what is the time requirement post bid for submission of the documents?

The time requirement for providing subcontracting plans will be established when the Government requests them, usually five days after the request. See FAR

19.705‐4 for subcontracting plan review requirement. 12/21/2017

34 x

In response to the “Response to Questions,”

#15; Response stated to see page 80 L.4. Can offeror use enlarged font sizes for headings and subheadings?

Follow the instructions listed in the solicitation. 12/21/2017

35 x

In response to the “Response to Questions,”

#23; Please clarify FHWA meant Factor 3. Yes Factor 3 12/21/2017

36 x

Factor 2, Subfactor 2, Requirement ii. ‐ Does the second materials delivery and handling plan need to be submitted from a project chosen for factor 1? No 12/21/2017

37 x

Under Factor 1, Rating iv., will the government refine its definition of area of surfacing to include asphalt paving?

Yes, An amendment will be issued to include asphalt paving in the definition of area of surfacing. 12/21/2017

38 x

Under Factor 1, Rating iv., will the government refine its definition of area of surfacing to include aggregate surfacing? No 12/21/2017

39 x

Factor 2, Subfactor 2, Requirement ii. ‐ Does the second materials delivery and handling plan need to be submitted from a project chosen for factor 1? No 12/21/2017

40 x

Is an offeror allowed to bid as a prime contractor on Joshua Tree with a valid Matoc

RFP response as well as bid as a subcontractor to other offerors.

There is nothing currently in the RFP that does not allow that situation 12/21/2017

41 x x

MT Mill Creek Project. Based on the answer to part one of your question that refers to Section

105.02b, how do the requirements that you place in your following answers apply? I understand that you want to test for your own purposes, but are pay factors being applied for the specs you list in your answers about gradation, liquid limit, PI, and liquid limit? .

Based on the answer about blending or processing, we believe that we could buy and haul material from a local commercial source much more cheaply than moving in a pugmill, buying and hauling material into the Pierce Pit, and blending to make this material meet these specs. Is that an option?

An Amendment will be issued to clarify the

Pierce Pit stockpile’s required use and testing requirements. 12/19/2017

42 x

For Technical Information Form 1, are additional pages allowed to be attached to address all the information requested under

Project Description?

Page L‐7 states "Narratives in the Technical

Information Forms shall contain no more than two double sided additional pages". 12/26/2017

43 x

Is there an overall page count for this RFP response or a page count by section? No. 12/27/2017

44 x

Factor 1 – Technical Form 1 – “Project

Description” requests contractors list suppliers and submittals for the project. In some cases these lists, specifically the submittal lists could take multiple pages. Is the intent to list each submittal required for the project? If so will this listing not count against any page count, (e.g. Section L – Page L‐7 “Narratives in the

Technical Information Forms shall contain no more than two double sided additional pages.”)

The intent of the Project Description is to include a list of all submittals required by the contract and a complete list of suppliers. The list of submittals and suppliers will not count against the two double sided additional pages referenced in Section L – Instruction – page L‐7 12/27/2017

45 x

In Section L – Page L‐7, it states “Narratives in the Technical Information Forms shall contain no more than two double sided additional pages.” We are requested to submit five projects, each with their own Technical Form 1.

Are we allowed two double sided additional pages for each Technical Form 1 (Project) submitted? Technical Form 2, doesn’t ask for a narrative. Are we allowed two double sided additional pages to go along with Technical

Form 2?

You may submit two additional pages to support the narrative for each technical form provided. If the technical form does not have a narrative section, you cannot submit narrative support. 12/27/2017

Page L‐5 of the RFP indicates “Proposals should be submitted to the following address:

Federal Highway Administration

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Attn: Acquisition

610 E 5th Street

Vancouver, WA 98661”

Standard Form 1442 on RFP Page A‐3 indicates the offer should be addressed to:

“Attn: Contracts”

Please clarify as to the correct “Attn:” line for our proposal submittal.

"Attn: Contracts" or "Attn: Acquisitions" is acceptable. 12/28/2017

47 x

MT Mill Creek Project. SCR 569.04(c) paragraph two describes measures to assess the bridge deck for deteriorated areas and to remove and repair these areas. This work is typically performed under a separate pay item as it is unclear as to how much repair work is needed until the deck is assessed after the initial removal. How does FHWA intend to pay for the repair of deteriorated areas? If it is considered incidental to the Concrete Overlay item will FHWA add a pay item for repair work since there is not enough information at this time to accurately quantify the amount of repair work required?

All surface preparation, which includes repair of deteriorated areas in the deck surface, is included within pay item 56901‐

0000, Concrete Overlay (Thin Bonded

Epoxy).

We do not plan on adding another bid item for repair work.

Bridge Inspection Report Dated 08‐11‐2016 will be added to physical data by forthcoming Amendment.

1/2/2018