Q&A_12.21.pdf

Project: Western Region Pavement Preservation MATOC

# General Technical Question Answer Date

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 envelope.

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

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

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

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?

Will provide an answer in a forthcoming

Q&A posting. 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