Attachment_14_-_Draft_RFP_Questions_1-43_&_Govt_Responses.pdf

Front Range Multiple Award Construction Contract (FRMACC)

(FA2517-19-R-A016)

Industry Questions/Comments and Government Responses

This attachment pertains to draft RFP questions asked by industry. Responses were not posted earlier, as some responses contained source selection sensitive information. Any changes associated with the final RFP have been incorporated.

1. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Section 1. a. & b) The Draft

RFP states at least 3 citations should be submitted by the offeror performing as the Prime for subfactor 1 and 1 citation for subfactor 2. What is the Government’s opinion on offerors who submit past experience projects as Mentors in SBA Approved Mentor Protégé Agreements? In our experience Mentors perform a considerable portion of the project management along with other self-performed tasks. Is it acceptable to submit past experience as a Mentor in an MPA? PPQs for the past experience would be completed for the Mentor (offeror).

Government Response: If you submit as the same Mentor Protégé partnership that performed on the citation provided or you submit as a Prime/Sub relationship using the same entities as the Mentor Protégé partnership, then the Government will consider the past experience.

2. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Page 8) Bonding Capability:

Offeror shall demonstrate its capability to provide payment and performance bonds, from an acceptable surety IAW FAR 28.202 Acceptability of Corporate Sureties, to meet the potential aggregate amount of $10 Million. Please confirm the bonding capacity requirement is $10M single project to align with the estimated maximum task order value that either tier will be allowed to propose upon.

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab A, 7. page 8 to state “Offerors shall demonstrate its capability to provide payment and performance bonds, from an acceptable surety IAW FAR 28.202, Acceptability of corporate sureties, to meet the aggregate payment and performance bond amount of $10M annually. The Contractor shall secure additional payment and performance bond coverage for individual task orders which exceed $750K.”

FRMACC TBD IDIQ awardees will only be required to secure the required performance and payment bonds once they are on-ramped into their respective tier.

3. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Page 9) Draft Section L, Tab B, Past Performance: The offeror shall submit up to six (6) total recent and relevant past performance citations (Government or Commercial) for the prime, joint venture members, teaming/partnering (prime contracting/sub-contracting) relationships, and mentor-protégé members. It appears that the words citations and projects are used interchangeably. For purposes of this requirement, are they the same?

Government Response: Yes. Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab C, page 9 to state “Each citation represents a specific project. A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or stand-alone contract.”

4. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Page 10) Draft Section L, Tab B, Past Performance; PPQ Section 1 (Attachment 11): Offerors shall provide a PPQ for each citation. Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the PPQ electronically, using the format set in the PPQ template, for each past performance information citation and provide with the past performance proposal volume. Offerors are responsible for ensuring accuracy of all information, to include current contact information on references provided. Draft Section L, Tab B, Past Performance; CPARS or Similar Industry Project Evaluations: Offerors shall provide all CPARS or similar industry project evaluations (if applicable) for the citations provided, IAW Section M, para C.3.1. If a CPAR has been received for a submitted project, does an Attachment 11 – PPQ still need be sent to the customer?

Government Response: Yes. The PPQ provides more detailed information on the specific project that may not be provided in the CPARS evaluation.

5. Industry Question/Comment: For concerns whose primary place of business is located in Colorado or Wyoming, is it acceptable to submit a copy of the SBA letter addressed to their Colorado or Wyoming office certifying their participation in the 8(a) program?

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab A, 11, page 9 to state “8(a) Status:

IAW 13 CFR 124.507(c)(2)(iv), in order for a Participant to be eligible to submit an offer for a 8(a) procurement limited to a specific geographic area, it must receive from SBA a determination that it has a bona-fide place of business within that area prior to submitting its offer for the procurement. The offeror shall provide a copy of the letter from the SBA with their proposal showing proof of 8(a) status and having a bona-fide place of business in Colorado or Wyoming districts.”

6. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Page 9) Past Performance-

Please consider extending the past performance to a period of 5 years. Three years is very restrictive, specifically to demonstrate Design Build Projects, as design could take a large portion of the project time period and the construction would not be 65% completed, thus unable to showcase that project. Five years is typical for most Government Solicitations.

Government Response: The Government has determined three (3) years is not too restrictive.

7. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L, Page 10) Past Performance Questionnaire- Please reconsider requiring the PPQ form and provide the option to either provide a completed CPARS or PPQ. Numerous government clients refuse to complete the PPQ form if they have already completed the CPARS. Their reasoning is that the CPARS is the official government evaluation and there is no need to complete another form. Please provide the option to provide a completed CPARS if completed or PPQ if an official CPARS does not exist.

Government Response: There is no option to provide only the CPARS. The PPQ is required as it provides more detailed information on the specific project that may not be provided in the CPARS evaluation.

8. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-1.H., Page 1) 8(a) Joint

Ventures: If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the signed and dated Joint Venture Agreement with their proposal. Where in the proposal shall offerors include the signed copy of the Joint Venture Agreement? What is the associated page limit?

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-2, K. Table 1, page 5 adding Joint Venture Agreement with no associated page limit.

9. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-1.J., Page 2) If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering (prime contracting/sub-contracting) relationship, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the signed and dated teaming/partnering (prime contracting/sub-contracting) relationship agreement. Where in the proposal shall offerors include the signed copy of the teaming agreement? What is the associated page limit?

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-2, K. Table 1, page 5 adding Teaming/Partnering Agreement with no associated page limit.

10. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-2.I.1, Page 5) All font shall be Times New Roman, black, and the size shall be no smaller than 10 point except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document (CPARS or similar industry project evaluation). The requirement states all font shall be black. Is this requirement for body text only? Are offerors allowed to use other color text for section headings, table headers, graphics, etc.?

Government Response: The body of the text must be black. All other section headings, table headings, graphics, etc., can be in other colors.

11. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-2.L. & L-3, Pages 6-7) The table on page 6 requires 1 original and 2 copies (3 total) while the text on page 7 requires 1 original and 8 copies (9 total). Will the government clarify how many hard copies to submit?

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab A, 4. a., page 7 to state “IAW Section L, L-2,.K,. Table 1, one (1) original hard-copy plus two (2) additional hard copies, along with one (1) electronic copy must be submitted prior to the time and date listed in SF 1442 Section A, Block 13.a.”

12. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab A: 8., Page 8) The hard copy SF 1442 shall have an original wet signature. We recommend removing this requirement and allowing electronic signatures.

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab A, 4. c., page 7 to state “The hard copy SF 1442 shall have an original wet signature or electronic signature.”

13. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab A: 8., Page 9) The offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 9, Consent Letter, executed by any potential subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners (if applicable), authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can, in turn, respond to such information. The specified page limit for the Consent Letter section is 1. Offerors may have more than one subcontractor or teaming partner. We recommend specifying 1 page per Consent Letter.

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-2, K. Table 1, page 5 making the phrase “Consent Letter” plural and with no associated page limit.

14. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab B, Page 9) The offeror shall submit up to six (6) total recent and relevant past performance citations (Government or Commercial) for the prime, joint venture members, teaming/partnering (prime contracting/sub-contracting) relationships, and mentor-protégé members. We recommend allowing the evaluation of experience to consider past performance information regarding affiliated companies, as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled in favor of this process. We also recommend adding FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which allows the evaluation to consider key personnel who have relevant experience.

Government Response: The Government determined key personnel will not be evaluated.

Added Section L, L-1, N, page 3, which states “For tribal-owned companies (Native Alaskan, Native American, and Native Hawaiian), past performance of affiliated companies will only be considered if the affiliated company is in a Joint Venture Agreement or in a

Teaming/Partnering (prime contracting/ subcontracting) Relationship Agreement for this acquisition.”

15. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3., Tab B:2.a, Page 10) PPQ Section 1 (Attachment 11): Offerors shall provide a PPQ for each citation. Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the PPQ electronically, using the format set in the PPQ template, for each past performance information citation and provide with the past performance proposal volume. The page count for Past Performance Questionnaires is 90 pages. Section 1 of Attachment 11 is 5 pages. If the offeror submits Section 1 only for each of the 6 citations (4 citations for Subfactor 1 and 2 citations for Subfactor 2), that equates to 30 pages. Does the government want offerors to provide the entirety of Attachment 11 (15 pages) for each citation, with Sections 2 through 4 left blank (total of 90 pages)?

Government Response: Corrected PPQ page limit in Section L, L-2, K. Table 1, page 6 to reflect 30 pages. Also, a note was added below Section L, L-2, K. Table 1, page 6, to state “*** Note 3: Offerors will submit PPQ Section 1 with their Proposal Volume. Sections 2 – 4 of the PPQ will not be included in the Proposal Volume as it will be submitted by the projects’s customer/contracting office (evaluators).”

16. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab B:3, Page 10) Offerors shall provide all CPARS or similar industry project evaluations (if applicable) for the citations provided, IAW Section M, para C.3.1. Will the government clarify the paragraph reference for CPAR instructions within Section M?

Government Response: Corrected Section L, L-3, Tab C, 4., page 10 to state “CPARS or Similar Industry Project Evaluations: Offerors shall provide all CPARS or similar industry project evaluations (if applicable) for the past performance information citations provided.”

17. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab B:2.a. & L-3. Tab B:3, Page 10) PPQs: Offerors shall provide a PPQ for each citation. CPARS: Offerors shall provide all CPARS or similar industry project evaluations (if applicable) for the citations provided, IAW Section M, para C.3.1. We recommend changing the PPQ language to require attachment 11 only if a CPAR is not available.

Government Response: See Government Response to Question #7.

18. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 5, Section L-3, Tab B, para 12.a-c) In accordance with Section L, Tab B, paragraph 2.a-c, offers are to request that evaluators submit PPQs via mail. It is the industry’s experience that submitting PPQs via mail is oftentimes viewed as an inconvenience by evaluators. Furthermore, the requirement that PPQs which include handwritten evaluations will not be considered is difficult for offerors to enforce due to the requirement to submit via mail. We request that that

Government allow electronic submittal of PPQs, and that evaluators be allowed to complete the PPQ in the manner most convenient to the evaluator, i.e. handwritten or typed.

Government Response: Corrected Section L para L-3, Tab C, 3. c., page 10 to read:

c. “Evaluators or their designated representative shall submit the entire completed PPQ (Sections 1 – 4) directly to the Government POCs listed in this section L-

2. A. Evaluators or their designated representative may use the following methods to submit:

i. Encrypted email

ii. Transmission via Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File

Exchange (SAFE) service at https://safe.apps.mil/

iii. Mail (i.e. USPS, FEDEX, UPS, etc.) to the address listed in Section

L, L-2., L.

Once the evaluator submits the completed PPQ, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive information IAW FAR 3.104-4 and shall not be released to the offeror. Failure to provide the PPQs or failure to provide fully completed PPQs may impact an offeror’s past performance evaluation rating. Any PPQ Sections 2 – 4 received from the offeror or included in their Proposal Volume will not be evaluated.”

19. Industry Question/Comment: Can CPARS be submitted in lieu of the provided PPQ?

Government Response: See Government’s Response to Question #7.

20. Industry Question/Comment: Can teaming agreements be utilized for the use of past performance/experience?

Government Response: IAW Section L, L-1, J, page 3 “Teaming/Partnering performance will be evaluated and rated based on either party’s performance. The team/partner shall submit as one offeror.” Additionally, IAW Section L, L-3, Tab C, Subfactor 1, page 9, “If in a team/partner (prime contractor/subcontractor) relationship, at least 3 citations shall encompass work performed by the prime.” IAW Section L, L-3, Tab C, Subfactor 2, page 9, “If in a team/partner (prime contractor/subcontractor) relationship, at least 1 citation shall encompass work performed by the prime.”

21. Industry Question/Comment: Native Alaskan firms often have several affiliated firms that are part of the parent corporation. For the purposes of demonstrating past performance, are projects completed by affiliates of Native Alaskan small businesses considered acceptable if the affiliates will be providing meaningful resources, participation and support on the contract?

Government Response: See Government’s Response to Question #14.

22. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, ii., Table 2) Columns Very Relevant through Not Relevant state projects must be over $500K. This dollar amount seems too small for projects to be performed by Tier 2 Offerors. We would suggest this amount be raised to over $2,000,000.

Government Response: Since Tier 1 8(a)s can also compete in Tier 2, the Government determined the $500K threshold to be appropriate.

23. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Pages 3-4) Greater consideration during assessment for; prime, higher dollar value, diversity, and/or complexity. Regarding “higher dollar value”, since the maximum Task Order dollar value under this contract is $10M, please confirm that past performance projects in excess of $10M will be considered not relevant (similar to projects below the minimum $500K past performance threshold).

Government Response: Removed “Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: concurrency, performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; complexity; and/or contains any of the following unique considerations:

- Secure Facilities (e.g., SCIF, Banks, etc.) - Missile Alert Facility

- Schools (e.g., Grade, University, etc.) - Historical Preservation

- Survivability Systems (e.g., Blast valves/doors, springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.)”

Added Section M, C., Step 2, c., ii., page 3, to state “The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information to determine: scope (broad range of design-build and repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects on various real property); magnitude (value of the task order/stand-alone contract);

and complexity (multiple functions/trades, design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.).”

The Government will consider citations over $10M as long as they are determined responsive, recent, and pass Factor 1 – Price.

24. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Pages 3-4) Greater consideration during assessment for; prime, higher dollar value, diversity, and/or complexity. Please clarify the meaning of diversity in this context.

Government Response: See Government’s response to question #23.

25. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award) In Attachment 6 to the Solicitation, Section M_Evaluation Factors, the government states: "Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: concurrency, performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; complexity;" What is the definition of "Concurrency?"

Government Response: See Government’s response to question #23.

26. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award) In Attachment 6 to the Solicitation, Section M_Evaluation Factors, the government states: "Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: concurrency, performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; complexity;" What is the definition of "Diversity?"

27. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award) In Attachment 6 to the Solicitation, Section M_Evaluation Factors, the government states: " Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: concurrency, performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; complexity;" What is the definition of "Complexity?"

28. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Step 3, Page 6) Based on the performance confidence assessment rating, the source selection team will first rank all substantially confident offerors within each tier from highest to lowest to determine the contracts to be awarded in accordance with Section M, para D. For offerors rated with Substantial Confidence, will the government define the criteria for ranking "highest to lowest"?

Government Response: Revised Section M, Step 3, page 7 to state “The following ranking method will be used to determine which offerors will be awarded FRMACC IDIQ contracts IAW Section M, D. Contracts To Be Awarded.

Within each tier level, offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on their relevancy and quality.

a. All offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 1 will be ranked, from highest to lowest, based on the Government’s evaluation of relevancy and quality.

b. If there are not enough offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 1, then the source selection team will rank all offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 2, from highest to lowest, based on the same method above, to determine the remaining contracts to be awarded.

c. If there are not enough offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 2, then the source selection team will rank all offerors with a “Satisfactory Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactors 1 and 2, from highest to lowest, based on the same method above, to determine the remaining contracts to be awarded.

d. Only offerors who receive a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance confidence assessment rating will be eligible for award.”

29. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Step 4, Page 6) Contractor

Financial Form: The offeror must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. Can the government define "adequate financial resources"?

Government Response: See FAR 9.104-1(a).

30. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award)

Per Section M, the Government intends to award up to two (2) FRMACC IDIQ SB contracts in Tier 2. Given the nature of the 8(a) structure, paired with Tier 2 being limited to projects >$10m, there is concern that only 2 SB awardees may result in inadequate competition and capability for task orders valued at >$10M. As such, we respectfully request that the Government consider increasing the number of Tier 2 awardees. The larger the pool of awardees, the more cost competition and value engineering the Government is likely to acquire.

Government Response: Tier 2 covers projects over the SAT and up to $10M. Tier 1 8(a)s can also compete in Tier 2, expanding the pool of competition.

31. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award)

Does the Government anticipate conducting a technical and/or pricing evaluation as a second phase to this solicitation? If not, we respectfully suggest that the Government consider adding these evaluation factors in order to provide competition in terms of cost and technical capacity.

Government Response: Added Section M, C., Step 2, b., page 2, Factor 1 – Price.

32. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award)

For Tier 1 companies, can the magnitude of projects be lowered to $250K in order to receive “very relevant” or at a minimum be considered “relevant" since this is the max threshold value for projects in Tier 1? Currently this threshold is $500K.

Government Response: The magnitude of projects will remain at $500K, since Tier 1 awardees have the ability to participate in Tier 2 projects.

33. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 6, Section M, Evaluation Factor for Award)

In reviewing the Draft RFP issued with the Presolicitation dated May 9, 2019 we are disappointed that the Tier 1 projects are set at a maximum value of $250K. We petition you to raise this limit to $2,000,000.00. The Draft RFP is having Tier 2 limits at $10,000,000. We ask that the limits not have such disproportion and allow SBA 8(a) contractors to grow their business.

Government Response: The Tier 1 task order maximum value limit of $250K will remain the same, since Tier 1 awardees have the ability to participate in Tier 2 projects.

34. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 11, Past Performance Questionnaire, Page

4) Relevancy for Disciplines From our experience performing on MACC’s, in particular those that are for maintenance, repair and minor construction, it is very rare for Task Orders to include civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, and architectural in a single project. However, for projects as described under this contract, it will be common, and necessary, to be able to successfully perform all of these disciplines across multiple, concurrent Task Orders. Will the Government please consider modifying the relevancy criteria to allow offerors to demonstrate relevant experience in performing the disciplines across multiple, concurrent Task Orders? For instance, allow up to five

(5) Past Performance projects that individually, and/or collectively, demonstrate experience in the required disciplines.

Government Response: The Government changed the relevancy criteria in section M, C., Step 2, c., ii, pages 3 – 5.

“The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information to determine: scope (broad range of design-build and repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects on various real property);

magnitude (value of the task order/stand-alone contract); and complexity (multiple functions/trades, design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.). Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Relevancy will be evaluated using two-phases.

Phase One:

For Phase One, the Government will use Attachment 12, Past Performance Citations – Unique Areas to identify which past performance information citations include a unique area(s). Only those past performance information citations containing a unique area(s) will be evaluated using the information contained in the offeror’s Proposal Volume. Past performance information citations that do not contain a unique area(s) will not be evaluated in Phase One. Phase One will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis IAW Table 2. Only offerors’ proposals that pass Phase One will be considered for Phase Two.

TABLE 2 – UNIQUE AREAS

PASS FAIL

Unique Areas

Three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citations submitted:

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); schools (grade school, university, training facility, etc.);

survivability systems (blast valve/door, springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.); missile alert facility; and historical preservation (listed in the National Register of Historical Places).

Three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were not included in at least one or more of the citations submitted:

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); schools (grade school, university, training facility, etc.);

survivability systems (blast valve/door, springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.); missile alert facility; and historical preservation (listed in the National Register of Historical Places).

Phase Two:

For Phase Two, two (2) subfactors will be evaluated for relevancy. The relative order of importance for these subfactors is, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2.

i. Subfactor 1 - Disciplines

ii. Subfactor 2 - Design-Build

A rating will be assigned based on the criteria identified in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - RELEVANCY MATRIX

SUBFACTOR

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

RELEVANT

(R)

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

(SR)

NOT

RELEVANT

(NR)

Disciplines

To be considered very relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, mechanical, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, and mechanical disciplines.

To be considered not relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a construction project:

a. less than $500K or

b. does not involve civil, electrical, and mechanical disciplines.

Design-Build

To be considered very relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a 100% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a 65% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a 35% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered not relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a design-build construction project:

a. less than 35% or

b. less than $500K.

Past performance information that is not relevant will not be evaluated further.”

35. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 11, Past Performance Questionnaire, Page

4) Relevancy for Disciplines Given the size, duration, and geographical coverage of this contract, the greatest risk to the Government of non-performance will be the inability of an offeror to successfully manage the volume of work necessary to support the needs of the installations. For instance, Tier 1 is $300M (estimated, not including potential participation in Tier 2) over 7.5 years which equals $40M per year. For the sake of the calculation, assume an equal split of Task Order awards between the four Tier 1 contractors which equals $10M per year each. With a maximum Task Order value in Tier 1 of $250K, assume an average Task Order Value of $150K. This means that an average Tier 1 awardee will need to successfully manage more than 66 open Task

Orders at 7 military installations (plus auxiliary sites) in 2 states over the course of each year. This does not account for any participation in Tier 2. Regarding the required Past Performance; if the intent is to establish that, based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort (substantial confidence), then we respectfully suggest the following: Rather than demonstrating several disciplines of work in single project for relevancy, demonstrate the ability to manage the required disciplines concurrently across a multitude of projects .

Government Response: See Government’s response in Question #34.

36. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 11, Past Performance Questionnaire). Can the narrative section/box on the past performance attachment (Attachment 11) be expanded to allow a thorough description/explanation of the project?

Government Response: The Government determined all text fields will remain the same.

37. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 4b, On-Off Ramping Procedures, Page 1, Para. 1.) ON-RAMP PROCEDURES: 3) to replace IDIQ awardees within their assigned tier level who fail to propose on at least 75% of all task order proposal requests annually from date of contract award. Please confirm that this requirement is to propose on at least 75% of all task orders at each location. Therefore, no location can be excluded in its entirety.

Government Response: Corrected Attachment 4b. 1. Para 1, page 1, and 2. Para 1, page 2, to state, “to replace IDIQ awardees within their assigned tier level who fail to propose on at least 75% of all task order proposal requests, for each organization, annually from date of contract award.”

38. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 4d, CAsPR Questionnaire) When sending the PPQ to the project's customer/contracting officer, do offerors need to send the CAsPR Questionnaire as well?

Government Response: The Government removed Attachment 4d, CAsPR Quetionnaire.

39. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 4c, Task Order Procedures) What factors will determine if a task order will be competed or awarded on a rotational basis?

Government Response: Revised Attachment 4c, 2., a., para 3, to state “At the TO level, based on the Government’s best interest, future projects under Tier 1 will either be competed amongst all Tier 1 awardees or be directly awarded to a Tier 1 awardee on a rotational basis.

At the TO level, based on the Government’s best interest, future projects under Tier 2 will either be competed amongst all Tier 2 awardees (to include Tier 1 awardees) or be directly awarded to a Tier 2 awardee (to include Tier 1 awardees) on a rotational basis.”

40. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 4c, Task Order Procedures) Will all sites be held to the same rotational schedule or is it up to each individual site to determine if a task order will be directly awarded or competed? What advantage does the government hope to gain from using a rotational award approach? If a task order requirement is heavy in a particular trade, such as electrical for instance, and one of the awarded contractors specializes in that trade, but it isn’t their turn on the rotation, it seems the government, nor the contractor, would be able to use that specialty to their advantage. Has there been any market research performed to substantiate the contract dollar amount advertised for the FRMACC? Are individual CE departments planning to increase staff in order to produce the volume of work advertised for the FRMACC?

Government Response: IAW Attachment 4a, 1., Tier 1, “Each participating location in the Front Range will be assigned a Tier 1 awardee list to start the direct award rotation.” IAW Attachment 4a, 1., Tier 2, “Each participating location in the Front Range will be assigned a Tier 2 awardee list (to include Tier 1 awardees) to start the direct award rotation.”

IAW Attachment 4c, 2., a., ii., page 2, “This restricted competition may be used to satisfy minimum guarantee, work requiring unique or highly specialized skills or trades, or urgent and compelling schedules.” The Government has conducted market research to substantiate the contract dollar amount. CE will determine the necessary manning level for this program.

41. Industry Question/Comment: (Attachment 4c, Task Order Procedures) How will individual task orders be competed and what criteria will the USAF use to award each

TO?

Government Response: IAW Attachment 4c, 2., f., page 3, “TO Evaluation: It is the Government’s intention to allow all FRMACC contractors to compete for TOs based on any method from the best value continuum. TOs will typically be awarded on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis. However, the Government reserves the right to use tradeoff evaluation procedures in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Typically, the evaluation methods will correspond with the level of design or complexity of the proposal to be submitted.”

42. Industry Question/Comment: (SF1442, Page 16) FAR 52.222-34 Project Labor

Agreement Executive Order 13502 dated February 6, 2009 encourages consideration of (but does not require) a Project Labor Agreement for large-scale construction projects.

This is Task Order contract which, for the 8(a) portion, can be expected to consist of a multitude of smaller scale projects. It seems this contract will not include the type of large-scale projects for which the clause was intended and is therefore not conducive to a Project Labor Agreement. Will the Government consider removing this clause for 8(a) offerors?

Government Response: The Government has determined this clause is not applicable to this acquisition and has been removed.

43. Industry Question/Comment: (Draft RFP) In regards to the solicitation for the Front

Range MACC – would you ever be willing to open up the Tier 1 set-aside for 8(a) concerns for the entire Region 8 (ND, SD, MT, WY, UT and CO).

Government Response: The 8(a) offer letter has already been accepted by the SBA for Colorado and Wyoming districts only.