Attachment_16_-_RFP_Questions_7-37_&_Government_Responses.pdf

Front Range Multiple Award Construction Contract (FRMACC)

(FA2517-19-R-A016)

Industry Questions/Comments and Government Responses

7. Industry Question/Comment: Under L-2 PROPOSAL PREPARATION& SUBMISSION

INSTRICTONS, K. Volume Organization/Page Limit/Number of Copies: It states"

Tab/subtab indexing shall be used to identify sections". Do tabs, subtabs not count towards total page count. Previously, Under I. Page Size & Format, it states "A page is defined as each face of a sheet of white paper containing information." Please clarify if tabs are not counted towards the overall page count.

Government Response: See Section L, L-2., K., Table 1, page 5 for revised language showing tabs/subtabs do not count towards the overall page limit and Section L, L-3., Tab A., 2., page 7, for language adding tabs/subtabs.

8. Industry Question/Comment: Under 4a - Two-Tiered Structure, it states that "Tier 1 will be for projects with an estimated value of equal to or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)." For evalatuon purpsoes you place relevancy matrix at project that are over $500,000. To better align to this Front Range MACC, could we provide project examples above the $250,000 since a majority of work is below this threshold.

Government Response: In accordance with (IAW) Section M, C., Step 2., c., ii., Phase 2, past performance information that is not relevant will not be evaluated further.

9. Industry Question/Comment: Section L, L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, N (pg. 3 of

10): 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.

Questions relative to the above reference have been asked prior but due to the importance of this program, we want to make sure we are interpreting the answers correctly. GAO rulings allow the Government to consider the experience and past performance of ANC’s subsidiary/sister companies where the proposal demonstrates that those companies’ resources will affect contract performance. That said, are we correct in our interpretation that the Government will allow past performance of ANC sister companies to be considered if meaningful involvement is documented and signed by the appropriate companies’ officers in commitment letters that are submitted with the proposal?

Government Response: You are not correct in your interpretation. See Section L, L-1., N., page 3, “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.”

10. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 4c, pg. 3, 3.b.: Contractors will utilize their not-to-exceed fully-burdened hourly labor rates for a Project Manager, Project

Superintendent, and/or Quality/Control Inspector when preparing their price proposal.

Attachment 11 requires submission of labor rates for Program Manager, Project

Superintendent, Quality Control Inspector. Please clarify if the rate proposed on

Attachment 11 is to be for a Program Manager or a Project Manager.

Government Response: Revised Attachment 11 – Fully-Burdened Hourly Labor Rates to reflect a “Project Manager.”

11. Industry Question/Comment: Section L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, D (pg. 1 of 10):

The proposal shall be clear and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of the price and past performance information. Where should the information substantiating price be included in the proposal?

Government Response: Revised Section L, L-1., D., page 1 language.

12. Industry Question/Comment: In Attachment #4a Paragraph 2 it states, “Tier 2 will be set-aside for small business (SB) concerns nationwide, to include the Tier 1 8(a) awardees.

Once the Tier 2 minimum guarantees are fulfilled, Tier 1 awardees will be allowed to participate in Tier 2 projects.” In attachment #6 page 8 it is defined that the minimum guarantee is $5K. Is the $5,000 minimum guarantee referenced in attachment #6 the limit where 8(a) firms can bid Tier 2 projects?

Government Response: IAW Section M, D., 2., “At the time of award, all effective awardees will be issued a task order to meet the minimum guarantee amount of $5K, subject to the availability of funds.” Once the Tier 2 minimum guarantees are fulfilled, Tier 1 awardees will be allowed to participate in Tier 2 projects.

13. Industry Question/Comment: Are there going to be HUBZONE set asides in this contract?

Government Response: No. This acquisition is a 100% small business set-aside. Tier 1 will be set-aside for 8(a) concerns restricted to Colorado and Wyoming Districts only. Tier 2 will be set-aside for small business (SB) concerns nationwide, to include the Tier 1 8(a) awardees.

14. Industry Question/Comment: Are there going to be Woman Owned Small Business set asides in this contract?

Government Response: See Government Response to Question #13.

15. Industry Question/Comment: Is this a recompete of the MATOC or does it contain work scope/elements from that contract?

Government Response: The FRMACC vehicle is a new requirement for the Front Range.

16. Industry Question/Comment: How will a direct award of a Tier 2 project be made? Is there any limitation of the size of a Tier 2 project? How many projects would be expected to be direct awards?

Government Response: IAW Attachment 4a, Two-Tiered Structure, para 2., “Tier 2 will be for projects with an estimated value of above the SAT to $10M…At the task order 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. 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.” The Government does not have information on how many projects are expected to be direct awards as this will be determined at the task order level, based on the Government’s best interest.

17. Industry Question/Comment: Because hard copy proposals are required, offerors must use a parcel service (FedEx/UPS/etc.) to have proposals delivered. Currently the due date is a Monday (October 21). Will the Government please consider revising the proposal due date to Wednesday October 23 so that offerors may ship proposals on Monday or Tuesday with a better expectation of on-time delivery and giving offerors the ability to work the previous Friday/Saturday on their proposals?

Government Response: The Government determined the proposal submission date and time would remain the same.

18. Industry Question/Comment: Can contractors awarded Tier 1 contracts also compete for

Tier 2 projects (if they can qualify and bond) and visa versa or each is each Tier exclusive?

Industry Question/Comment Follow-On: Please disregard our previous questions concerning the ability of Tier 1 contractors to participate in Tier 2 projects. The RFP’s

Attachment 4a answers this question.

Government Response: As requested, the Government will disregard this question.

19. Industry Question/Comment: Can Past Performance Projects include non-Government work that still meets all the other criteria?

Government Response: Yes. See Section L, L-3., Tab C., page 9, “The offeror shall submit up to six (6) total recent and relevant past performance information citations (Government or

Commercial) for the prime, joint venture members, teaming/partnering (prime contracting/subcontracting) relationships, and mentor-protégé members.”

20. Industry Question/Comment: Each of the sites where work will be performed have very different access protocols, types of work, facility layouts, etc. Will site visits to each of the facilities be scheduled prior to submitting proposals?

Government Response: The Government will not conduct pre-award site visits at the base contract level. The Government may conduct site visits at the task order level, see Attachment

4c, Task Order Procedures, 2., c.

21. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 5, 3. Past Performance Questionnaire, c., Page

1, am0, Evaluators or their designated representative shall submit the entire completed

PPQ (Sections 1 – 4) directly to the Government POCs listed in Section L, 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.

Question: Offeror requests that the requirement to use encrypted email to return PPQs be changed to regular email. Requiring encrypted mail, SAFE or hard copy delivery by USPS or courier creates a significant risk that PPQs will be delayed either from no access to encrypted e-mail features, connectivity difficulty to SAFE, or delays in mail delivery.

Government Response: See Section L, L-3, Tab C, para 3(c.), page 10, once the evaluator submits the completed PPQ, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive information IAW FAR 3.104-4. There are three (3) methods of returning the

PPQ. Any of the three (3) methods listed in Section L, L-3, Tab C, para 3(c.), page 10 is an acceptable method to return the PPQ.

22. Industry Question/Comment: In section M, Table 2-Unique Areas the Pass column states, “Three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citation submitted:” Does this mean that three of the unique areas need to be included in a single project? Alternatively, does it mean that a single unique area can be found in a single project, with three projects each containing a different unique area?

Government Response: Revised Section M, C., Step 2., c., ii., Phase One, Table 2 – Unique

Areas, page 4, to “At least three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citations submitted.”

23. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 6, Section M, Phase One, Page 3, 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. Three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citations submitted…

Question: Page 3 states that for Phase One Evaluation, “Only those past performance information citations containing a unique area(s) will be evaluated.” Regarding the Phase

One evaluation, are unique areas required for all six past performance citations to be considered relevant?

Government Response: See Government Response to Question # 22.

Question: Page 4, Table 2, states that in order to Pass Phase One Evaluation, “Three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citations submitted.” Will offerors “pass” Phase One Evaluation if they provide at least three of the five unique areas in one past performance citation?

Question: If only one citation is provided showing work in at least three unique areas, will the offeror’s remaining citations be evaluated in Phase Two?

Government Response: Revised Section M, C., Step 2., c., ii., Phase Two, page 4, “For Phase

Two, an evaluation of each past performance information citation will be completed to determine project relevancy.”

24. Industry Question/Comment: Are CPARs or “Similar Industry Project Evaluations” required for each past performance project submitted? Since most commercial projects and non-federal public works projects do not have CPAR equivalents, may we submit customer letters in lieu of similar evaluations?

Government Response: Yes, see Section L, L-3., Tab C., 4, page 10. A customer letter may be submitted if a similar industry project evaluation is not available.

25. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 5 Section L Part A (Page 3 of 10) states “The deadline for all questions, concerns, and/or requests for clarification is no later than 10 calendar days from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442 Section A, Block 3).” The date on the SF1442 is 9/19/2019 meaning all questions are due on 9/29/2019. While 10 working days would provide adequate time to assemble questions with the Solicitation being released on a Thursday, contractors have only had 6 working days to read all the documents and assemble questions. Would the Government consider extending the Q&A period so contractors have more time to ask questions and clarifications?

Government Response: The Government determined the deadline for questions, concerns, and requests for clarifications would remain the same.

26. Industry Question/Comment: Section M, paragraph C.c.ii Relevancy, under Phase One states, “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.” Please confirm that (provided we meet the criteria to pass the

Phase One evaluation) project citations that do not contain a unique area will be evaluated in Phase Two under Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2.

Government Response: See Government Response to Question # 23.

27. Industry Question/Comment: We would like to clarify the Government’s response to

Question 1 that was issued in Amendment 1. The question refers to submitting past performance performed under an MPA and the Government responded that it would not be allowed unless the offeror is submitting under the same entities. Since MPAs and joint ventures are different, please confirm that offerors are allowed to cite past performance that was performed as a member of a joint venture. Since each member of a joint venture is responsible for the performance of work awarded to the joint venture, that past performance should be allowed. Not allowing a member of a joint venture to cite their past performance performed under a joint venture would be unduly restrictive.

Government Response: This is a clarification to Attachment 14 - Draft RFP Questions 1-42 &

Government Responses, Government Response to Question #1. The Government recognizes that mentor protégé agreements (MPAs) and joint ventures are different in that MPAs may or may not result in a joint venture. In cases where MPAs resulted in a joint venture and contract(s) were awarded and performed, members of this joint venture proposing on the

FRMACC may cite their past performance.

28. Industry Question/Comment: The last SABER contract (which this FRMACC is replacing) awarded between $50 million and $60 million worth of work per year.

Assuming an even distribution of awarded volume between contractors this would only amount to $8 million to $10 million in annual volume per awardee and this volume would be widely distributed across a broad geographical region. Does the contracting authority anticipate vastly increasing the volume of work running through this contract from the historical averages?

Government Response: The FRMACC vehicle is a new requirement for the Front Range to include the organizations participating in the FRMACC and any other authorized Federal agencies/organizations along the Front Range. The volume of work is dependent on the organizations’ requirements and funding priorities.

29. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 5 Section L Part N (Page 3 of 10) 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.” If a Teaming/Partnering relationship agreement is established between affiliated 8a tribal-owned companies can experience of affiliated companies count as prime experience as is described in Tab C:

Past Performance Documents Page 9 of 10?

Government Response: The past performance of an affiliate performing as a subcontractor in a teaming/partnering (prime contracting/subcontracting) relationship agreement between affiliated

8(a) tribal-owned companies will NOT count as prime experience.

30. Industry Question/Cmment: I was wondering if the government would consider extending the period of time questions are permitted to another week (Friday Oct 4th). Our team is still digging into this proposal and crafting a few questions. We want to make sure we aren’t asking something that’s already addressed in another section.

Government Response: See Government Response to Question # 25.

31. Industry Question/Comment: The RFP states that in order to pass this phase of source selection, three (3) of the different unique areas listed below [are to be] 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).

Does that mean 3 unique areas must be demonstrated at least once among the 6 projects?

32. Industry Question/Comment: RFP, Section L (Attachment 5), L-3, Tab C, para 4 CPARS or Similar Industry Project Evaluations. Please confirm previously completed/signed Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may be submitted for the six (6) project citations to meet the requirements of Similar Industry Project Evaluations.

Government Response: Previously completed/signed PPQs may be submitted to meet the requirement of Similar Industry Project Evaluation in Section L, L-3, Tab C., 4., page 10.

However, for the current solicitation and IAW Section L, L-3, Tab C, 3., a., page 10, offerors shall provide a PPQ (Attachment 13) for each past performance information citation. Failure to provide the PPQs or failure to provide fully completed PPQs may impact an offeror’s past performance evaluation rating.

33. Industry Question/Comment: Section M Table 2 Unique Areas ‘missile alert facility’ is there a specific type of project or will any type of project meeting the additional criteria be acceptable? Please provide some examples of what constitutes “missile alert facilities”

Government Response: Missile Alert Facilities are facilities providing Security and Command and Control functions for our nuclear weapons facilities. The projects are two fold at these facilities with work topside and work below grade. In both cases, the contractor will only be able to access the facility once an Entry Authorization Letter (EAL) has been published with the workers names after they have passed a check by Security Forces and also all of their vehicles will need to be listed on the EAL similar to SCIF or WSA entry procedures. The project work is similar to all other facilities, but require stricter control over the work to be the same from site location to site location. Also, all work that occurs below grade requires equipment that has been tested for installation in a nuclear facility. The equipment is off the shelf equipment that meets certain standards and normally substation parts are not allowed without additional testing.

So, Missile Alert Facilities are facilities with stricter security requirements and stricter construction, material and quality control requirements.

34. Industry Question/Comment: RFP, Section L (Attachment 7), L-3, Tab A, para 6

Financial Information Request. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, would the offeror need to complete the Financial Information Request (Attachment 7) for each member of the Joint

Venture?

Government Response: Yes. IAW Section L, L-3, Tab A, 6., page 8, “Offerors shall provide a letter from the offeror’s financial institution(s) authorizing the PCO to verify the offeror’s financial responsibility.”

35. Industry Question/Comment: The Table 3 Relevancy Matrix identifies all “relevant” criteria as including “civil” construction. As a holder of a variety of MACC contracts, it is

XXX’s experience that much of the work under such contracts are renovations of existing facilities that usually do not include civil construction. By requiring “civil” for a project to be considered “relevant”, the government is negating a very large portion of work that may be required under the MACC which is renovation-related and may not include civil but would include architectural, electrical, mechanical and structural. Therefore, would the government please consider modifying the “relevant” criteria in Table 3 such that

“Very Relevant” might include 4 of the 5 disciplines (civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, and architectural); “Relevant” include 3 of the 5 disciplines; “Somewhat

Relevant” include 2 of the 5? This would serve to acknowledge the government’s understanding that the work under the MACC will include a variety of scopes of work involving a variety of discipline combinations.

Government Response: The requirements in Table 3 will not be modified. Although future project requirements for each installation are not known, the Government acknowledges that the projects under the FRMACC may include a variety of disciplines (i.e., civil, architectural, electrical, mechanical, and structural). Offerors must show they have experience in all the referenced disciplines to be “Very Relevant”.

36. Industry Question/Comment: Attachment 6 Section M Table 3 Relevancy Matrix (Page 5 of 8) requires that civil work be included in every project to be deemed relevant. Many interior renovation projects, especially those which are in the $500K range, do not include any civil work. In fact low dollar interior renovation projects often include most if not all of the other disciplines listed in Table 3 such as electrical, mechanical, structural, sometimes architectural. Would the government consider revising the table so that projects that potentially have other elements of Table 3 but not civil be considered relevant?

Government Response: See Government Response to Question #35.

37. Industry Question/Comment: Under Tab C: Past Performance Documents, it states on page 9 of 10 Of Attachment 5 Section L, "Citations should encompass work performed during the past three years from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442 Section A, Block

3), which includes at least 65% of documented performance during the three-year period and demonstrates the offeror’s ability to perform on the proposed effort." Could you please clarify what 65% of documented performance means? Does that mean that all past performance examples shown (6 in total) must equal 65% of our total workload? Or does it mean 65% of the 6 projects shown must be documented (i.e. federal CPARS, etc.)?

Government Response: A Government Progress Report or Similar Industry Project Progress

Report that identifies the percentage of completion to be 65% or greater for that specific project.