Atch17Q&A.pdf

Attachment 13

FA2521-18-R-0020

Single-Award, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity General Construction Contract, Patrick AFB, FL

Question and Answer Template

NOTE: The proposal due date has been extended until 12 Jul 18. Proposals are due not later than 12:00pm

1. Question: Are Subcontractor consent forms (Attachment 11) required only for subcontractors who were used as part of a past performance FACTS sheet? (2) Or are they required for potential subcontractors for the seed project? (3) Or for potential subcontractors for any future task orders under the overall SATOC?

Answer: Subcontractor consent forms (attachment 11) are required for subcontractors who will be used for the overall SATOC.

2. Question: The paragraph states that “The answering space on the Past Performance FACTS Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages (i.e., no more than eight (8) pages). Front and back of 3 pages would be a total of 6 pages, please confirm that each separate contract FACTS sheet can be a total of 8 pages.

Answer: The total amount of pages should state 3 pages front and back for a total of 6 pages.

3. Question: We have Past Performance Questionnaires, signed by our Government Clients, on the standard NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form and in the CPARS system. Both the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form and the CPARS reviews include the same information as included in Atch10PPQ. We’ve recently collected these from our clients for other proposals. In an effort to lessen the burden on our Government clients, can we submit these forms in lieu of sending out a reference package for the same information to the same people?

Answer: PPQs previously prepared are acceptable as long as they are current.

4. Question: The RFP states that the “Past Performance FACTS sheet for five (5) active or completed contract (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP”. In our experience, for smaller projects ($4M and less), the performance period for the project itself can be less than one year. Is the “at least one year of performance history” referring to the contract duration per project? Or can we include projects we’ve completed within the last 3 years if the project itself had a total duration of less than one year?

Answer: The “at least one year of performance history” refers to the contracts you include collectively having a performance of at least one year.

5. Question: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are requested by the Solicitation. To avoid Government agencies that fill out these forms from having to prepare separate PPQs for multiple solicitations, we respectfully request that either CPARS reports or PPQs previously completed for other DoD proposals that uses a different format be allowed in lieu of the specific PPQ form provided with this Solicitation.

Answer: PPQs previously prepared are acceptable as long as they are current. CPARS reports alone do not meet the criteria required in the solicitation.

6. Question: The Solicitation requires present/past performance information for relevant projects where at least one (1) year of work has been completed in the last three (3) years. Government funding for FSRM and other construction and renovation projects has been significantly less over the last three (3) years than before that time. We respectfully request that present/past performance information presented in FACTS Sheets (Attachment 9) and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 10) within the last five (5) years be allowed and considered “recent” instead of the last three (3) years. Also, if CPARS or PPQs for relevant and recent experience that were previously prepared for proposals for other contracts are acceptable for responses to this Solicitation, please confirm that Offerors shall provide such in their proposals for this Solicitation.

Answer: This is unacceptable. It must be within three (3) years as the solicitation states. PPQs previously prepared are acceptable as long as they are current. CPARS reports alone do not meet the criteria required in the solicitation.

7. Question: Please provide a copy of Attachment 4, Pricing Schedule (missing from the Solicitation). Please also identify the relative importance of each evaluation criterion in the Government’s evaluation of Offerors’ proposals.

Answer: An amendment was made to add attachment 4. Please refer to section M for the relative importance of each evaluation criteria.

8. Question: Are CPARS evaluations an acceptable alternative to the Past/Present Performance Questionnaire?

Answer: Past/Present Performance Questionnaire must be completed IAW the solicitation. CPARS reports alone do not meet the criteria required in the solicitation.

9. Question: We are working on our Past Performance Questionnaires and I am confused about whether or not Attachment 12, the Client Authorization Letter, should go to all of our POC’s as well as attachment 10, the Past Performance Questionnaire? I need clarification on who exactly attachment 12 should be sent to please. If both attachments go to POC’s then which set of mailing instructions should the recipient use?

Answer: The client authorization letter (attachment 12) should be sent along with the Past/Present Performance Questionnaire for each commercial contract (see page 51 para. 9 of the solicitation for instructions).

10. Question: Another question is when the solicitation refers to “Commercial” Contracts are these “non‐public” contracts, i.e., universities, military contracts?

Answer: Commercial is defined as any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or, has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public (see FAR 2.101)

11. Question: The solicitation states that Volume I, Completed RFP, is to be submitted electronically via AMRDEC SAFE. This volume includes the Bid Guarantee. Please confirm that the hard copy of this document does not also need to be mailed to the contracting office.

Answer: This is correct.

12. Question: In Section L, under Paragraph II.A General, there is a chart of Volumes and numbers of copies.

Volume III says “2” under the number of copies, yet the instructions for proposal submittal state

“submission of the initial proposal packages shall be submitted via AMRDEC SAFE. Requesting multiple copies does not make any sense in this scenario. Since there are no instructions for hard copy proposals, please confirm this chart should read “1 electronic copy” for Volume III.

Answer: This is correct.

13. Question: Regarding AMRDEC submittals, box 13A of the SF1442, the RFP states: “Sealed offers in original and 1 copies are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 12:00 PM local time 05 July 2018.” Please confirm no copies are required.

Answer: No copies are required.

14. Question: In Section M, Paragraph I.A. Source Selection Methodology, the RFP states: “This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101‐1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.”

We have reviewed the solicitation in depth, as well as all of these regulations and procedures, and are still not able to identify what sections of the proposal will carry the most weight. Can the government please clarify the use of the Tradeoff Process under FAR 15.101‐1? It appears that the solicitation does not clearly state the evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance, as well as whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

Answer: Price and Past Performance are the evaluation factors and are equal. Section M has the criteria on how we evaluate both of those factors.

15. Question: We request the government to please clarify the use of the term “Offeror/Joint venture member” throughout the solicitation. For any joint ventures that are proposing on this SATOC, they will be considered both an “Offeror” and a “Joint Venture.”

Answer: Yes. A Joint Venture is two or more parties that can be considered an offeror.

16. Question: Under "CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section L of the RFP (page 52), the list includes 5352.215‐9000 FACILITY CLEARANCE MAY 1996. This clause states that "The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254 <http://www.dior.whs.mil/icdhome/forminfo/FormInfoPage51.htm> ) attached to this solicitation."

We are unable to locate a DD Form 254 attached to the solicitation. Can the government please confirm if a security clearance is required and if so, what classification? Please attach this DD Form 254 or direct us to where it is located.

Answer: DD Form 254 is not required.

17. Question: Is teaming of a Prime/Sub Team allowed? If yes, is the past performance of the sub allowed and will it be evaluated? If yes, can you please clarify the 2 items highlighted

Pg. 49 ‐ C. Volume II ‐ Past Performance

General: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, in accordance with the format contained in the “Past Performance FACTS Sheet” (See RFP Attachment 9) and the following paragraphs. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

Pg. 50 ‐ 5. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the Past Performance FACTS Sheet (RFP Attachment 9) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 11).

The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume II.

Answer: Yes. Past performance will be evaluated as a joint venture. For example, if you are teaming up with three subcontractors, you will be evaluated as a team, or joint venture. You will not be individually evaluated.