JFP_CODI_RFQ_Follow_on__QA__21_Mar_18.pdf
PDF 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Joint Forces Paving (JFP) for Colorado DoD Installations (CODI) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2550-18-R-1004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for joint forces paving services for Colorado Department of Defense installations. The solicitation will result in multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity firm-fixed-price contracts with a maximum value of $200 million to be awarded to up to six offerors. The period of performance for the contracts is from September 2018 to September 2025, including an initial five-year ordering period and a single two-year option period. Questions were due by March 13, 2018, with proposals to be delivered as specified in the solicitation. The Department of the Air Force Space Command is the contracting agency. The questions and answers provide clarification around teaming agreements, price reasonableness, evaluation of relevant past performance for subset work, and consideration of affiliate experience.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MASTER OF SPACE
21 March 18
FA2550-18-R-1004
Follow-on Questions and Answers
Question Referenced in Section Referenced on Page Number / Paragraph
Answer
1. Can an established and approved 8(a) Mentor/Protégé Agreement be used for this project
Section 00100, Part
Page 14, para. 4.5.5.1
No. Mentor-Protégé (MP) is a relationship and not a business entity.
A Joint Venture (JV) will be considered a sole business entity. A JV shall have a single cage code/DUNS number and be registered in SAM as such.
Questions regarding MP and JV should be directed to the Supervisory Business Opportunity Specialist - Carolyn Terrell at (303) 844-5238.
Please see Section 00100, Part 1, para.
4.5.5.1.
2. Referencing the answer to question 26: If the sample projects will not be awarded and executed under the IDIQ contract, what is to prevent a contractor from submitting unreasonably low prices for these projects? What measures will the Government take to ensure there is price reasonableness and fairness across all competitors?
Section 00100, Part
Page 17, para. 4.3, FAR
52.215- 1(f)(4)
See section 00100, Part 2, para. 4.3.a.
which stipulates the Government’s evaluation criteria.
Also, reference FAR 52.215-1, which is included in the solicitation, states that the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.
The Offeror’s proposal on the sample projects will be retained as historical data which can be considered in Contracting Officers’ fair and reasonable pricing determination on future task orders.
3. If we have work that qualifies to be categorized within NAICS 237310 that is part of a larger effort, the 237310 work would qualify as past performance, but the amount and extent of the 237310 type work should be clearly identified and only that portion of the work will be
Yes. The portion of the contract which is relevant to NAICS 237310 criteria will be considered in the relevancy matrix.
Addressing the “example” provided, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
50TH SPACE WING (AFSPC)
considered in the relevancy matrix. For example if we have built a neighborhood for a city housing authority under a $40M contract and part of that work included construction of streets, parking areas, and driveways and that portion of the work was $1M, then the construction of the streets, parking areas, and driveways would qualify as past performance with a value of $1M.
So according to the relevancy matrix in Para 4.41 the past performance would be considered very relevant because we were the prime contractor for roadway construction with a value greater than $750K.
Streets would be considered on the relevancy matrix as a roadway project.
Whereas parking areas and driveways would be considered other construction.
The Offeror must decide which subset they would like the Government to evaluate i.e. “roadway” or “other construction.” Refer to the solicitation Section 00100, Part 1, para. 4.4.2 c.
Also see the answer to question #12 in the previous questions and answers provided.
For example: If the “roadway” portion of the contract is valued at $800K and the Offeror performed as the Prime contractor, it would be considered Very Relevant.
OR
If the “parking areas, and driveways” portion was valued at $200K and the Offeror performed as the Prime contractor, it would be considered Somewhat Relevant.
4. Relative to #3., we have completed relevant projects under an IDIQ contract that were assigned the NAICS of the IDIQ contract, 236220. If the work on the individual projects are in accordance with 237310 criteria, will the Government allow us to show relevancy and eliminate that restriction?
Further clarification:
Yes. To be considered by the Government, all work performed must fall within NAICS 237310 criteria.
5. Based on numerous favorable GAO rulings allowing ANC sister company past performance, we respectfully request you reconsider the answer to question #5. (previous questions and answers).
The Government’s previous answer stands.
The Government will only evaluate an Offeror under a single cage code/DUNS number.
See answer in question #1.
| DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE |
| 50TH SPACE WING (AFSPC) |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .