FA2816-16-R-0008_Questions_and_Answers_5.pdf

FA2816-16-R-0008 – Questions & Answers #5

Posted 21 November 2016

NOTE: The Government responses are provided for informational purposes only. Any responses below shall NOT change the requirements as spelled out in RFP FA2816-16-R-0008, unless issued via an Amendment to the Solicitation via Standard Form 30.

PLEASE NOTE: The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will change the receipt deadline for the Past Performance Questionnaires and Volume 3: Past

Performance from Tuesday 22 November, to Friday 9 December 2016 at 2:00 PM PST.

The following is an update to the Government response posted on 14 November 2016 to the following question:

Question (as originally posted on 14 November 2016):

Paragraph 2.2.3 of Section M for the above-referenced RFP states that to be considered relevant, past performance must “have a minimum value performed by the Offeror equaling or exceeding, the magnitude of construction identified for this project.” I can’t see where magnitude of construction is defined other than the maximum value for individual task orders, which is

$1,000,000. Is that what the solicitation refers to as magnitude of construction?

Answer (as originally posted on 14 November 2016):

The disclosure of magnitude is as follows: In accordance with FAR 36.204, Disclosure of the

Magnitude of Construction Projects, the estimated price is "More than $10,000,000.00". The

Government is in the process of amending Page 1 of 92, box 10, of the solicitation to provide clarification accordingly, and delete the sentence that presently reads “The disclosure of magnitude will be specified per individual Delivery Order”.

Updated Answer:

The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will update the first sentence of the first paragraph (above Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) in

Section M, paragraph 2.2.3 – Relevancy, located on page 90 of 92 of the solicitation, to read as follows: “Submitted contracts/projects involving efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation will result in a relevancy rating as described below.”

Additionally, the solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will update the first sentence of the second paragraph (below Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy

Ratings) in Section M, paragraph 2.2.3 – Relevancy, located on page 90 of 92 of the solicitation, to read as follows: “Relevant past performance information includes performance of efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation.”

Additionally, the solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will update page 1 of the solicitation, Box 10, to read as follows: “For the SABER IDIQ, IAW FAR

36.204 – Disclosure of Magnitude of Construction Projects, the estimated contract value is

“More Than $10,000,000.00.” For the Seed Project and individual delivery orders, the disclosure of magnitude will be specified per individual Delivery Order.”

Question #1:

Can the offeror/primary contractor not have A or B licenses during performance, so long as the subcontractor has the required licenses?

Answer #1:

The prime contractor may use a subcontractor with a valid State of California Contractor’s

License (Responsible Managing Office Class A or B) to meet the requirement of FA2816-16-R-

0008, Statement of Work, paragraph 5.1.5. Proof of licensing shall still be submitted to the

Contracting Officer.

Question #2:

The SF1442(13A), states the proposal is to be in 1 original and 2 copies, however, page 73 item

3.2 of the RFP documents state the proposal is to be submitted in five hard copies and an electronic copy.

Answer #2:

The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment to change the number of copies required on page 73 of the solicitation, paragraph 3.2 from “five” to “three” in order to match page 1 of the solicitation. An electronic copy is still required IAW page 73 of the solicitation, paragraph 3.3.

Question #3:

In addition it is implied that the proposal should be in one binder, the only mention of separation of binders is made in reference to the electronic copy (pg 73 Section 3.3) which states “each volume shall be in a separate directory or folder”.

Answer #3:

Page 75 of the solicitation, paragraph 3.4.3 – Binding and Labeling, states the following: “Each hard copy or paper volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a D-3-ring loose-leaf binder, permitting the volume to lie flat when open.”

Question #4:

Page 78 –6.0 Volume 3: Past Performance Proposal, item 6.2 requires the offeror to submit consent forms for “all subcontractors”. Is this a requirement for major subcontractors to include subcontractor teaming partners? Or does the requirement apply for all subcontractors that may be used for the disciplines outlined under Criteria 3: Subcontractor Management page 76-77?

There was no attachment to reference a sample SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER

CONSENT FORM, will the government be providing one? If not, will the government please specify any items that should be detailed on the Consent Form?”

Answer #4:

The Government will not be providing a Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form. The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that adds the following sentence to page 78 of the solicitation, paragraph 6.2 – Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Forms: “The

Government will not be providing Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Forms. The

Government only requires a document that includes a signature by the subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture that indicates consent to discuss past performance information between the Government and the offeror.”

Question #5

Considering the Past Performance Volume is due November 22, 2016 which is well ahead of the final proposal due time of December 9, 2016, and considering it is the offerors responsibility to ensure our customer point of contact provides a complete PPQ (per Q&A’s #4 PPQ’s now due

December 9, 2016) for the past performance projects. If there is an instance where the offeror makes a change to the submitted past performance projects based on solicitation requirements or judgement, will the contractor be allowed to make a change to project selection previously submitted (during the Volume 3 Past Performance deadline of November 22, 2016) and provide the required past performance information before the proposal deadline of December 9, 2016?

Answer #5:

The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will change the Volume 3:

Past Performance receipt deadline to Friday 9 December 2016 at 2:00 PM PST. Please see note above.

Question #6:

Page 75 3.4.3 Building and Labeling states “ All unclassified document binders shall have applicable security designation colors other than red” Can you please expand on this requirement.

Answer #6:

All unclassified documents within the proposal shall be any color other than red.

Question #7

As Volume 3: Past Performance will be submitted November 22, 2016, are we to re-submit the entire Volume 3 contents with our submission on December 9, 2016?

Answer #7:

No. The Offeror does not have to submit Volume 3: Past Performance twice. The solicitation will be amended in a forthcoming amendment that will change the Volume 3: Past Performance receipt deadline to Friday 9 December 2016 at 2:00 PM PST. Please see note above.