MFR_for_SABER_Solicitation_Questions_(2).docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST CENTER (AFMC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA

06 January 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

FROM: AFTC/PZIOC

308 West D Ave, Ste 260 Eglin AFB, FL 32542

SUBJECT: Questions and Answers to Solicitation FA2823-15-R-4002, Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Eglin AFB, FL

The purpose of this Memorandum for Record is to answer any questions that have come to light through the posting of the SABER Solicitation on FEDBizOps.

Question 1: I am reading through the posted documents for the SABER FA2823-15-R-4002 at Eglin AFB and I am on page 104 of 130 of the solicitation document. Is the bonding information correct as listed below? (cut and pasted from the solicitation). The individual task orders are listed as $2,000 to $750,000.

Answer: The Task orders that will be awarded will range from $2K to $750K. However, the Performance and Payment bonds will cover the anticipated $9.2M for the base year.

Question 2: There are 2 documents labeled “unnamed” in the FBO posting that are not downloadable.

Answer: There were two attachments that we had issues with on the posted the solicitation. The attachments are listed in the next FBO amendment.

Question 3: According to the specifications, a $9.2 million performance/payment bond will be required of the contractor awarded this contract. Because of the size of this bond requirement, this would reduce or eliminate participation of small and/or disadvantaged businesses from this solicitation. In addition, any contractor capable of participating would either be unable to obtain additional bonding for projects outside of SABER or their ability to bond other projects would be substantially reduced. This is a concern to any potential bidder and their sureties given that there is no guarantee of the maximum budget for any given year being spent despite the full amount of surety capacity being used. Our experience has been that task-order bonding is a very effective way to provide the government the performance and payment guarantees that are required while allowing the contractor more efficient use of their surety bond capacity. We have also experienced effectiveness with blanket bonding for a percentage of the maximum annual budget. Typically 30% to 40%.

Can the contracting officer consider either of these methods in lieu of the current requirement in the solicitation?

Answer: Eglin has consistently awarded near the annual maximum amount for SABER. Most Task Orders are given in volume during the June-Sep time frame and getting bonding per Task Order is not timely to meet end of year awards. For 30%-40% blanket bonding there is no guarantee if the surety will bond the contractor if he has over extended himself getting other contract awards. This was considered and the payment and performance bonds requirement will remain at $9.2M.

Question 4: Regarding Solicitation FA2823-15-R-4002, if submitting as a joint venture can Volume 2’s page limit be increased from 20 pages to 30 to allow for 2 pages per project submission as the project maximum for joint ventures is 15 (section 52.252 – 5a)?

Answer: For Volume II, if submitting as a single prime contractor the page limit will remain at 20 pages, if submitting as a Joint Venture the page limit will be increased from 20 to 30 pages. This will be amended in the solicitation.

For Volume III - provide not more than ten (10) references of the most relevant contracts performed for federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, in addition to the ten (10) references for the prime, the Offeror may provide up to five (5) additional references for the Joint Venture.

Question 5: In reviewing the bid documents on page 123 of 130 specific instructions for Volume II-Past Performance proposal.

Section ii. Relevant- states that relevant contracts include experience as a prime contractor or JV involving JOC, SABER, SATOC, MATOC and TOC.

Note 1 on page 121 of 130 states " Provide the form at Attachment 20 of not more than 10 references of the most recent contracts performed for federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years as part of Volume III". This leads one to believe projects other than JOC, SABER, SATOC, MATOC and TOC will be accepted as relevant since commercial customers would not have these contract labels.

We currently hold an IDIQ and have performed multiple Design build contracts ranging in size and magnitude that have been negotiated as Sole Source 8a contracts with the DOD. Will you allow us to present our Sole source contracts as relevant experience, although they are not part the specific types of contracts mentioned in section ii?

Answer: Submit relevant contracts involving Job Ordering Contracts (JOC), Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), Task Order Contracts (TOC) and Simplified Acquisition Base Engineering Requirement (SABER) construction contracts with an estimated value exceeding $15M over a three to five year period. No other sole source contracts will be deemed relevant.

Question 6: Para 4.1, page 44 of 130, states that the Contractor and the Government shall use compatible estimating software, which the Contractor and the Government will determine and choose the most appropriate after award. Does this mean that an estimating software tool that utilizes RS Means Database and has regular updates other than e4Clicks may be chosen as agreed?

Answer: The appropriate software tools will be RS Means and e4Clicks. No other software will be agreed to.

Question 7: Is e4Clicks estimating software to be used to develop the Task Order proposal to be included in Volume 4 of the SABER proposal or is the use of other estimating software that utilizes the RS Means database acceptable, i.e. CostWorks or other?

Answer: For Volume IV, for Task Order 0001, other estimating software that utilizes RS Means will be acceptable. However, the Contract Award winner will be required to utilize e4Clicks for the remainder of the contract period and subsequent Task Orders.

Question 8: Other than price, what specifically is to be included in Volume 4, Task Order 0001 Proposal?

Answer: Price break out with quantities for material and labor is required for Volume IV. Nothing else needs to be included.

Question 9: Section L.5 states that “Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent and relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement WILL NOT be rated as highly as Past Performance information for the principal Offeror.” Similar language is used in Section M.b.2.iv. We interpret these instructions to mean that the Government intends to place more weight on Past Performance contracts if those contracts were performed by the same 8(a) company that is bidding on the Eglin AFB SABER, and that the government will not rate a Past Performance contract as highly if it was performed by a key subcontractor or key personnel proposed for the new contract. Since the qualifications of neither key personnel nor key subcontractors (subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement) are part of part of the proposal evaluation strategy described for this procurement, it makes sense that Past Performance contracts tied to key personnel and key subcontractors will not be rated as highly.

However, we are concerned that by not rating Past Performance contracts performed by predecessor companies as highly as contracts performed by the principal Offeror, the Government is inadvertently overlooking the benefits and institutional knowledge they receive from having 8(a) contractors whose experience includes similar contracts performed by predecessor companies and sister companies. Would AFTC/PZIO Eglin consider revising the RFP to indicate that Past Performance contracts performed by predecessor or sister companies will be rated equally to those performed by the principal Offeror if a connection can be established through an organizational roadmap? The language below, from another USAF RFP, could be used to implement this change to the solicitation’s instructions for Volume II.

Organization Structure Change History— Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

Answer: The RFP will stand as is: meaning “Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent and relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement WILL NOT be rated as highly as Past Performance information for the principal Offeror.”

Question 10: Considering the significance placed on pricing (coefficients) in the evaluation of offerors’ proposals, would the USAF consider revising the RFP to require that offerors provide an explanation of how their coefficients were derived? Providing back-up information in the pricing volume would allow the Government to evaluate how much financial risk an offeror is placing in their buyout of the UPG-based projects. This information will give the USAF an additional tool to evaluate the realism of the offerors’ coefficients.

Answer: No additional information on co-efficient is required.

Question 11: Since RS Means Classification 01-11 – Summary of Work has not been excluded from use, can 01-11-31 Professional Consultants be used to recoup 65%, 80% and 100% design leaving 35% design for the coefficient to recoup?

Answer: SABER is for 35% design or less. However, when specified by the Government stamped engineering fees will be allowed for more complex designs. All other engineering requirements will be captured under the contractors co-efficient. The SOW will be amended as follows:

SOW to read: Para 3.6. Professional Engineer (PE) Certification. The project request may require PE Certification on some or all designs, or portions of designs. Typically, all new electrical power distribution designs; all Boiler/Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning designs (to include temporary requirements); all structural designs, to include entrance canopies, and all sprinkler designs shall require PE certification. Large-scale, new landscaping and irrigation when requested shall be designed by a certified Landscape Architect. Applicable Engineering Fee line items in the UPG may be utilized for PE Certification when deemed necessary by the government.

Question 12: Section M.b.1 includes Table 1.1 – Total Proposed Price (Coefficient) Computation – SABER, which shows how the Government will use Offerors’ coefficients to calculate a total price based on estimated volumes of work per CLIN. Section L.a.4 does not indicate that Offerors are required to prepare, populate, and include Table 1.1 in Volume I. Please clarify whether or not AFTC/PZIO-Eglin expects Offerors to include a populated Table 1.1 in their Price (Coefficient) Proposals. If required, would the Government consider providing a template in Excel for all offerors to use?

Answer: Table 1.1 is a tool to help the contractor develop their coefficient and evaluated price. Table 1.1 is not required for Volume I.

Question 13: Are as built drawings available for the seed project?

Answer: This is a simple project. No as built drawings will be provided.

Question 14: We are interested in knowing more information about the referenced solicitation and what should be the next steps to be considered for this project. This is our first time applying for IDIQ contracts.

Answer: The Government will not be providing steps to a contractor to assist in building their proposal.

Question 15: I did not see an actual date that the proposal is due.

Answer: This was not clear in the solicitation. Amendment 1 corrected this: the date is 21 Jan 2015 at 1200pm. Amendment 2 will further clarify the time and say 1200pm Central Standard Time.

Question 16: Does the formatting requirements shown in Section L, page 121 apply to Attachments 20 & 21? These forms are in 10 font.

Answer: The formatting requirements shown in Section L, page 121 do not apply to attachments 20 & 21. Please keep attachments 20 & 21 at 10 font.

Question 17: Pages 80 & 94 of solicitation states the bid bond amount is 20% of bid price or $3M; page 104 states the bid bond is $3M. Please advise which is correct.

Answer: The contract value is $46M. 20% of $46M is $9.2M. However, the max that a bid guarantee can be is $3M. The correct amount is $3M.

Question 18: page 102 of the solicitation states:

252.216-7006 ORDERING (MAY 2011)

(a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from 23 March 2015 through 22 March 2015.

Are these dates correct?

Answer: 23 Mar 2015 is the anticipated award date; however, these dates are estimated and will be adjusted upon the award date of the contract.

Question 19 Attachment 21 - Past Performance Questionnaire references an "Appendix A." Should this read Attachment 20?

Answer: Appendix A is Attachment 20 – this will be reflected as an amendment change to the solicitation.

Question 20 Section L on page 121 of the solicitation (under "Note 1.") references an "Appendix B." Should this read Attachment 21?

Answer: Appendix B is Attachment 21– this will be reflected as an amendment change to the solicitation.

image1.jpeg