Bldg. 892 QA 4.pdf

Q & A #4 21 July 2020

1. The Site visit is scheduled to take place on 23 July 2020 with the current proposal due date of 4

August 2020, with no additional time from the site visit for RFI submission and/or response. In order for accurate proposal submission, we would respectively like to request a 3 day RFI submission period from the site visit, and with a two week proposal turn around for submission after RFI response receipt. Please advise if this to be acceptable.

The solicitation has been extended until the 11 August 2020.

2. Per Section M 1.4.1, Price Evaluation. The Government shall rank, all offers by TEP from lowest to highest, including any option prices if applicable. The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum total of all Firm-Fixed Priced CLINs (0001, 0002, and 0003). If the price evaluation is TEP only, can offerors submit lump sum pricing by CLIN for the FFP effort?

Section L Para 1.3 Note: DO NOT PROIVDE LUMP SUM OR OTHER AGGREGATE TYPE OF UNIT PRICING CONSISITING OF A QUANTITY OF 1. The team will review the 50 Division Cost Estimating Worksheet(s) to ensure the major work elements are identified within each division and are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the included quantities for materials, labor and other services are not significantly overstated or understated.

3. If the government requires offerors submit Attachment L1 of the solicitation, (50 Division proposal breakdown Excel Spreadsheet). Is a 50 division breakdown required for each CLIN?

Yes, Section L Para 1.3 Note: DO NOT PROIVDE LUMP SUM OR OTHER AGGREGATE TYPE OF UNIT PRICING CONSISITING OF A QUANTITY OF 1. The team will review the 50 Division Cost Estimating Worksheet(s) to ensure the major work elements are identified within each division and are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the included quantities for materials, labor and other services are not significantly overstated or understated.

4. Please advise if the 50 Division proposal breakdown can be provided in the event of a successful offer. Due to the tight proposal turn around, this would assist on the response time to the RFP. Please advise if this to be acceptable.

30 days is the standard time for submittal of proposals. Since this was a resolicited off a cancelled solicitation the time was shorter to 21 days. The time is extended for another 7 days.

5. It appears that bidders are only being provided 21 days to provide a response to this solicitation

– per FAR requirements (FAR 5.203) on actions that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold offerors agencies shall allow at least a 30-day response time for receipt of bids or proposals. We believe that it is in the best interests of the government to allow bidders additional time to prepare the requirements of this proposal.

The solicitation has been extended until the 11 August 2020 to allow for 30 days.

6. Per Section M 1.0, the basis for contract award states, “This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).” However, the evaluation criterion indicates ranking by TEP and reviewing past performance for technically acceptable, please clarify what that Best Value criteria for award.

Section M 1.0. The only factor that will be rated for acceptable/unacceptability is Factor 3:

Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan, will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Past Performance will be rated IAW Section 1.5.

7. Per Section L 3.1, Attachment L4 – Past Performance information is to be completed by the Offeror for, “…up to five (5) Past Performance sheets identifying active or completed contracts and/or task orders, either Government or commercial,” and are, “…limited to 4 pages per Information Sheet.” It is our understanding that the 4 page limit per Information Sheet (Attachment L4) is separate from the 10 page limit for Volume II – Past Performance and would kindly request that the Government advise if this interpretation is accurate.

Correct. Section L Table L1 allows for 10 pages AND 4 pages per information sheet.

8. Per Section L 3.4.1, Attachment L6 – Past Performance Customer Questionnaire is to be sent out, “…to each of the Government Points of Contact,” per Attachment L4 submission. We strive to reduce the onus on our Government clients who need to complete the same PPQs repeatedly for proposals. Also, contracting representatives are reluctant to (or even discouraged from) completing PPQ forms if formal performance CPARS evaluations have been completed. Will the Government please consider allowing Offerors to submit completed CPARS evaluations or previously completed/signed PPQs in lieu of new Attachment L6 forms?

The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the information provided by the Offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources. This is a solicitation from a cancelled solicitation therefore the Government would anticipate that some PPQs would be completed/signed already. There is no signature date requirement. Offeror are reminder to review Section M for definition of recent and relevancy. CPARs in lieu of PPQ is not unallowable but offerors are encourage to use the Past Performance Volume to maximum extend.

9. Section M Table M2 – Relevancy Ratings indicates a Magnitude between $1M to $5M for past performance. Would the Government consider projects over $5M to be relevant?

Yes.

10. Section L 3.2 Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures mentions that the Offeror shall, “Provide a letter from all subcontractors (Attachment L5) that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.” If an Offeror will not be teaming up with a subcontractor, but has key subcontractors potentially being utilized for portions of the SOW, would the Government require those subcontractors consent forms?

IAW Section L 3.2 Only if their information is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

11. Section L 4.2.1 Section A – Solicitation/Contract Form requires the Offeror to, “Submit the Standard Form 1442 and all pages originally included in the RFP. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20a-c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1442 in block 20a-c. (In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, Sections A through K).

Signature by the Offeror on the Standard Form 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.” Since the SF 1449 was provided, would the Government please clarify this requirement?

The 1449 has been replaced in its entirety on Amendment 1.

12. Section L 2.2.2 Submission of Bid Guarantee requires, “Offerors shall submit a hard copy of the bid guarantee via mail or hand delivery. Offerors shall deliver or mail the bid guarantee no later than 3-business days after the date established for receipt of proposals. Mail or deliver to the address listed in Block 7 of the SF1442.” Since the SF 1442 is not included, what address would the Government prefer the bid guarantee to be submitted to?

The 1449 has been replaced in its entirety on Amendment 1.

13. Section M 1.4.1 Price Evaluation, Section L 4.3.5, and Section L 4.2.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel numbering is out of order, would the Government please advise if additional requirements are needed in these areas.

No information is missing and the Para Numbering is corrected on Amendment 1

14. Section L 1.3.6 Binding and Labeling and Page Numbering requires the Offeror to, “…also sign the model contract within the official version of Volume IV. The signed model contract becomes the official contract copy if the Offeror receives the contract award.” Would the Government please clarify this requirement?

If you are the apparent winner, your signature is binding and the PCO only has to sign to make the award. The 1449 has been replaced with a 1442.

15. The solicitation includes DFAR 252.219-7009 Section 8(a) Direct Award. 2018-10; however, the SF 1449 states that this opportunity is full & open unrestricted. Would the Government please clarify the acquisition type?

Clause deleted.

16. Section L 3.4.1 Questionnaire Submissions requires that, “The offeror shall provide a summary of all prime Offeror and subservice provider/team member performance history submissions, in columnar format, with the following information: Service Provider Name, Contract Number, Performance Period, CO Name/Phone Number, Contracting Officer Representative Name/Phone Number.” Will this informational chart be included in Volume II- Past Performances’ page count?

No, IAW Section 3.4. The submissions to the following sub-paragraphs do NOT count toward the page limit for the Offeror's Past Performance Volume.

17. Section L 4.3.5 Section K – Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors mentions that, “Section K shall be returned in its entirety.” In the Solicitation under FAR 52.204- 8 it states that, “(2) If the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is not included in this solicitation, and the Offeror has an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM), the Offeror may choose to use paragraph (d) of this provision instead of completing the corresponding individual representations and certifications in the solicitation.”

Would the Government please clarify what requirement they prefer the Offeror to follow.

Return in entirety with that block check.