FY22 MACC_Q and A Responses to Draft RFP_032122.pdf

MACC Section L & M Draft Industry Input

Question Response Paragraph 1.3, Page 2 of 12, Section L, indicates that proposal are to be submitted electronically via SAFE. Paragraph 2.1, Page 4 of 12, Section L, states that only electronic proposal will be required (no hard copies). However, Paragraph 2.1, Page 5 of 12, Section L, indicates that electronic proposals may also be submitted by mail or hand-carried. So, either way is acceptable?

Yes, they can be submitted either through DoD Safe or through the mail or hand carried on CD or DVD, which is considered an electronic version.

Paragraph 2.5.3.2, Page 10 of 12, Section L, requires that projects have a dollar range from $500K or greater and over $2M. As a small business, our firm has project with a dollar range from $8M to $12M. Will these size projects be acceptable?

Yes, project dollar values shall range from $500K or Greater.

Paragraph 2.5.4.1, Page 11 of 12, Section L, that Past Performance Information, Attachment L6, may be submitted for subcontractors. If these are submitted, will Attachment L8, Quality and Satisfaction Survey also be required to be submitted? If so, this would change the 40 page limit outlined in the table in Paragraph 2.4.

Will be corrected in solicitation. Attachment L6 & L8 (current L5 and L7) are required under Past Peformance Volume. Attachment L7 (current L6) is an example cover letter that can be used when sending out Attachment L8 (current L7). Technical references must be the same as past performance references. No need for additional page allowance.

Section M paragraph 2.1.2.c) iv: If the Offeror is a Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, then projects submitted to satisfy Technical Experience and Past Performance from either the Mentor or Protégé will be acceptable?

If the projects submited are not executed as the JV firm each JV member will provide at least one (1) relevant project to demonstrate experience and provide a comprehensive narrative to demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this program.

What are the task order dollar ranges under this IDIQ contract? We expect projects to range from $500K to $9.5M How many task orders are anticipated to be solicited per year under the IDIQ contract?

It is anticpated that 30 TO will be issued per year.

Will contractors be required to submit a proposal for every task order issued under this MACC?

Each Offeror is required to submit a response or proposal to all TOPRs. Offerors are not obligated to propose on all TOs; however, they are required to contact the Ordering Contracting Officer prior to the proposal due date in writing if they cannot participate in the walk through or submit an offer. Failure to provide this notification may impact future consideration for TOPRs or lead to Off Ramping from the IDIQ. Offerors shall maintain a minimum of an 80% participation rate per year. Failure to meet the 80% participation rate will be considered in the Government's evaluation of the Offeror's performance and may result in Off Ramping of an Offeror.

Section L paragraph 1.8 Joint Venture: If an All Small Mentor-Protégé relationship is pending SBA approval and a Letter of Intent is submitted with the proposal, will this be accepted as a viable Mentor-Protégé Team for evaluation purposes?

Yes, but must be approved prior to award.

Will Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) rating documents or the reusable NAVFAC USACE PPQ be accepted instead of submitting form L6?

No, L6 (current L5) must be provided, but CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Will Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) rating documents be accepted instead of submitting form L8?

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Is a contractor project valued at over $5M considered more relevant than a project valued at $500k?

Project will be rated as defined in Section M Table M1.

Are design/build projects considered more relevant than design/bid/build projects? Project will be rated as defined in Section M Table M1.

Is there a hubzone pricing preference/discount included under this solicitation?

This is a small business set aside the discount only applies to Full & Open.

FAR 19.1307 Price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns.

Will task order proposals require a technical and a price component, or just a price component?

TOs may be awarded based on the utilization of any of the following source selection processes: Tradeoff process, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), or any other evaluation process basis identified in the TOPR depending on the unique requirements of each TO.

Section L 2.4 Indexing provides a table with page maximums, Volumes III and IV, list 12/10 pages respectively for “other information” that is not defined or reflected in Section M evaluation. Please clarify what information might be included.

i.e. provide additional information including but not limited to discusssing teaming arragnment, JV, or organizatinal structure change history

Can all forms like Attachment L4 be provided in MS Word format in lieu of a pdf file?

This would help maximize the information to be presented for each project

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

Paragraph 2.5.3.2, Page 10 of 12, Section L, states that if a project is more than 80% complete, then this project can be submitted. It further states that the completion percentage must be validated with a government approved progress report. Our firm utilizes Primavera P6 which generally have lengthy reports. Can these pages of this report be excluded in the 36 page limitations for the Technical Experience Proposal?

Also, could a payment history report be provided which indicates the completion percentage?

The pages limitation will remain unchanged. The Offeror can validate completion with a government approved progress report. For commercial contracts, an equivalent customer validation of progress completion report may be used in lieu of a government approved progress report.

Paragraph 2.1, Page 5 of 12, Section L, requires that the 50 Division Excel Worksheet be submitted in an editable format (Excel). While this can be done, it is suggested that a duplicate copy in a pdf format also be required. The editable format could mistakeable be changed.

Updated to include both formats.

Paragraph 2.5.1, Page 7 of 12, Section L, mentions Section B and Section C-H are not to be completed by the Offeror. Should these Sections be mentioned or identified in the Table of Contents for the proposal?

No, since they will not be in your proposal reference is not necessary.

Paragraphs 2.5.3.3 and 2.5.3.4, Page 10 of 12, Section L, state that Teaming Arrangements and Organizational Structure Change are to be presented Volume III, Technical Experience. Also, Paragraphs 2.5.4.2 and 2.5.4.3, Pages 11 and 12 of 12, Section L also state that Teaming Arrangements and Organizational Structure Change are to be presented in Volume IV, Past Performance. The Organizational Structure Change paragraphs are identical. Should the same information be provided in both Volume III and Volume IV?

Yes, same information shall be provided in both sections if applicable.

Paragraph 2.5.4.4, Page 12 of 12, Section L, discusses customer questionnaires. Are these questionnaires Attachment L8? Perhaps Paragraph 2.5.4.4 and Paragraph

2.5.4.5 should be combined.

Updated. Yes, as referenced in the para, L8 (current L7) is the questionnaire.

Paragraph 2.5.4.5, Page 12 of 12, Section L, states that the Past Performance Customer Questionnaire (Attachment L8) is to be sent directly to elona.jarrell.1@us.af.mil. However, it also says to send to Elona Jarrell or provide the questionnaire back to the Offeror. So are POC completed questionnaires to be sent directly to Elona Jarrell or can they be sent to the Offeror and then be included in the Offeror’s proposal?

Section L allows for either option.

Paragraph 1.5, Page 2 of 8, Section M identifies evaluation factors as Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3. In Section L there is no reference to a Factor, only references Volumes. It appears that Factor 3 covers Volume III and Volume IV.

Section L is instruction, Section M is evaluation factors

Paragraph 2.5.1.2 and Paragraph 2.5.1.3, Page 8 of 12, Section L, requires certain information such as Points of Contact, DUNS code, and other. Should this information be presented as a cover sheet in the Table of Contents?

Include a cover sheet with this information in Volume I

Could CPARS evaluations be utilized in lieu of Past Performance Customer Questionnaires (Attachment L8)? Attachment L8 is 8 pages long and the technical factors request supporting information. Most customer resist completing questionnaires for various reasons and some customers will not even complete lengthy questionnaires. CPARS evaluation provide the same information indicated in the questionnaire

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Please consider interim and final CCASS evaluations as an option in lieu of a new PPQ attachment L8. Contracting Officers time is valuable.

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Recommend making safety data part of the evaluation as a complete Factor 3 under technical proposal. EMR and OSHA metrics will tell you a great deal about a company and if they are stringent on safety. For example our roofing JV (Yerkes South – Advanced Roofing JV) has an EMR of 0.58, one of the lowest in Florida. We are very diligent about safety.

The evalation factors selected have determined to result in awarding to offeror that are in the best interest of government.

In step 4 of page 2 of Section M, Is it possible to define “unreasonable and unbalanced pricing” using a percentage? Not sure if it is possible but we have lost IDIQ awards because we bid honestly with accurate numbers and others bid so low they lose money on the seed task order and call it a “cost of doing business”.

No, we expect unreasonable and unbalanced pricing to become evident through bid comparison based on professional judgement.

All bases operate a bit differently and it sometimes takes a while to meet people and learn processes for local items like Fire Alarm and Communications. In section M have consider adding under more relevant actual Eglin, Hurlburt and Tyndall projects completed.

No, the evalation factors selected have determined to result in awarding to offeror that are in the best interest of government.

Per Section M, the Attachment L4 is limited to 4 pages but the fillable space will reduce size to submit more information. Is the limit applied to the physical number of pages or also the text within the page?

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

We respectfully request Attachment 4, if limited to the text within the page (inclusive of fillable space), be allowable in contractor format to assess correct page count.

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

Would the Government consider reducing the percent completion requirement to 50% to allow for more relevant ongoing project experience to be used?

No, the evalation factors selected have determined to result in awarding to offeror that are in the best interest of government.

Please advise if the Section L Attachment L1 form can be provided in contractor format.

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

For Section L, Section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, If we are to provide teaming partner experience, do we need to provide this experience within the six (6) required projects or in addition to those projects (12)?

Offerors SHALL use the same references as provided in the Technical Volume under Technical Experience Reference (Attachment L4, current L3) for their past performance references. Each submission for Past Performance Information (Attachment L6, current L5) is limited to five (5) pages per information sheet. Offerors shall only submit contracts for evaluation that are both recent and relevant.

For Section L, Section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, similarly with subcontractors, if we provide major subcontractor experience, is that in addition to the six (6) prime contractor's experience?

Offerors SHALL use the same references as provided in the Technical Volume under Technical Experience Reference (Attachment L4, current L3) for their past performance references. Each submission for Past Performance Information (Attachment L6, current L5) is limited to five (5) pages per information sheet. Offerors shall only submit contracts for evaluation that are both recent and relevant.

Please adjust the recency assessment in Section 2.3 Factor 3 Past Performance (page 6 of Section M) to be consistent with Section 2.1 Factor 1 – Technical Experience Subfactor 2 (b)(page 4 of Section M), for recency to be both completed within 5 years and 80% complete.

Corrected.

Section L, 2.3 Page Size, Format, and Limit, specifies 12-point font, but because the form is fillable, that is not something that can be managed by the contractor. Please verify that for fillable forms, the font requirement will not apply.

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

These questionnaires (Attachment L8) may require a lot of time from our contractual POCs. Please consider allowing CPARs or PPQs to be included in lieu of these questionnaires or providing additional time in the proposal process to complete this task.

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

The Attachment+L2-50+DCE+Worksheet is an unusually complex format for pricing breakdown information. We would respectfully request that the provisional breakdown is only provided for hard construction costs (the summary sheet) to avoid being overly burdensome to the contractor in the cost estimation process, and avoid providing too high a level of detail for administrative type costs (overhead, profit).

50 Division Required

To reduce the onus on our Government clients, may Offerors submit CPARS to substantiate our past performance in lieu of sending out new Attachment L8 Past Performance Questionnaires?

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Attachments L4 and L6 were provided as PDF fill-in forms. May offerors convert these PDFs to word documents and reduce the row heights, as long as we maintain compliance with content, font size, and page limits?

Font and page limits will apply, however attachments will be provided as Word Documents, with the exception of L2 (current L1) 50 Div Excel and L8 (current L7) Past Performace Questionnaire PDF.

Did the government intend to repeat Section L paragraph 2.5.3.4 Organizational Structure Change History in paragraph 2.5.4.3 Organizational Structure Change History?

Yes, same information shall be provided in both sections if applicable.

If the maximum TO amount is to be greater than $10M, recommend the minimum bonding level be adjusted to cover a maximum TO amount.

Maxiumum TO is $9.5M

$20M aggregate bonding on a contract that is slated to be ~$100M per year would limit a contractor’s ability to compete on all the TOs, which could result in an “off-ramp” due to not providing competitive proposals for 80% of TOPRs. Recommend increasing the aggregate minimum bonding level to an amount closer to expected annual execution amount.

Bonding capacity will remain unchanged. Each Offeror is required to submit a response or proposal to all TOPRs to maintain a 80% participation. Offerors are not obligated to propose on all TOs; however, they are required to contact the Ordering Contracting Officer prior to the proposal due date in writing if they cannot participate in the walk through or submit an offer.

How will the proposals be determined “competitive” as used for determination of off-ramping per attachment MACC_Ordering Guide pg 4:

a) Failure to provide competitive proposals for at least 80% of TOPR requests over a twelve month period of performance (It is the responsibility of the Offeror to track percentage submitted.)

No, Government will track. Each Offeror is required to submit a response or proposal to all TOPRs to maintain a 80% participation. Offerors are not obligated to propose on all TOs; however, they are required to contact the Ordering Contracting Officer prior to the proposal due date in writing if they cannot participate in the walk through or submit an offer.

Under "Off Ramp Procedures", "The Government, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to Off Ramp a Offeror by enforcing a contract Termination, at no cost to the Government, for the reasons below as applied to the Offeror or any of its Subcontractors:" with the reasons listed being basic failures to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract/task order(s) under the base contract.

However, this conflicts with language under "30 Day Notice". Under "30 Day Notice", the Government cites "Additional Procedures to remove an Offeror from the pool of active IDIQ contract awardees includes FAR Part 49 for contracts or orders under (Termination for Default, Termination for Convenience of the Government)". Is it the Government's intention to retain the right to off-ramp a contractor without cause (terminate for convenience), and deny the off-ramped contractor the ability to submit a final termination settlement proposal as allowed under FAR 52.249-2?

Off Ramping will be done in regards to future opportunity to bid on requirements.

When a contractor is Off Ramped, they will continue working the projects they have been awarded, but will not be eligible to bid on future work, so there would be no final termination settlement proposal on work that does not exist. Any Termination for Cause will not be considered Off Ramping and will be IAW FAR Part 49.

Considering the large 8(a) presence in the Florida panhandle, and the overwhelming amount of work performed by 8(a) firms at Eglin AFB specifically (~85% of construction projects), can the Government provide a rationale for both not setting the acquisition aside for 8(a) firms in total or at a minimum reserving a portion of the awards for 8(a) firms?

The prospect of setting aside a portion for 8(a) firms was discussed with the SBA and they said that if you set some aside, those 8(a) firms can only compete with the other 8(a) firms for set aside task orders and not the entire group so having a SB set aside was our best solution so that all can bid on all task orders.

Please confirm that a JV between a large and small business does not qualify as a small business unless both entities have entered a SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement (MPA)? The reasoning is that this project is being solicited under NAICS code 236220, with a size standard of $39.5M. Per 13 CFR § 125.8: "a joint venture...

may submit an offer... so long as each concern is small under the size standard" and 13 CFR §121.b.6 "A firm that has an SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement (MPA)... is not affiliated with its mentor."

A Mentor-protégé has an agreement with the SBA, but one will act as the prime and the other the sub. If the SB is the prime, then the sub doesn’t matter as long as the prime is doing 25% of the work. ii) Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 125.9 of this chapter may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, and the joint venture meets the requirements of § 124.513 (c) and (d), § 125.8(b) and (c), § 125.18(b)(2) and (3), § 126.616(c) and (d), or § 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate. Except for sole source 8(a) awards, the joint venture must meet the requirements of § 124.513(c) and (d), § 125.8(b) and (c), § 125.18(b)(2) and (3), § 126.616(c) and (d), or § 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate, as of the date of the final proposal revision for negotiated acquisitions and final bid for sealed bidding.

For a sole source 8(a) award, the joint venture must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of § 124.513(c) and (d) prior to the award of the contract.

Attachment L8, Past Performance Customer Questionnaire is provided. Past experience has shown that some Contracting Officers will not fill out a past performance questionnaire for a project once they have completed a CPARS evaluation project. In light of this, would you consider allowing CPARS evaluations to be submitted in lieu of attachment L8? If so, will CPARS submissions be excluded from the page count limit just like attachment L8?

CPAR reports can be submitted in lieu of L8 (current L7).

Section 2.5.4.1 – Recency and Relevancy of Past Performance Information states that Six (6) projects (Attachment L6) may be submitted for active or completed contracts/task orders for the Prime, Teaming Partner or Joint venture AND you may also submit up to six (6) past performance sheets for other major subcontractors.

According to the table in section 2.4-Indexing, the total page limit allowed for Volume IV – Past Performance is 40 pages. If a firm were to submit 6 projects on their own, along with 6 additional projects for major subcontractors, this would exceed the 40 page section limit. If the Contractor has 6 projects of their own that meet the requirements, are the additional 6 projects from subcontractors needed or desired? If so, and 12 projects are desired, will you please consider increasing the page limit to allow for a submission of all 12 projects?

Corrected. Offerors SHALL use the same references as provided in the Technical Volume under Technical Experience Reference (Attachment L4) for their past performance references. Each submission for Past Performance Information (Attachment L6) is limited to five (5) pages per information sheet. Offerors shall only submit contracts for evaluation that are both recent and relevant.

2.5.3 Vol III has sections 2.5.3.3 Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures and 2.5.3.4 Organizational Structure Change History. These sections seem to be repeated in

2.5.4 Vol IV sections 2.5.4.2 Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures (with 2.5.4.3 Organizational Structure Change History). Is this intentional? Should the same information be included in both sections? If not, please clarify what information should be included in each volume related to these sections.

Yes, same information shall be provided in both sections if applicable.

Attachment L1 Teaming Matrix was included. There is no reference to it in the description of this matrix in section 2.5.1 Volume 1, but it is listed in the table on page 6 of 12 that says it should go in Volume 1, however, it is listed in section 2.5.3.3 which in volume III. Please advise if this should be put in Volume I or Volume III or both.

Yes, same information shall be provided in both sections if applicable.

Attachment L1 - Please advise if attachment L1 should be used a) ONLY if the prime contractor wants to use past performance from team members/JV partners OR b) it is supposed to be used to show team members who will support the seed project FA2823-22-F-XXXX that will be included in the actual solicitation, or c) used to show the Prime Contractors proposed team (designer of record and key subcontractors) who will support the prime on the overall MACC contract, even if they are not needed to meet past performance requirements.

Former Attachment L1, Teaming Matrix is no longer a requirement. Teaming arrangment details must be captured on Past Performance Information Sheets.

Paragraph 2.5.1.3, Page 8 of 12, Section L, states that the Offeror is to provide the “labor surplus area designation”. Please explain how this information is to be presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Requirement to provide this information has been removed.

We, and other Small Businesses, would be more likely to submit a bid if the potential awardee pool was decreased to 10 highly qualified prime contractors (7 awards and 3 on-ramp pool) because we feel that would lead to an increase in the participation of Small Businesses with limited resources due to higher baseline win ratios for all contractors involved. We feel that submitting against 14 other contractors on every task order may be unduly burdensome on Small Businesses with limited resources and would lead to more laborious source selection for the Government in awarding both the initial IDIQ/MACC and all subsequent task orders.

Would the Government please consider changing the acquisition strategy to a total of 10 contracts with 7 active and 3 in a reserve pool with on- and off-ramp intervals of one-year? As mentioned, this would greatly influence our decision to allocate resources to a proposal submission for the MACC.

Based on the projected workload across all three geographically separate Installations, we have determined that a pool of 10 active and 5 inactive is expected to be the adequate number of contractors.