QA Session for FA301621R0017_08202021.pdf

FA301621R0017 Page 1 of 28

POSTED SOLICITATION – QUESTIONS FROM INDUSTRY

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

The following (132) questions were submitted in response to solicitation FA301621R0017 and are listed in no particular order. Please note that the essence of some of the questions may be repetitive and therefore the response will refer back to the first question submitted.

1. L2 Proposal Preparation, 2.1 Proposal Submission – please confirm that offerors may submit via DoD SAFE upload OR mail/hand carried CDs/DVDs, not AND (as in both – upload and CD/DVD)

Government Response: Please refer to revised Section L; Paragraphs 2.1, 2.1.1, and 2.1.2.

2. L2 Proposal Preparation, 2.3 Format and Content – the solicitation states “Each of the three (3) volumes specified in Section L paragraph 2 shall be prepared as a single volume. A cover sheet should be included in each electronic volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder”

This is contradictory – are offerors to submit 3 separate volumes, or 1 volume broken in 3 parts? Also, there was no requirement for a printed copy in Section 2.1 Proposal submission, so are binders required?

Government Response: See revision to language in Section L, Paragraph 2.3. No binders are required (only electronic proposals will be accepted).

3. 3.1.1 Volume II – Executive Experience and Technical - 3.1.1.1 FACTOR 1 –

Executive Experience [Phase I] requires 6 project references to be submitted. 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects also requires 6 project references to be submitted. Are these the same 6 projects, (same requirement) or is the Government looking for a total of 12 separate project references to satisfy both of these requirements?

Government Response: Only a total of six (6) projects are required to evaluate Factor 1 please refer to first paragraph at 3.1.1.1; and see the Proposal Completeness Checklist (Attachment 12).

4. 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects, (a) iii – The solicitation states

“The Prime offeror shall submit at least three (3) of the projects performed by the Prime contractor that have concurrent period of performance to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent DB projects.” If the offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture, does the JV have to submit at least 3 projects? Or can the min. 3 projects be submitted by one of the JV member companies?

Government Response: Please refer to solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19). Please refer to Section M, paragraph 3.1.1 (“Standard has been met when:… In the event an offeror is a JV the offeror may submit

FA301621R0017 Page 2 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

DB projects executed by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously to demonstrate experience;”).

5. 3.1.3 Volume III – Past Performance, 3.1.3.1.2.1 Quality & Satisfaction Surveys – Are offerors allowed to submit completed CPARs evaluations in lieu of Quality and Satisfaction Surveys? Government clients have repeatedly denied completing such surveys or Past Performance Questionnaires if a CPARs evaluation exists, as they claim CPARs is the official Government evaluation method, and will not complete something else.

Government Response: CPARS Assessment will not be accepted in lieu the Quality & Satisfaction Survey. Please refer to Section L, paragraphs 3.1.3.1.1; and Quality Assessment in Section M, Paragraph 3.4.2.2.3.

6. Should all narrative for teaming partners be detailed in Attachment 17? Or is there a narrative outside of Attachment 17?

Government Response: Yes. Please refer to Section L, Paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (see section c).

7. What are the anticipated task order sizes?

Government Response: The Government does not have any specific anticipated task order size (dollar value); however, offerors should refer to FAR Clause 52.216-19.

8. There are several Buy American Clauses included in the solicitation. Which ones will apply to this project?

Government Response: The Basic IDIQ contract may include projects where either FAR 52.225-9 or 52.225-11 may be applicable and thus both clauses are included in the RFP and resulting contracts.

9. Why does the solicitation refer to “oral orders” since the contractor “ shall not commence performance or incur in any costs until a fully executed task order is issued?” Please confirm that any reference to “oral orders” is not applicable.

Government Response: Please refer to Ordering Guide Section G (paragraphs G1 through G3).

10. Solicitation indicates on page 52 that Payment Bond or Irrevocable Letters of Credit qualify as payment protection while page 55 indicates P&P bonds shall be provided. Are bonds required or are Letters of Credit acceptable?

FA301621R0017 Page 3 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Government Response: The applicability of FAR Clause 52.228-13 will be for Task Orders between $350K to $150K and the applicability of FAR clause 52.228-15 will be for Task Orders exceeding $150K.

11. Solicitation Section G, Paragraph B. Task Order Procedures Sub Paragraph 1 indicates that “The TOPR will be issued to all awarded contractors under this IDIQ to perform the required Design-Bid Build or Design-Build Construction projects.” As contractors will be performing both Design-Bid Build and Design-Build projects, request the relevant experience criteria in Attachment 19 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph

3.1.1 be revised to include Design-Bid Build projects.

Government Response: No change to the solicitation requirement as the government determined it was critical to the success of the program to evaluate the contractor’s Design/Build experience.

12. In order to increase participation and competition, request the relevant experience criteria in Attachment 19 Section M Evaluation Factors For Award, paragraph 3.1.1(a)ii be revised to $3.0M from $5.0M and paragraph 3.1.1.(d) be revised from five (5) years to six (6) years.

Government Response: No changes will be made to the “Recency” period; however, offerors should refer to the solicitation Amendment for revisions to Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19). The committee determined that the current threshold would allow offerors more flexibility in project selection.

13. Please reference Section L, paragraph 1.8 of the above-referenced solicitation. Could you please change the deadline for questions to be submitted from 14 days after issuance of the solicitation to 14 days prior to the due date? This is not due until September 6, 2021. There is a lot of time between August 4, 2021 (14 days after issuance) and September 6, 2021 (the due date) when we may need to ask a question of the government.

Government Response: Please refer to revised new due date/time listed in Amendment 0001.

14. Please reference Section L paragraph 1.7. We have a DOR that we will be using for this contract. Does this mean we must enter into a formal Teaming Arrangement with the DOR since we will include them in the organizational chart under paragraph 3.1.2.1?

Government Response: Please refer to Section L, Paragraph 3.1, Tab C for information referencing Team Arrangement requirements.

15. Please reference Section L paragraph 3.1.1.1.1/c. Are we only to submit Attachment 17 if we have a Teaming Partner for this proposal?

Government Response: Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (c).

FA301621R0017 Page 4 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

If we are to submit even without a Teaming Partner, are we to list the 6 projects submitted under subparagraph a above?

Government Response: If submitting without Teaming Partners no projects need to be submitted on Attachment 17.

If so, why would you want to know the first-tier subcontractors (mechanical/electrical) we used on previous projects; there is no connection between mechanical/electrical subcontractors we used in the past and the mechanical/electrical subcontractors we may use on future task orders under this umbrella contract, especially when you consider the geographic region covered by this umbrella contract.

Government Response: Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (c).

16. Please reference Section L paragraph 3.1.2.1.c. General Contractors do not have proposed subcontractors at this stage. We will not know proposed subcontractors until we bid on individual task orders. Please remove this requirement to list specific subcontractors.

Government Response: Please refer to solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment18 and Attachment 19). Section L, Paragraph 3.1.2.1(i); Section M, Paragraph 3.2.1(i); and Section M, Paragraph 3.2.1 “The standard has been met…”.

17. The due date is Labor Day. Could you please change the due date to September 3, 2021?

Government Response: Please refer to Question #13.

18. Please reference Section L paragraph 3,1 Tab C. ii. There seems to be inapplicable information to this umbrella contract that needs to be removed: “This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.”

Government Response: No change will be made because of this inquiry.

19. Please reference Section L paragraph 3.1.3.1.2.1. Are Quality and Satisfaction Surveys required for federal projects with final CPARS evaluations? Asking our federal clients to complete a 6 page survey is asking a lot, especially when they have already completed CPARS evaluations. If we are required to submit even if a final CPARS exists, what format should a client authorization letter take? Is it simply a copy of an email to the commercial client notifying them that they will be receiving a survey from JBSA?

FA301621R0017 Page 5 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Government Response: Yes. Client Authorization Letters are required for Commercial Contracts, please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.2.1.

No, it should be an Authorization Letter from an Official Representative of the Company;

it is appropriate if the offeror choses to notify those references in advance about the survey.

20. Are we to include Attachment 12 Proposal Completeness Checklist anywhere in our proposal or is it included for reference only?

Government Response: No, it is for reference only.

21. Please reference Section L paragraph 3.1.3.1.2.1. We are directed to complete only

Sections 1 and 2 of Attachment 15. However, don’t we also need to complete Section 3 so that you know to whom to send the survey?

Government Response: Yes; this reference at Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.2.1 has been corrected. Offerors are to complete only Sections 1 through 3 of Attachment 15. The Government in turn will send the survey to the references. Offerors may contact those references to let them know about the upcoming survey but those should be returned by the reference directly to the Contracting Officer.

22. Section L.2.1 states - only electronic proposals will be required (no hard copies). Section

L 1.3 states "no electronic copies will be accepted in the absence of hard copy. Please confirm that only electronic submissions will be required.

Government Response: Reference has be corrected; please refer to revised Section L, paragraph 1.3.

23. Reference Attachment 18: Section L - Instructions to Offeror’s, Part 3.1.1 Volume II- Executive Experience and Technical. Under Tab A, Part 3.1.1.1 Factor 1-Executive Experience [Phase1] it states that “The project referenced shall have dollar values ranging from $750K and up to $10.0M, and ……”. Under Part 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects, sub-part (a)ii it states “Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued at over $5.0M”. Question: Which one of these statements is correct? Is the maximum dollar amount for any project submitted $10M? If so, we may not be able to propose as some of our most recent DB experience is over $10M.

Government Response: Both statements are accurate. However, please refer to the solicitation amendment for revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19).

24. Reference Attachment 18: Section L - Instructions to Offeror’s, Part 3.1.1 Volume II-

Executive Experience and Technical. Under Tab A, Part 3.1.1.1 Factor 1-Executive Experience [Phase1] it states that “Relevancy. For purpose of this evaluation, relevancy

FA301621R0017 Page 6 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

of projects is defined as Design-Build (DB) projects completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance on this solicitation)……”. Under Part 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects, sub-part (d) it states “The design portion of the contract/project shall have been completed within the past five (5) years (from the date of issuance of this solicitation).

Which one of these statements is correct? If you are requiring that the design portion be complete with the past 5 years, then the definition of Relevancy is not accurate. I could have a DB project that has been completed with the last 5 years, but the design portion was not. We would prefer that the sub-part (d) be removed and the definition of “Relevancy” remain.

Government Response: Both statements are accurate. The Design portion should also be completed within the last 5 years.

25. Reference Attachment 18: Section L - Instructions to Offeror’s, Part 3.1.1 Volume II-

Executive Experience and Technical. Under Part 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design- Build Projects, sub-part (a)i it states that the “Offeror shall submit four (4) projects valued at least $750K and not to exceed $5.0M” and sub-part (a)ii states “Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued at over $5.0M”. We actually have the opposite. We have more large DB projects than small that fit in the window of 5 years.

Question: Can the wording of these sub-parts be modified to require a minimum of two

(2) projects for each dollar range with a total maximum of 6 projects overall? You would think that it would be a positive for the contractor to be able to show more DB projects for the larger dollar range, but as it is written now we would not comply with the requirements.

Government Response: Please refer to the solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19).

26. Concurrent DB projects: must each of the 6 relevant projects submitted that best demonstrate experience be concurrent with at least 2 of the other projects submitted, or may concurrency be demonstrated through other projects that will not be included in the Submittal? Please advise.

Government Response: No; the six project references shall meet the parameters identified in Section L, 3.1.1.1.1 (a)(i) through (a)(iii).

27. Attachment 18, Section L - 3.1.3.1 – Volume III, Tab A indicates that at least 4 PPRs must be from Prime Contractor, and we may submit up to 8 PPRs. However, requirements say to provide PPRs for each of the past/present contracts identified, which

FA301621R0017 Page 7 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

are up to a maximum of 6. Could another 2 PPRs be provided for projects that show concurrency, but will not be included in the Volume II, Tab A? Please advise.

Government Response: Yes, offerors may use the same or different projects to meet each of the requirements for Experience (Factor 1) and Past Performance (Factor 3).

28. Attachment 19, Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, 3.4.2.2.2 – on page 8, Table 2.

Past Performance Relevance Ratings, the “Very Relevant” rating describes projects valued greater than $750K, including and up to one or more valued greater than $2.0M.

However, in Section L: Instructions to Offerors, 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design- Build Projects – item (a) ii. on page 9 says, “Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued at over $5.0M”. Please clarify the Relevance Ratings versus Instructions to Offerors as it appears in order to achieve a Very Relevant rating, offeror must submit one or more project valued at greater than $2.0M rather than submitting two projects valued at over $5.0M.

Government Response: To demonstrate Experience there is a specific definition and qualifiers for “Experience Relevancy” (see Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1), which may differ to the definition for “Past Performance Relevancy” (see Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1) when evaluating Experience or Past Performance. Offerors should refer to the solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19).

29. Attachment 1, Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.1.1.d says, “The contractor shall provide a line-item construction cost estimate using their preferred database, following the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Division format on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with a sub-total of the line items (Labor, Materials, and Equipment) used for each Division, in the format indicated on the attachment.” However, paragraph D.2.b on Page 15 of the solicitation says, “Each cost proposal shall be based upon individual Line items derived from the RSMeans catalog based on National Total Bare Cost (which excludes RSMeans overhead and profit) of material, labor and equipment as shown in Attachment 5 in Section J.” Paragraph D.2.c on Page 15 says, “The Contractor shall be required to use the latest version of RSMeans Facilities Construction Cost Data Book for all cost estimates.” Paragraphs D.2.d and D.2.e have additional requirements that pertain to the use of RSMeans. General contractors and subcontractors do not use RSMeans to prepare estimates. They use their own database that is based on their historical cost data, current market conditions and is one that they feel, leads to the fewest mistakes. A requirement to use RSMeans will severely limit competition (which drives up costs to the government) as most, if not all, subcontractors will not price task orders if using RSMeans is a requirement. In addition, the award of approximately seven active MACC contracts ensures the government is getting competitive pricing. This competition negates the need for RSMeans pricing. For these reasons, we think it is in the government’s best interest to allow contractors to prepare estimates in accordance with Paragraph 1.1.1.d of

FA301621R0017 Page 8 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Section 01 11 00. Can we prepare our estimates using our preferred database that follows the CSI Division format in excel instead of using RSMeans? If use of RSMeans is not required, please remove all references to RS Means from the solicitation. Please note that the draft solicitation that was sent out for comments prior to this final solicitation being issued had many more references to RSMeans that have since been removed. We believe the government may have inadvertently left in the references to RSMeans that is currently found on 15 of the solicitation.

Government Response: Yes the references in Section G of the solicitation (Ordering Guide) at Paragraph D(2)(b) through (e) were inadvertently left and have been removed.

Please refer to Amendment 0001.

The Requirement to use UNIT PRICE BOOK (UPB): RS MEANS (NATIONAL) TOTAL BARE COST / San Antonio, TX Weighted Average (Total) City Cost Index. / or NON-PRICED LINE ITEMS has been deleted from the solicitation. The contractor shall provide a line item construction cost estimate using their preferred database, following the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Division format on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with a sub-total of the line items (Labor, Materials, and Equipment) used for each Division, in the format indicated on the attachment.

30. Reference: Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build

Projects, Sub-Para (e): Are contractors allowed to convert Attachments 13 and 16 to Word for formatting purpose, as long as all parts, page limitations, and final proposal submission format stipulated in Section L, Para 2.1.3. are adhered to?

Government Response: No.

31. Paragraph Reference: Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing

Design-Build Projects, Sub-Para (a) states: “The offeror shall submit six (6) relevant DB projects that best demonstrate experience on projects of various size, scope, and complexity.” Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports states:

“The offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports.” If eight (8) past performance reports are required:

Should the Offeror provide eight (8) DB projects when responding to Para 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects requirements?

If six (6) DB projects are required, can the Government please explain what information should be included in the remaining two (2) past performance reports?

Government Response: To demonstrate Experience at reference Section L, paragraph

3.1.1.1.1 the offeror is required to submit six (6) Design Build projects. To demonstrate Past Performance offerors may submit (more than 6) up to eight (8) Past Performance references; please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1.

FA301621R0017 Page 9 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Offerors may also reference answers to Questions #27 and #28.

32. Reference: Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports states:

“The offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports.” Can the Government please clarify if these reports are for the same six (6) projects referenced in Para 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects, Sub- Para (a)? If so, should the number of Past Performance Reports be changed to six (6)?

Government Response: No. The projects referenced in Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 maybe same/different than the projects referenced at Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1.

Offerors may also reference answers to Questions #27 and #28.

33. Reference: Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports: Is Past

Performance Summary Page required to be submitted by all Offerors under Tab A, or is it only for if the Offeror claims there is no past performance?

Government Response: No. It is only required if offeror claims no past performance.

34. Reference Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.3.1 FACTOR 3 – Past Performance and

L2 – Proposal Preparation, 2.4.2.: If Offerors are to submit eight (8) past performance reports, eight (8) Quality and Satisfaction Surveys in Volume III, and one (1) Past performance Summary Page, respectfully request to increase Volume III page limit to 105 pages.

Government Response: No change will be made. Past Performance Summary page is only required if offeror claims no past performance.

35. Reference: Solicitation FA301621R0017, Para D. Pricing of Task Orders, Sub-para (c) requires Contractors to use the latest version of RSMeans Facilities Construction Cost Data Book for all cost estimates. Attachment 1, SOW, Section 01 11 00, 1.1.1(d) states:

“The contractor shall provide a line item construction cost estimate using their preferred database, following the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Division format on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with a sub-total of the line items (Labor, Materials, and Equipment) used for each Division, in the format indicated on the attachment.” This statement is also in alignment with Attachment 4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown. Can the Government please clarify if RSMeans is required for all estimating purposes under this contract?

Government Response: Please reference the response to Question #29.

36. Reference: Attachment 1, SOW, Section 01 45 00.00 10, Para 3.2.1(a): Is it the Government intent to have a Construction Quality Control Manager reporting to the project Superintendent or should this position be independent of operations?

FA301621R0017 Page 10 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Government Response: No, the Construction Quality Control Manager will not report to the project Superintendent. Please see revised SOW and Specifications, Section 01 45

00.00 10 (Attachment 1)

37. Reference: Attachment 1, SOW, Section 01 78 00. Part 2 Products, 2.1(b) states that a submittal register data file gets imported into the Resident Management System (RMS).

Does the Government intend to use RMS for all contract administration needs on this

MACC?

Government Response: No; RMS will not be used on this contract. Please see revised SOW and Specifications, Section 01 78 00, Part 2, Products, paragraph 2.1(b) (Attachment 1)

38. Reference: Attachment 18 / Section L, Para 3.1.3.1.2.1 Quality & Satisfaction Surveys:

Please confirm that Offerors are only to fill out Sections 1 and 2 of Attachment 15 and are not to contact our references/points of contact requesting to complete these surveys prior to proposal due date.

Government Response: Please refer to Question #21.

39. Reference Attachment 18 - Section L Instructions to Offerors _Rev 01July2021, page 5 of 13, paragraph 2.4.1. Indexing: This paragraph states, in part: “Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.” We believe this requirement does not apply for those firms submitting an electronic proposal. We are creating bookmarks within the PDFs and believe this is sufficient. Do you concur?

Government Response: Yes. Please refer to revised Section L, paragraph 2.4.1.

40. Reference Attachment 18 - Section L Instructions to Offerors _Rev 01July2021, page 7 of 13, Tab C, ii. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations: This paragraph states, in part: “Provide the company/division's facility code; and labor surplus area designation.” Can you please tell us where to get these two pieces of information?

Government Response: This is the offerors Facility Code; Labor Surplus Area Designation maybe found on the US Department of Labor website.

41. Reference: Tab A 3.1.1.1 FACTOR 1 – Executive Experience [Phase I] “The project referenced shall have dollar values ranging from $750K and up to $10.0M, and include multi-discipline projects to include multiple disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or sub-contractors.”

FA301621R0017 Page 11 of 28

Question: Will the government consider increasing the $10M threshold to $14M in order to allow for more projects that meet the complete design-build effort for multi-disciplines?

Government Response: Please refer to the solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19). Offerors may also refer to the response of Question #23.

42. If a Joint Venture is proposed, do DUNS and CAGE codes have to be established prior to submitting the proposal for the JV specifically? Or is it sufficient if it is processing prior to contract award if each GC already has established DUNS and Cage codes separately?

Government Response: Yes; refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1 Tab C (ii). Offeror may refer to the SBA website for information (https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/joint-ventures).

43. With the new federal roll out of contractors being required to be vaccinated, does this include general contractors working on a government installation?

Government Response: Contractors will have to adhere to any Executive Orders and/or Mandates at that time.

44. Section L, Tab C, para iv. Teaming Agreements states that Primes can team with no more than three (3) teaming partners to meet the requirements of the RFP. Please clarify that teaming partners are considered other Primes, or Subcontractors entering into a teaming agreement.

Government Response: Yes. Please refer to Section L, para. 1.7.

45. Section L, Tab A, Section 3.1.1.1 Projects: Would the Government accept a project(s) where a formal modification on a construction project contract was issued to perform redesign work and the project was subsequently constructed based on the approved redesign under the modified contract?

Government Response: To meet Relevancy the project had to be a Design Build project at the onset.

46. Due to the current proposal submittal date being on the Federal Holiday of Labor Day

(September 6, 2021) will the Government kindly provide a bid extension?

Government Response: Please refer to the response of Question #13.

47. Para 1.1 of Section M states a single RFP will be issued and para 2.1 states the evaluation will be in two (2) phases. Typically with a two-phase design-build selection procedure https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/joint-ventures https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/joint-ventures

FA301621R0017 Page 12 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

we see the first phase submitted, evaluated and the companies who make it past the first round then submitting a second phase proposal in accordance with FAR 36.3. Please confirm all documents required for both phases of evaluation are to be submitted with the initial Proposal.

Government Response: Offerors are to submit all the information required in the Solicitation and Section L with the initial proposal. The two-phase Design-Build selection procedure at FAR 36.3 does not apply to this solicitation.

48. Section L, para 1.3 states “no electronic proposal submittals will be accepted in the absence of a hard copy”. Para 2.1 states “only electronic proposals will be required (no hard copies)” Para 2.1.2 states “Proposals may also be submitted by mail or hand-carried … mailed proposal must be CD or DVD” . Para 2.3 states “The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder” . Para 2.4 indicates that an electronic copy is to be provided or if hand carried or mailed CD/DVD are to be provided. Please clarify that is not a hard copy proposal submittal and that either we submit our proposal electronically using the DoD SAFE website per para 2.1 or submit by mail or hand using CD or DVD.

Government Response: Yes; no hard copy proposal submittal will be accepted. Please reference the response to Questions #1 and #2.

49. Section L para 3.1.3.1.2.1 states that for the Quality and Satisfaction Survey (Attachment

15) contractors are to complete Section 1 and 2 and return to the government who will forward them to the POCs for their completion. Do we submit these forms ahead of the proposal submission and if so by when or do we submit them with the Proposal?

Government Response: Quality and Satisfaction Survey (Attachment 15) shall be included with the proposal; please refer to Section L, para. 3.1.3.1.2.1.

Please also note the revisions made as noted on Question #21.

50. The response to questions from the draft solicitation indicated that the RS Means requirement would be deleted from the contract, and a CSI division breakdown would be the requirement. However the Solicitation document still includes the RS Means requirement on page 15, paragraphs 2b and 2c. Please confirm that RS Means unit pricing is not a requirement for this MACC.

Government Response: RS Means requirements have been removed. Please reference the response to Question #29.

51. In Section G. D.2.(b) and (c), the government is mandating the use of RSMeans as the only basis for all cost estimates. The RSMeans cost book is a proprietary product and it is our experience that the RSMeans cost database is typically 2+ years behind actual market prices. Furthermore, correction factors or cost overrides are typically not allowed

FA301621R0017 Page 13 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

by the government when using RSMeans. We can provide the bare cost of materials, labor and equipment requested by the government by using other comparable cost databases/software. Will the government permit the use of other nationally known cost databases/software?

52. In our discussions one area of concern was that Page 15 of the Solicitation under Section

D Pricing of Task Orders, Section 2b. it states that, “each cost proposal shall be based upon individual Line items derived from the RS Means catalog based on national Total Bare Cost. Paragraph C also requires RS Means for all cost estimates. See Below:

Is a lump sum dollar bid proposal with summary level CSI division total breakdowns acceptable in lieu of RS Means detailed pricing for all items as currently required by attachments 4 and 5?

53. Questions 2-6 also reference this requirement with all indicating that RS Means and Unit Price Book would not be required. We are working on a Go-No Go with our partners, and this is a key point of clarification that we are hoping to get resolved.

54. If the offeror is not using a design partners experience, does the offeror/prime contractor have to name a design partner for the MACC?

Government Response: If the offeror will be using a DOR or any other subcontractor (see Section L, paragraph 1.7) to meet the requirements at Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1.

or Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1 then a Teaming Partner Agreement is required.

55. Section L, 3.1.1.1.1 Experience, page 9 (a) ii Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued over $5M. For this requirement, is there a maximum project value not to exceed?

Government Response: Please refer to the solicitation Amendment for revisions to Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19). Offerors may also reference the response to Question #23.

56. Section L, 3.1.1.1.1 Experience, page 9 (a) iii The Prime offeror shall submit at least three (3) of the projects performed by the Prime contractor that have concurrent period of performance to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent DB projects.

FA301621R0017 Page 14 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

For Offerors to provide the most competitive proposal, will the government consider changing this factor to not limit the projects that can be submitted?

Government Response: No changes to the solicitation will be implemented based on the recommendations.

57. Section L, 3.1.1.1.1 Experience, page 9 (a) iii The Prime offeror shall submit at least three (3) of the projects performed by the Prime contractor that have concurrent period of performance to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent DB projects.

Will the government consider adding this information as an additional factor under experience per project instead of projects that must be submitted?

Government Response: No change will be implemented.

58. Para 3.1.3.1.1 in Section L In section 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports, it states

"The offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports. The offeror shall provide at least four (4) recent and relevant past performance reports from the Prime contractor." Does this mean 4 recent projects as the Prime contractor and then the remaining 4 can be from the A-E Design team?

Government Response: The Prime is required to submit at least four (4) recent projects;

please refer to Section M, paragraph 3.4.2.2. In addition, please refer to Section M, paragraph 3.4.2.1 for additional information on Past Performance information that the Government will evaluate.

59. Para 3.1.3.1.1 in Section L In section 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports, it states

"The offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports. The offeror shall provide at least four (4) recent and relevant past performance reports from the Prime contractor." Can these projects be some of the same projects listed in section 3.1.1.1 Executive Experience?

Government Response: Yes. Offerors may also refer to Questions #27 and #31.

60. Para 3.1.1.1 in Section L In section 3.1.1.1 it states "the offeror shall submit six (6) project references to address in detail their executive experience and capability for meeting or exceeding the Govt's minimum performance or capability requirements of each aspect of the executive experience factor." Are these six projects to be projects that were performed by the Prime Construction Contractor, the A-E design, or both?

Government Response: The six projects required at Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1 may all be performed by the Prime; however refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (c).

FA301621R0017 Page 15 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

61. Para 3.1.1.1.1 in section L In section 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects appears to only consider Prime contractors project experience. Is the Government also considering "relevancy" for projects completed by a A-E design team member that was not and will not be the Prime construction contractor?

Government Response: Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1 “Relevancy” for projects that will be evaluated for Experience (Factor 1). Offerors may also reference the response to Question #60.

62. Para 3.1.1.1.1 in section L Will design experience be evaluated?

Government Response: Design experience on its own is not evaluated. Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1 “Relevancy” for projects that will be evaluated for Experience (Factor 1). Offerors may also reference the response to Question #60.

63. Para 3.1.1.1.1 in section L If design experience will be evaluated, does the project have to be design-build experience with the proposing prime contractor or can it be with any construction contractor?

Government Response: Please reference the response to Question #62. The projects referenced shall demonstrate the offeror’s experience as the prime contractor executing DB projects. If Teaming Partner projects will be submitted for evaluation of experience, projects referenced shall demonstrate the Teaming Partner’s experience as the prime contractor executing DB projects.

64. Para 1.3 in section L In section 1.3 proposal presentation and preparations it states "no electronic proposal submittals will be accepted in the absence of a hard copy." However, in section 2.1 it states "offers are responsible for submitting proposals so as to reach the Government POC's designated in para 1.4 by the time specified in this solicitation; only electronic proposals will be required (no hard copies)." Please confirm delivery of proposal. Will the proposal need to be submitted through the DoD SAFE website, or will a hard copy be required?

Government Response: No hard copy will be required. Please reference the responses to Questions #1, #2, and #48.

65. RFP- section B-Supplies or Service and Price/Cost There is a CLIN schedule in the referenced section. It's our understanding that phase one is qualifications only. Does section B CLIN schedule apply to phase two of this RFP?

Government Response: Offerors are not required to complete anything in Section B;

refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1 (Tab A).

66. Section L Instruction to Offerors- Tab A subsection 3.1.1.1 Section L (relevancy) identifies a total of six (6) projects that can be used. Section 3.1.1.1 subsection (F)

FA301621R0017 Page 16 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

mentions Joint Ventures for this project, but does not specify if previous JV contracts would be considered relevant for past performance. If we are proposing as a prime contractor without a Joint Venture for this solicitation, but we would like to include past performance on previous Joint Venture IDIQ contracts, in which we were 51% and prime contractor of the JV, would those JV projects be considered relevant for evaluation?

Government Response: No. Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (b) and (c);

and also refer to Section M, paragraph 3.4.2.1 for Past Performance information that the Government will evaluate.

67. Do we submit Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost form with our proposal?

Government Response: Yes; however please reference the response to Question #65.

68. Is the proposal evaluation based on experience and qualifications only and no pricing information at this time?

Government Response: No pricing information is required at this time.

69. Is the 10-year lifecycle equivalent to a 10-year base period?

Government Response: Yes.

70. If submitting a written statement as to why an Offeror can not participate in a TOPR does that count against the 80% participation rate?

Government Response: Yes.

71. How will the Government calculate when a prime contractor is approaching the 80% participation rate?

Government Response: Please refer to Ordering Guide (Section G), paragraph O (Off Ramp Procedures sub paragraph a).

72. With bonding required for $20M does this imply projects up to $20M

Government Response: Please Refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1 (Tab C, iii.), the Prime Contractor must provide proof of Bonding of at least $20M. However, offerors should refer to FAR 52.216-19 for minimum and maximum ordering limitations.

73. Current proposal due date is listed as 06 September 2021 – Labor Day. Will the

Government extend the due date to 10 September 2021?

Government Response: Please reference the response to Question #13.

FA301621R0017 Page 17 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

74. 3.1.1.1 Executive Experience - Submission of relevant projects appears to lean towards actual D-B projects from the main Offeror and none from our chosen DOR, yet Attachment 13 asks if the relevant project is from the Prime, JV, Partner, or DOR. Is the Government requesting only D-B projects from the Offeror or any from the DOR as well?

Government Response: Please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (Factor 1) “Relevancy” for projects that meet the requirements. In addition, please refer to Section L, paragraphs 3.1.1.1.1 (b) and (c).

75. Can we use a 10- or 11-point font when completing the required proposal forms, e.g., Attachments 13, 15, 16 and 17?

Government Response: Attachments 13, 15, and 16 are fillable PDF forms; please use default font. Attachment 17, per Section L, paragraph 2.4, font should be no less than 12.

76. 3.1.3.1.1 Past Performance Reports - Similarly to Executive Experience, can an Offeror provide projects in the past performance section that are valued greater than $10.0M?

Government Response: Yes, the $10.0M cap has been increased to $25.0M; please refer to the solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19).

77. For Factor III Past Performance, will the Government consider a CPARS or previously completed PPQ in lieu of the Attachment 15 Quality and Satisfaction Survey? The 4th quarter of the Government fiscal year is an extremely busy time for our DoD customers and this places an extra burden on those who have already completed a CPARS for a given project.

Government Response: No. Offerors may also reference the response to Question #5.

78. Can the Government provide what type of information may be requested during Phase II?

Government Response: Offerors are to submit all the info required in the Solicitation and Section L with the initial proposal. The two-phase Design-Build selection procedure at FAR 36.3 does not apply to this solicitation.

79. 3.1.2.1 Management Effectiveness and Capabilities – This section is requiring the Offeror to submit proposed subcontractors for future TOPRs, though in order to provide the Government with cost effective solutions to TOPRs Offerors need to solicit multiple similarly trade subcontractors, thus leading to uncertainty of specific subcontractor usage.

Is it critical in Phase I to list such subcontractor names specifically?

Government Response: Please refer to Question #16.

FA301621R0017 Page 18 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

80. Will an Offeror be downgraded for submitting a project over the $10M mark or will the submitted project be determined “non-relevant”?

Government Response: Please refer to the specific dollar requirements to ensure projects meet relevancy requirements in accordance with the solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19).

81. Can we use 10- or 11- point font when completing the required proposal forms, e.g., Attachments 13, 15, 16, and 17?

Government Response: Attachments 13, 15, and 16 are fillable PDF forms; please use default font. Attachment 17, per Section L, paragraph 2.4, font should be no less than 12.

82. Section B of the RFP states projects of D-B and D-B-B. Will D-B-B project be accepted and evaluated the same as D-B project?

Government Response: No. Please refer to Question #74.

83. Attachment 18 Section L, Paragraph 3.1.3.1.1 instructs us to use Attachment 16 to

“provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports”. Are we allowed to use the same projects that are submitted in FACTOR 1 (Attachment 13)?

Government Response: Yes; the offerors may use the same projects referenced in Factor 1 to complete Attachment 16. Offerors may refer to Questions #27 and #28

84. Attachment 18 Section L, Paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 instructs us to “submit two (2) projects valued at over $5M”. Paragraph 3.1.1.1 states that “projects referenced shall have dollar values ranging from $750K and up to $10M”. Are the project values to be capped at $10M? If so, we would recommend removing the $10M cap in order to make the solicitation less restrictive.

Government Response: The $10.0M “cap” has been increased to $25.0M; please see solicitation Amendment and revised Sections L and M (Attachment 18 and Attachment 19). Offerors may also reference the responses to Questions #23 and #76.

85. Will projects provided by team members on attachments 13, 15, & 16 be evaluated the same as the Prime?

Government Response: Yes. However, please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1 Tab C (sub paragraph iv “Executed Teaming Agreements”; Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1; and Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1.

86. Solicitation Section G Contract Administration Data, MACC IDIQ Ordering Guide, paragraph D.2.b Pricing of Task Orders: Please clarify, since RS Means Facility Data is typically lagging behind with the market conditions, even if Contractors are utilizing

FA301621R0017 Page 19 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

quarterly updates, with the current market conditions changing daily, how does the Government intend for the Contractor to handle the drastic differences in the UPB and the constantly changing market pricing for labor, material and equipment?

87. Solicitation Section G Contract Administration Data, MACC IDIQ Ordering Guide, paragraph D.2.c Pricing of Task Orders: Please clarify is the Governments intent of utilizing RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data, to require the Contractor to utilize only the pre-priced UPB line items for pricing, with only exception of non-pre-priced items?

88. Paragraph 3.1.1.1 FACTOR 1 – Executive Experience [Phase I] states the offeror shall submit six (6) project references (see Attachment 13). When including Teaming partners (max of 3). What is the minimum amount of projects each teamining partner must submit in Attachment 13?

Government Response: There is no minimum amount of projects; however, offerors may reference the response to Question #85.

89. Paragraph 3.1.1.1 FACTOR 1 – Executive Experience [Phase I] states the The offeror shall submit a complete Team Experience Matrix (Attachment 17) to illustrate the experience and relationship between the Prime, Designer of Record, and Teaming Partners . What is the minimum amount of projects each teamining partner must submit in Attachment 17?

Government Response: There is no minimum requirement; however, offerors may reference the responses to Questions #85 and #88.

90. Paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 Experience Executing Design-Build Projects (e) states the offeror shall complete and submit each project using the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 13). Are the Teaming Partners experience Attachment 13 included in the six(6) projects overall count?

Government Response: Yes. Offerors shall only submit six (6) projects.

91. Paragraph 3.1.3.1 FACTOR 3 – Past Performance [Phase II] states the offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports (Attachment 16). Please clarify if the eight (8) past performance reports are an additional 8 projects from the 6 projects submitted in Factor 1.

FA301621R0017 Page 20 of 28

FA301621R0017 - Joint Base San Antonio Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

IDIQ

Government Response: The projects referenced in Section L, paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 maybe same/different than the projects referenced at Section L, paragraph 3.1.3.1.1.

Offerors may also reference answers to Questions #27 and #28.

92. Paragraph 3.1.3.1 FACTOR 3 – Past Performance [Phase II] states the offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) recent and relevant past performance reports (Attachment 16). Please clarify if the offeror's teaming partners must submit past performance reports Attachment 16.

Government Response: No; however, please refer to Section L, paragraph 3.1.3; and Section M, paragraph 3.4.2.1.

93. Paragraph 3.1.3.1 FACTOR 3 – Past Performance [Phase II] states the offeror shall

16). If the offeror's teaming partners are required to submit past performance reports Attachment 16.