Questions and Answers 20260505.xlsx

Sheet1 JB Charleston Bidder Inquiry Form EXPLANATION TO PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS (APR 1984) Any prospective bidder desiring an explanation or interpretation of the solicitation, sample project, or statement of work, must request it in writing soon enough to allow a reply to reach all prospective bidders before the submission of their bids. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award of a contract will not be binding. Any information given a prospective bidder concerning a solicitation will be furnished promptly to all other prospective bidders as an amendment to the solicitation, if that information is necessary in submitting bids or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to other prospective bidders. (Reference FAR 52.214-6). Responses will be posted to SAM.gov.

As currently structured, the 20-page limitation appears insufficient to adequately address the three subfactors and the eight associated elements in a meaningful and compliant manner. In particular, Subfactor 1, Element 1 requires detailed resumes for multiple key personnel positions—including Senior Project Manager (SPM), Quality Control Managers (QCMs), Project Managers (PMs), Safety Managers (SMs), Cost Estimators, and the Office Administrator—which, by themselves, could reasonably exceed the allotted page count since offerors are required to submit the number of key personnel to address a hypothetical workload of 30 concurrent task orders; 25 under active construction with 5 in negotiation. Additionally, Subfactor 3 (Sample Project) requires a 35% design submission, including plans, a written scope, and a detailed price proposal with a detailed breakout. Given the breadth and technical nature of these requirements, it is difficult to fully comply within the overall page constraint without severely limiting the quality and completeness of the submission. In light of these considerations, would the Government consider either increasing the total page limitation and excluding Key Personnel resumes and the Subfactor 3 (Sample Project) submission from the page count to ensure offerors can provide thorough, high-quality responses for evaluation?

NOTE: Fully incorporate a narrative in the sample project’s proposal clearly demonstrating how and to what extent this effort would be accomplished if this were an actual project. Ensure all associated costs are clearly identified and incorporated in the proposal. Proposers are not expected to obtain actual engineering services for the purposes of responding to this sample project proposal requirement.

Providing timely responses is consistent with the intent of FAR 15.206(a), which emphasizes the importance of issuing amendments with sufficient time for offerors to meaningfully respond. Advance release of Q&As will help ensure a common understanding of requirements, improve proposal quality, and reduce the need for last-minute revisions or potential schedule extensions.

Section B

Section L, 1. Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part I - Price Proposal Attachment 10, Schedule B Section L, Part I – Price Proposal, item b) states, “Insert proposed coefficients in Section B for each Coefficient Schedule Number….Coefficients shall also include all items delineated in Schedule B Contractor General Administrative (G&A) Expenses. The coefficients shall be entered into Section B of the solicitation, on the line next to each Coefficient Schedule Number description.” However, Section B does not include “Coefficient Schedule Number descriptions.” Furthermore, the line items within Section B state, “SEE SCHEDULE B, Coefficient Schedule.”

Conversely, Attachment 10, Schedule B, Note 1 states, “ In order to be considered for award, the offeror must submit a coefficient for each line item above.” This statement indicates that Schedule B should be completed and included within the offeror’s proposal. Furthermore, Attachment 10, Schedule B includes the required “Coefficient Schedule Number descriptions.”

Can the government please clarify whether offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment 10 (Schedule B) with their proposed coefficients, and confirm whether this satisfies the requirement in Section L, or if offerors are also required to enter coefficients separately in Section B? If required to submit Section B, please clarify if all eight coefficients should be included for each and every line item.

However, the JBC Pre Sol Agenda Handout lists a slightly different set of requirements, including:

--SF1442

--Pricing Schedule --Necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K --Sections C through I, submit only those pages that require a fill-in --Standard Form 24, Bid Bond

Please clarify the definitive submission requirements for Part I – Price Proposal. Specifically:

1) Section B does not include Coefficient Schedule Numbers. Please clarify if the government intends for offerors to submit coefficients in the “Pricing Schedule” provided in Schedule B rather than in Section B.

However, the JBC Pre Sol Agenda Handout lists a slightly different set of requirements, including:

--SF1442

--Pricing Schedule --Necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K --Sections C through I, submit only those pages that require a fill-in --Standard Form 24, Bid Bond

Please clarify the definitive submission requirements for Part I – Price Proposal. Specifically:

2) Are offerors required to submit both “Sections C through I” and “Sections I through K,” or should one instruction supersede the other?

If both “Sections C through I” and “Sections I through K,” are required, can the Government clarify how duplication of Section I should be handled, since it appears in both ranges?

However, the JBC Pre Sol Agenda Handout lists a slightly different set of requirements, including:

--SF1442

--Pricing Schedule --Necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K --Sections C through I, submit only those pages that require a fill-in --Standard Form 24, Bid Bond

Please clarify the definitive submission requirements for Part I – Price Proposal. Specifically:

3) Is submission of the SBA Section 8(a) status letter required at proposal submission, or will 8(a) eligibility be verified through SAM.gov registration instead?

However, the JBC Pre Sol Agenda Handout lists a slightly different set of requirements, including:

--SF1442

--Pricing Schedule --Necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K --Sections C through I, submit only those pages that require a fill-in --Standard Form 24, Bid Bond

Please clarify the definitive submission requirements for Part I – Price Proposal. Specifically:

4) Can you please confirm the Standard Form 24 (Bid Bond) should be included with the Part I response since it is not currently referenced in Section L?

materials in place and stored on site are in accordance with the approved construction drawings, shop drawings and material submittals. If the KTR decides to dual hat the QCM as their Safety Manger then yes they would be responsible for the safety aspects as well.

If the requirements in the SOW conflict with applicable safety regulations, manufacturer specifications, or industry-standard hauling practices, please confirm which standards will govern contract performance?

Additionally, because mobilization and transport costs are already included within the Unit Price Book (UPB), will the Government consider revising or removing this paragraph to better align with industry standards, reduce ambiguity and avoid potential safety risks?

used for the identified equipment (and equivalent) to determine the appropriate mobilization and demobilization line items included in Task Order Proposals. The contractor is permitted to use different means and methods at their discretion, but the mobilization and demobilization line items in the Task Order Proposals shall not be permitted to change based on that.

Given that this procurement is structured as a SABER contract utilizing a Unit Price Book (UPB) with competitively established coefficients, and that task orders are issued based on pre-priced line items, can the government please clarify the intent and authority for this requirement?

Under FAR 16.505(b), fair opportunity procedures for task orders under IDIQ contracts do not typically require additional competition at the subcontractor level when pricing is already established at the base contract level. Additionally, FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) recognizes adequate price competition at the prime contract level as a basis for determining price reasonableness, which is inherent in the SABER procurement process.

In light of this, requiring subcontractor quotes for each task order appears inconsistent with the streamlined ordering procedures and efficiencies intended under SABER/UPB contracting methods.

Questions:

1 - Can the government please clarify the regulatory basis for requiring subcontractor quotes for each task order under this UPB-based SABER contract?

2 - Will the Government consider revising or removing this requirement to better align with standard SABER practices and FAR Part 16 ordering procedures?

3 - If the Government does intend to require subcontractor quotes (redacted or otherwise), will this be required on all task orders or at the Government’s discretion? If the latter, how will this be determined?

4 - How will price reasonableness be determined, specifically, from evaluating redacted subcontractor quotes?

RFO 16.507-2, Fair Opportunity Procedures, applies only to multiple-award contracts. This is a single-award SABER, therefore it is not applicable. That aside, the intent is to determine if the contractor is maintaining a pool of contractors so that the prime is able to complete the volume of task orders for similar efforts with overlapping periods of performance. In response to inquiry on the fair and reasonable price determination, yes, prices from the price book are determined fair and reasonable, but we must also verify that the line items selected by the contractor are appropriate.

a. Is the Government stating that each task order will have an incidental design that is priced into the line items?

b. Can the Government clearly define how 35% design will be measured consistently?

c. If the design is to be priced and created after Task Order award; is the Contractor to assume that proposals, tech evaluations, and negotiations will be evaluated and agreed upon by both Government and Contractor solely by a written scope of work?

d. Does the Government have an approval process that will incorporate the design into the RFP timeline so that an approved design can be utilized in negotiations?

e. Will a Joint Scoping activity be included during the initial scope development to better align expectations and needs with how the proposal package is developed?

Furthermore, paragraph 3.4 lists the minimum number of Project Managers performing on-site superintendence as 3, and a ratio of 7:1. At the stated TO concurrent workload of up to 50 concurrent TOs, this would equate to up to 8 Project Managers performing field superintendence.

Questions:

a. Is the government stipulating that to manage 50 TOs concurrently, a Contractor will need to have a staff of 18 to 20 members?

b. Will the government respectfully consider revising these ratios? If not, is it the Government's intent to strictly enforce this ratio based on the project list over the contract?

Question: Please allow 10-point font for graphics, tables, diagrams, etc.

Question: Please increase the page limitation at least 10 more pages for the Technical Proposal (at least 30 pages).

Question: Is it acceptable to provide one (1) Cost Estimator resume in our proposal submission and submit the names/qualifications for the two (2) Cost Estimators for CO approval (on Form 4025) after award?"

Question: Is it acceptable to provide one (1) QCM resume in our proposal submission and submit the names/qualifications for the three (3) QCMs for CO approval (on Form 4025) after award?

Question: Is it acceptable to provide one (1) PM resume in our proposal submission and submit the names/qualifications for the three (3) PMs for CO approval (on Form 4025) after award?

Question: Is it acceptable to provide one (1) SM resume in our proposal submission and submit the names/qualifications for the two (2) SMs for CO approval (on Form 4025) after award?

Part III - Past Performance Info, Performance Surveys, para (xiii) Reference: Solicitation Language states "If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past relevant contracts."

Question: Please clarify if this means that each JV member needs to supply an Attachment 9 or does each JV member provide projects within the 10 total contracts needed for Performance Surveys.

Is the Government's expectation that the Offeror submit a…