Attachment XT - JB Charleston Question and Answer Form (Completed).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 153 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA441826R0009
About this file
This is a completed Question and Answer (Q&A) Form for solicitation FA441826R0009, a Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for Joint Base Charleston, issued as a competitive HUBZone and SDVOSB small business set-aside. The document compiles 169 pre-proposal questions and answers addressing clarifications on the seed project (Repair Dormitory B464), evaluation criteria, past performance requirements, technical specifications, and contract administration.
The Q&A form clarifies critical procurement details including: the solicitation encompasses construction services at JB Charleston locations plus emergency support to Seymour Johnson and Shaw AFBs, with task orders anticipated between $1M-$30M; the seed project is a 450 calendar-day dormitory renovation with a disclosed magnitude of $20M-$25M to be awarded based on initial proposal evaluation; HUBZone or SDVOSB certification is required but offerors need only one certification, not both; past performance evaluation requires projects completed within five years of the July 23, 2026 solicitation release date with at least one day of performance falling within that window, limited to projects within SBA Region IV, up to 15 total references with no more than 2 design-build projects; proposals are limited to 50 pages for Factor 2 past performance information, excluding customer questionnaires, joint venture agreements, and supporting documentation; price reasonableness testing applies standard deviation methodology at the CLIN level using all offerors' prices; and commissioning authority services are contracted separately by the Government. Additional clarifications address staffing requirements (superintendent and combined QC/SSHO on-site full-time), hazardous materials protocols under differing site conditions clauses, utility outage coordination procedures, fire protection engineer requirements, and numerous technical specifications for HVAC controls integration, fire suppression systems, plumbing fixtures, architectural finishes, and temporary shoring design sealed by South Carolina-licensed engineers.
View the file
Other files
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 JB Charleston Offeror Question and Answer Form NOTICE TO OFFERORS Any offeror desiring an explanation or interpretation of the solicitation, drawings, specifications, etc., must request it in writing soon enough to allow a reply to reach all offerors before the submission of their proposals. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award of a contract will not be binding. Answers to offeror questions concerning a solicitation will be posted to sam.gov, if that information is necessary in preparing proposals or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to others.
| Solicitation Number | FA441826R0009 |
| Project Name: | Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) |
| # | Specification Reference (Section & Paragraph Reference, i.e. 23 00 00, para 1.3) | Drawing Reference (Sheet and Detail or Note Reference, i.e. M-101, Detail 2) | Solicitation Reference (Section, paragraph, sub-paragraph Reference, i.e. Section M, Paragraph 2.3) | Attachments or Other (i.e. Submittal Register, Wage Determination, Site Visit Note, etc.) | |
| 1 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | What are the requirements for QC/SSHO/Site Supervisor and can one person wear all three hats on this project? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #231. | |||||
| 2 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | Is there any special testing that will be paid for by the Government? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #238. | |||||
| 3 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | Is there any special inspections that will be paid for by the Government? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #238. | |||||
| 4 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | Will there be a lay down area and area for the crane or other equipment to operate safely on site? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Yes, Laydown area identified in seed project drawings: [ref: Attachment YT - Seed Project Drawings - Sheet G002]. | |||||
| 5 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | What, if any, ICRA requirements are there for this project | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| There are no ICRA (Infection Control Risk Assessment) requirements specified for this project in the solicitation documents. | |||||
| 6 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | Will there be any fire watch requirements? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #235. | |||||
| 7 | Question | ||||
| 01 00 00 | Confirm how long the overall time to obtain a badge should take. Spec states from the time the initial paperwork is submitted until the time the badge is in the employees' hands. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Solicitation requires the contractor to submit the application paperwork at least 7 calendar days in advance of needing the badge. [ref: Statement of Work - Attachment 4 - 01 14 00 - Work Restrictions, para 1.3.1.3] | |||||
| 8 | Question | ||||
| Section M | Verify if previous project experience can extend beyond 5 years. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #227. | |||||
| 9 | Question | ||||
| If the GC has a teaming agreement with an architectural firm and lists two design-build projects completed by the architectural firm, will the GC still get credit for those projects as part of their previous experience? | |||||
| Answer | |||||
| The evaluation will take into account performance of predecessor companies, major subcontractors, key personnel, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner whose effort, as demonstrated in the proposal, will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort and the ratings of these entities will contribute to the overall performance confidence assessment rating of the principal offeror. In determining performance confidence assessment ratings, consideration will be given to the entity that performed the work. Past performance of the offeror will have a greater weight than past performance of other business entities or personnel. Demonstration of previous working relationships with the proposed entity will have a greater weight than a new relationship. Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater weight than partners with no written agreement. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.2, para 1-ii & 2] | |||||
| 10 | Question | ||||
| SF 1442, Block 10 | SF 1442, Block 10 states the solicitation is issued as a "COMPETITIVE HUBZone AND SDVOSB BUSINESS SET-ASIDE." Section A separately identifies the Small Business Type only as "Small Business" with a Set Aside Percent of 100, and Section I incorporates by reference three mutually exclusive set-aside provisions: 52.219-3 (Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside), 52.219-6 (Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside), and 52.219-27 (Notice of Set-Aside for SDVOSB Concerns). Will the Government confirm the single controlling set-aside type and, specifically, whether an offeror must hold BOTH HUBZone certification AND SBA SDVOSB certification to be eligible for award, or whether an offeror holding EITHER certification is eligible. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| This acquisition is set aside for HUBZone or SDVOSB (a total small business set aside to these socioeconomic categories only). Offerors do not have to hold certification for both socioeconomic concerns. Award may be made to some or all of either socioeconomic category. | |||||
| 11 | Question | ||||
| Section L, 1.4 | Will the Government please confirm that the applicable joint venture requirements are 13 CFR 126.616 (HUBZone joint ventures) and/or 13 CFR 128.402 (VOSB/SDVOSB joint ventures), together with 13 CFR 125.8? Please further confirm the documents an offering joint venture must submit with its proposal (executed joint venture agreement, SBA Mentor-Protege approval letter, addenda) and whether those documents count against the fifty (50) page limitation in Section L-2.4.d. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Yes, the applicable joint venture requirements are those outlined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Offerors must provide complete information about the joint venture, including the executed joint venture agreement, which will not count against the 50-page limitation for Past Performance information. |
Applicable Regulations & Required Documents: [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-1.4]
Page Limitation: [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.4.d]
| 12 | Question | |
| Section L & Section M | Neither Section L nor Section M states how the Past Performance of an SBA-approved Mentor-Protege Joint Venture will be evaluated. Under 13 CFR 125.8(e), when evaluating a joint venture the procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner as well as any work done by the joint venture itself; a procuring activity has discretion whether to require the protege member to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience, but where it does so it shall not require the protege to individually meet all the same evaluation criteria required of other offerors generally, and the partners in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance necessary to perform. Please confirm: (a) that a Mentor-Protege Joint Venture may satisfy the Factor 2 requirements using projects performed by the mentor alone, the protege alone, the joint venture itself, or any combination thereof; (b) whether the protege member is required to submit any minimum number of its own references and, if so, the reduced number and dollar threshold that will apply to the protege consistent with 13 CFR 125.8(e)(2); and (c) that a project submitted by the protege at a lower value will be rated equivalently to a higher-valued project submitted by the mentor, as required by 13 CFR 125.8(e)(2). | |
| Answer | ||
| The solicitation does not explicitly detail the evaluation methodology for an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture. The evaluation will take into account performance of predecessor companies, major subcontractors, key personnel, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner whose effort, as demonstrated in the proposal, will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort and the ratings of these entities will contribute to the overall performance confidence assessment rating of the principal offeror. |
(a) A Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture may submit projects performed by the mentor, the protégé, or the joint venture itself. Performance of the joint venture itself will be weighted greater than efforts of mentor or protégé. In determining performance confidence assessment ratings, consideration will be given to the entity that performed the work. Past performance of the offeror will have a greater weight than past performance of other business entities or personnel. Demonstration of previous working relationships with the proposed entity will have a greater weight than a new relationship. Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater weight than partners with no written agreement.
(b) The solicitation does not specify a minimum number of references required from the protégé member.
(c) The evaluation will be consistent with 13 CFR 125.8(e). The procuring activity does not require a protégé or lead small business joint venture partner to demonstrate some successful performance and/or experience on fewer previous contracts of lower values than that required of other offerors generally.
| 13 | Question | |
| Section L, 2.3, Part Iic & Section M, 3.2.1(1)(i) | The solicitation states the recency standard three different ways. Section L-2.3, Part II.c requires contracts "performed ... within the last five (5) years" and, separately, contracts that "have been completed within the past five (5) years." Section M-3.2 and M-3.2.1(1)(i) state Past Performance is recent if "one day of performance occurred within five (5) years of the release of the solicitation," and then state that submissions "older than five (5) years from the solicitation due date" will not be evaluated. Will the Government confirm: (a) the controlling recency standard; (b) the specific measuring date (solicitation release date of 23 July 2026 or proposal due date of 21 September 2026); and (c) that ongoing/in-progress contracts with at least one day of performance within the recency window are eligible, notwithstanding the "completed" language in Section L. | |
| Answer | ||
| Reference question and answer #227. | ||
| 14 | Question | |
| Section L & Section M | Section L and Section M both provide that Past Performance will be evaluated as "Not Relevant" unless it occurred within SBA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee). This restriction excludes highly relevant Department of Defense construction performed by qualified HUBZone and SDVOSB concerns elsewhere in the United States, including work performed for the same customer or on comparable Air Force installations, and may unduly restrict competition within an already limited pool of certified offerors. Will the Government consider amending Section L and Section M to permit CONUS-wide past performance, or, in the alternative, to evaluate out-of-region projects as relevant where the scope, magnitude, and complexity are otherwise comparable. If the restriction is retained, will the Government confirm how a project performed at multiple locations, only some of which are within Region IV, will be evaluated. | |
| Answer | ||
| Reference question and answer #237. | ||
| 15 | Question | |
| Section L, 2.3, Part II c | Section L-2.3, Part II.c establishes maximums but no minimums: "no more than fifteen (15) contracts total"; "no more than ten (10) ... whole building renovation"; "no more than five (5) ... utility infrastructure repair or construction"; and "no more than two (2) ... Design-Build." Will the Government confirm: (a) whether there is any minimum number of references required for an offeror to be eligible for a Substantial Confidence rating; (b) whether the ten (10) renovation and five (5) utility contracts are intended to be a required mix or simply category caps within the overall fifteen (15); (c) whether the two (2) Design-Build contracts are counted within, or in addition to, the ten (10) and five (5); and (d) how a single contract containing both whole-building renovation and utility infrastructure scope should be categorized. | |
| Answer | ||
| (a) There is no minimum number of references required to be eligible for Substantial Confidence rating. Offerors will be evaluated on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the past performance provided, up to the maximum limits established. (b) The numbers provided are maximum category caps, not a mandatory mix. Offerors may submit fewer than the maximum allowed in any category, provided the total number of contracts submitted does not exceed fifteen (15). (c) The two design-build contracts are counted within the overall maximum of fifteen (15) contracts, as stated in Section L. A design-build contract can count toward the respective renovation or utility cap depending on its scope. (d) Section L states that limits apply based on the "preponderance of work". For a single contract containing both whole-building renovation and utility infrastructure, the offeror shall categorize the contract based on whichever scope represents the preponderance (majority) of work performed. Offerors should clearly state in their narrative which category the project is being submitted under. | ||
| 16 | Question | |
| Section L, 2.3, Part II c | Section L-2.3, Part II.c states relevant contracts must "have a minimum value performed by the offeror equaling or exceeding the magnitude of construction of individual task orders contemplated to be issued on this contract," and then describes values "ranging between or exceeding $1M-$30M." Section M-3.2.1(1)(ii) uses "equaling or exceeding $1M-$30M." Will the Government confirm the minimum dollar value a single reference must have to be evaluated as Relevant or Very Relevant (i.e., whether the threshold is $1,000,000 or $30,000,000), whether the value is measured by the total contract value or by the dollar value of work self-performed by the offeror, and how contract value is measured for a joint venture or teaming partner reference | |
| Answer | ||
| Relevant contracts include performance of multi-discipline efforts that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort of individual task orders contemplated to be issued on this contract, have a minimum value performed by the offeror equaling or exceeding the magnitude of construction of individual task orders contemplated to be issued on this contract, and have been completed within the past five (5) years. The target magnitude for each Task Order is $1M - $30M. Relvancy is defined in Section M - 3.2 - Past Performance Evaluation. |
The value is measured by the total contract value.
| 17 | Question | |
| Section L, 2.4d | Section L-2.4.d limits Part II - Factor 2 to fifty (50) pages and excludes only "Past Performance Customer Questionnaires" from that limitation. Section L-2.3, Part II.c requires approximately twenty-five (25) discrete data fields plus a narrative relevance discussion for each of up to fifteen (15) references, in 12 pitch type, which cannot reasonably be accommodated within fifty (50) pages. Will the Government confirm whether the following are excluded from the fifty (50) page limitation: (a) the Past Performance Project List (Attachment XZ) cover sheet; (b) the Past Performance Surveys (Attachment XV); (c) the customer satisfaction documentation required by Section L-2.3, Part II.b (letters, metrics, awards); (d) the teaming partner, joint venture partner, and subcontractor consent letters required by Section L-2.3, Part II.d; and (e) any joint venture agreement or teaming agreement. Alternatively, will the Government consider increasing the page limitation to a level comparable with the required content. | |
| Answer | ||
| Reference question and answer #230. | ||
| 18 | Question | |
| Section M, 3.2.1(2) | Section M-3.2.1(2) states that "Past performance of the offeror will have a greater weight than past performance of other business entities or personnel," that "Demonstration of previous working relationships with the proposed entity will have a greater weight than a new relationship," and that "Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater weight than partners with no written agreement." Will the Government clarify: (a) for a joint venture offeror, whether each joint venture partner is treated as "the offeror" or as an "other business entity" for weighting purposes; (b) what documentation must be submitted to establish a "written agreement" with a teaming partner and whether an executed teaming agreement, letter of intent, or letter of commitment is sufficient; and (c) whether references from a predecessor company, major subcontractor, consultant, or key personnel count against the fifteen (15) contract maximum. | |
| Answer | ||
| (a) Past performance of any entity other than the offeror, including past perforrmance of a "partner" of a Joint Venture offeror that was not performed by the Joint Venture itself, is considered as an "other business entity." The evaluation will consider the performance of the joint venture and its "partners". [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-1.4 and Section M-3.2.1(ii)] |
(b) The solicitation requires a "written agreement" to demonstrate a formal relationship but does not specify the exact format. Documents such as an executed agreement, a letter of intent, or a letter of commitment may be sufficient to meet this requirement. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.2.1(2)]
(c) Yes, any project submitted for past performance consideration, regardless of whether it was performed by the prime offeror, a predecessor company, major subcontractor, consultant, key personnel, or teaming partner, counts toward the fifteen (15) project maximum. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c]
| 19 | Question | |
| Section M, 3.2.1(2) | Section M-3.2.1(2) states that an offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance "will receive a 'Neutral Confidence' rating" and "will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably," consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). However, Section M-2.0 conditions award on offerors being rated Substantial Confidence, which appears to make award unattainable for any offeror rated Neutral Confidence. Request the Government confirm whether an offeror or joint venture receiving a Neutral Confidence rating remains eligible for award under this solicitation and, if so, at what point in the evaluation sequence such an offeror would be considered. | |
| Answer | ||
| Section M-2.0 does not condition award on receiving a "Substantial Confidence" rating. An offeror receiving a "Neutral Confidence" rating remains eligible for award. As stated in the solicitation, an offeror with no relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating. An offeror with a "Neutral Confidence" rating will be considered concurrently with all other offerors during the best-value tradeoff analysis. However, as stated in Section M, the Government considers a known, successful performance record (Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence) to be more advantageous than an unknown performance record (Neutral Confidence). Therefore, "Substantial" or "Satisfactory Confidence" ratings will be evaluated more favorably than a "Neutral Confidence" rating during the tradeoff process. No amendment in the solicitation is required. | ||
| 20 | Question | |
| Section M, 3.1 | Section M-3.1 states that price "Reasonableness and balance refers to offerors CLINS that are within +/- 2.0 standard deviations, which is a reasonable range," and that "an unbalanced CLIN structure may not be considered for award." Will the Government confirm: (a) the population against which the standard deviation is computed (i.e., the distribution of all offerors' prices for the same CLIN, or the distribution of an individual offeror's CLINs); (b) whether outliers are removed before the standard deviation is calculated; (c) whether a single CLIN falling outside +/- 2.0 standard deviations renders the entire proposal ineligible for award, or whether the Government will first seek clarification from the offeror; and (d) whether the total evaluated price is also tested for reasonableness independent of the CLIN-level test. | |
| Answer | ||
| (a) The standard deviation will be computed based on the distribution of all responsive offerors' prices for the same CLIN. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.1] |
(b) CLIN balance may be evaluated with and without significant outliers. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.1].
(c) A single CLIN falling outside the +/- 2.0 standard deviation range may render the proposal ineligible for award. The solicitation states that "an unbalanced CLIN structure may not be considered for award," which gives the Government discretion in its determination and does not guarantee that clarification will be requested. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.1]
(d) Yes, the total evaluated price will be tested for reasonableness, which is a separate analysis from the CLIN-level balancing test. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.1]
| 21 | Question | |
| Section M, 2.0 | Section M-2.0 states that the Government "may award the Seed project to the JB CHS MACC awardee providing the overall Best Value to the Government." Because the Seed Project price is the sole basis of the Factor 1 evaluation, offerors will price the Seed Project in detail without assurance of receiving it. Will the Government confirm: (a) whether the Seed Project (Repair Dormitory B464) will be awarded to a MACC awardee based on the evaluation of initial proposals, or will instead be re-competed among MACC awardees by TOPR after award; (b) if awarded from initial proposals, whether it is awarded to the lowest-priced Substantial Confidence awardee or on an integrated best-value basis; and (c) the anticipated period of performance and Notice to Proceed date for the Seed Project. | |
| Answer | ||
| (a) The Seed Project (Repair Dormitory B464) is anticipated to be awarded to one of the MACC awardees based on the evaluation of the initial proposals. However, award is subject to the availability of funds for the project. |
(b) The award may be made on a best-value basis. Offorers are highly encouraged to submit their best priced propsal. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-2.0]
(c) The Period of Performance (PoP) for the Seed Project is stated as 450 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed (NTP). The specific NTP date is not provided as no award will be made until funds are available. [ref: Solicitation Attachment XX - Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR) Seed Project.xlsx_Sheet1_FOPR.csv]
| 22 | Question | ||||
| Seed Project | Will the amended geotechnical report from 14 April, 2025 get released with an amendment? It is mentioned on Plan S-001 Note 1 under Foundations. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| The amended geotechnical report from 14 April 2025, referenced on drawing S-001, is now included in the solicitation and replaces the report in spec section 02 01 00.00. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YT Seed Project Drawings.pdf, Sheet S-001, Note 1] | |||||
| 23 | Question | ||||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II b | For the "Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five Years" section, is the Government wanting us to submit CPARS? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #228. | |||||
| 24 | Question | ||||
| Section L, 2.4(i) | States "See Attachment YU Seed Project Section B for the Seed Project CLIN Structure." Attachment YU was not provided on SAM.Gov. Is this attachment going to be provided or do we need to submit pricing on Section B in the solicitation document? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #224. | |||||
| 25 | Question | ||||
| Section M, 3.2 | Please clarify how experience on Design-Bid-Build projects will be evaluated relative to Design-Build experience for Factor II. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Both Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build project experience will be evaluated for relevancy based on the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work performed. The solicitation does not state a preference for one delivery method over the other; however, it limits the number of Design-Build projects that can be submitted to two (2) out of the fifteen (15) total projects allowed for submission. This is because, typically, most projects on JBLG (prev: JB CHS) will be DBB [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c and Section M-3.2.1(ii)] | |||||
| 26 | Question | ||||
| SOW JB CHS MACC, 5b, Page 5 | Will JB Charleston Division 01 specifications be updated for each TOPR or should the attached version be assumed current? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| The attached Division 01 specifications should not be assumed as current for all future TOPRs. While they are indicative of future requirements, updated versions will be provided with each TOPR issuance. When parent specifications and TOPR specifications conflict, the more stringent requirement applies unless otherwise specified. | |||||
| 27 | Question | ||||
| Section L, 1.3 | The solicitation identifies the deadline for questions as (3) days after the site visit. However, during the site visit the deadline for questions was said to be August 20, 2026. Does the Government intend to extend the deadline for questions? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| The solicitation was amended to extend the question deadline to 20 August 2026. Please see amendment 001 details on SAM.gov, Notice ID: FA441826R0009 | |||||
| 28 | Question | ||||
| Site Visit Note | During the site visit, there was discussion regarding the possibility of a 2nd site visit for subcontractors. Does the Government intend to 2nd site visit for subcontractors due to the size and complexity of the project? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #236. | |||||
| 29 | Question | ||||
| 01 35 26 | Please confirm the Contractor Quality Control (QC) may "dual hat" as the Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO), and / or provide the minimum staffing requirements. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #231. | |||||
| 30 | Question | ||||
| 01 11 00 | What is the period of performance, calendar day duration, for the Repair Dormitory B.464 seed project? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #226. | |||||
| 31 | Question | ||||
| Section J | Will the Government be providing the Schedule B for the Repair Dormitory B.464 seed project in a forthcoming amendment? | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #224. | |||||
| 32 | Question | ||||
| G001 | Sheet G001 of the Repair Dormitory B.464 seed project identifies the requirement for existing furnishings to be removed and stored by the Contractor. During the site visit, there was discussion that the furnishings would be removed prior to construction. Please advise. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #234. | |||||
| 33 | Question | ||||
| 01 11 00, para 1.2 | The specifications state the building will be occupied during construction. Due to the extensive scope of work for this project, that does not seem feasible. Please confirm the building will be UNOCCUPIED during construction. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #225. | |||||
| 34 | Question | ||||
| Drawings A001, AD101-AD404, A611 and structural drawings | Numerous notes require repair or replacement “as needed” without defining quantities or acceptance criteria. Please identify the quantity to include in the base bid for concealed deterioration and provide unit prices or an allowance/change-order mechanism for work exceeding that quantity. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Where applicable, Quantities / allowances will be provided in upcoming Schedule B. If unforeseen concealed conditions are discovered during construction, or additional quanitities are needed, they will be addressed through a contract modification. However, for notes such as D46/D48/D49, the intent is that the Contractor patch and repair impacts of their demo/new work scope with results matching or better than existing conditions prior to commencement of work. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section I, incorporating FAR 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions; Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part I, para 2] | |||||
| 35 | Question | ||||
| 01 57 19 | S&ME report Sections 3.1, 5.1, and 6 | If concealed suspect material not sampled in the report is encountered, confirm that the Contractor will stop work and notify the Government, and identify who will pay for sampling, laboratory analysis, abatement design, removal, disposal, delay, and remobilization. State the contractual allowance or change procedure applicable to this work. | |||
| Answer | |||||
| Reference question and answer #232. | |||||
| 36 | Question | ||||
| Drawing AG000, Building Design & Code Information; Drawing A104 | The project is in South Carolina, but A104 references the Florida Building Code. Confirm the governing building, existing-building, accessibility, energy, wind, and flood codes/editions, and state whether the Florida Building Code note is to be deleted. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| Omit reference to Florida Building Code. Louvers must still comply with AMCA-540. | |||||
| 37 | Question | ||||
| 08 51 13 | Drawings AG000, A104, A611 | Please provide the complete delegated-design criteria for replacement windows, including ultimate/design wind speed, exposure category, risk category, internal pressure classification, component-and-cladding pressures by zone, impact protection requirement, water test pressure, and required field testing quantity. | |||
| Answer | |||||
| Section 08 51 13 describe said requirements for aluminum windows. Wind Speed can be found on S-001. | |||||
| 38 | Question | ||||
| 09 30 10, 09 65 00, and 09 68 00 | Drawings A621-A626 | Define the base-bid limits for substrate moisture/pH testing, grinding, leveling, crack repair, adhesive/mastic removal, and moisture mitigation. Provide an allowance or unit-price mechanism for remediation exceeding the specified presumptive quantity. | |||
| Answer | |||||
| Allowances can be found in Schedule B. The contractor is responsible for performing all necessary testing, surface preparation (including grinding, leveling, and crack repair), and moisture mitigation required to meet the manufacturer's warranty and contract requirements as part of their firm-fixed-price proposal. If concealed conditions are encountered that differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist, this would be addressed through a contract modification under the Differing Site Conditions clause. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YS Seed Project Specifications.pdf, Sections 09 65 00 and 09 68 00; Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section I, incorporating FAR 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions] | |||||
| 39 | Question | ||||
| Drawings A101-A104 | Provide a complete OFCI/OFCI/OFOI equipment matrix, including model, quantity, delivery date, storage responsibility, utility rough-ins, installation responsibility, testing, and warranty coordination. | ||||
| Answer | |||||
| The project contains on instance of GFCI: the electric strike hardware. However - note there are requirements for contractor to salvage, store, and reinstall. |
The contract establishes the provision for Government-Furnished Material and Equipment (GFM/GFE). The contractor is directed to provide all materials and equipment necessary to complete the work unless an item is explicitly identified as Government-furnished in a specific Task Order. [ref: Statement of Work - Attachment 3 - 01 11 00 - Summary of Work, para 1.4; Statement of Work - JB CHS MACC.pdf, para 17]
| 40 | Question | |
| Drawings A412 and demolition plans | Identify each kitchen appliance/equipment item to remain, be salvaged/reinstalled, be Government-furnished, or be replaced. Provide utility connection requirements and confirm who is responsible for disconnection, storage, cleaning, reinstallation, start-up, and certification. | |
| Answer | ||
| Reference question and answer #234. | ||
| 41 | Question | |
| Architectural demolition keynotes on A001/AD sheets; structural drawings S-201-S-204 and S-610-S-616. | Identify all locations requiring temporary shoring and state whether shoring is fully Contractor-designed. Provide design loads, restrictions on floor loading, required sequencing, delegated-design submittal criteria, and whether a South Carolina-licensed engineer is required. | |
| Answer | ||
| The solicitation documents require temporary shoring but do not specify all locations. The contractor is responsible for identifying all areas needing shoring to safely perform the work. However, the drawings indicate new openings in existing CMU walls and removal of CMU infill, which will require shoring of the overhead structure. Shoring is to be fully designed by the contractor. The design must be created and sealed by a professional engineer registered in South Carolina. The complete design, including calculations and drawings, must be submitted for review and approval prior to implementation. The solicitation does not provide specific design loads; these must be determined by the contractor's engineer. See also Demolition Note #12 on S-001. | ||
| 42 | Question | |
| Drawings M101-M104 and architectural reflected ceiling plans A121-A123. | Provide locations and minimum sizes for all access panels serving VAV boxes, dampers, valves, controls, and other maintainable devices. Confirm access-panel fire rating, finish, and whether panels are required in both gypsum ceilings and walls. | |
| Answer | ||
| The specific locations for all required access panels are not individually marked on the drawings. The contractor is responsible for providing access to all maintainable equipment, including, but not limited to, VAV boxes, dampers, valves, and control devices, whether they are located in gypsum walls or ceilings. The size of the access panel must be "sufficient for servicing the item." For valves, the minimum size is 12x12 inches. For dampers, the panel must be large enough to allow for damper removal. In fire-rated construction, access panels must be fire-rated assemblies matching the rating of the surrounding wall or ceiling. Access panels are to be prime-painted steel, finished to match the adjacent surface. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YS Seed Project Specifications.pdf, Section 08 31 00 - Access Doors and Panels, Part 2; Section 23 30 00, Part 3; Section 23 05 93 - Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC, Part 3] |
Please note that majority of the VAVs are located above ACT ceiling.
| 43 | Question | |
| 23 09 00, 23 09 13, 23 09 23.02, 25 05 11.00, and 25 10 10 | Clarify the hierarchy and intended scope of the overlapping controls sections. Identify the controlling sequence of operations, approved controls manufacturer/integrator, required licensing, and whether proprietary work must be performed by the incumbent JBC controls contractor. | |
| Answer | ||
| UFGS 23 09 00: General core specification for Instrumentation and Control for HVAC, providing overall system requirements, coordination checklists, and point schedules. |
UFGS 23 09 13: Focuses strictly on Instrumentation and Control Devices for HVAC (the physical field hardware like sensors, valves, dampers, and actuators rather than the software architecture).
UFGS 23 09 23.02: Specifies BACnet Direct Digital Control (DDC) for building-level HVAC systems, enforcing BACnet as the standard open protocol architecture.
UFGS 25 05 11: Covers Cybersecurity for Facility-Related Control Systems, applying mandatory Risk Management Framework (RMF) controls and network security policies across operational technology.
UFGS 25 10 10: Governs the Utility Monitoring and Control System (UMCS) Front End and Integration, dealing with the centralized supervisory software, graphics, and servers that tie multiple building-level DDC systems together.
The solicitation documents do not specify a required or approved controls manufacturer or integrator, nor do they state that the work must be performed by the incumbent JBC controls contractor. The specifications are performance-based, requiring the new system to integrate with the existing base infrastructure, but they do not name a proprietary manufacturer. The specifications do not name a specific approved controls manufacturer. Instead, they require the system to be native BACnet and UL-listed. The contractor is to propose a manufacturer that meets the detailed performance specifications. The controls contractor/integrator must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience installing and servicing systems of similar size and complexity and must have a fully staffed and equipped service office within 100 miles of the project site. There is no requirement for the work to be performed by the incumbent JBC controls contractor. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YS Seed Project Specifications.pdf, Section 23 09 00, Part 1, para 1.5]
| 44 | Question | |||
| 01 30 00, paragraph 1.5.1; 01 91 00.15, paragraph 1.10; 23 08 00 | Section 01 30 00 appears to require the Commissioning Agent as a first-tier subcontractor, while Section 01 91 00.15 states the Commissioning Provider is employed by the Government under a separate contract. Clarify each party’s role and cost responsibility, and identify all Contractor-retained commissioning specialists, testing, retesting, demonstrations, and documentation required. | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #223. | ||||
| 45 | Question | |||
| 21 13 13 | Drawings FP001-FP104 | Provide the latest hydrant flow test, existing riser/backflow/valve data, available hydraulic calculations, hazard classifications, design densities/areas, hose-stream allowance, and required safety factor. Confirm the limits of Contractor delegated design and whether replacement of existing undersized mains/risers discovered by calculation is included in the base bid. | ||
| Answer | ||||
| Information requested is provided in the seed project drawings and specifications, however, the contractor is responsible for the complete design of the wet-pipe sprinkler system. This includes providing complete shop drawings and hydraulic calculations, which must be prepared and sealed by a fire protection engineer registered in South Carolina. If calculations based on this data show that other existing infrastructure not explicitly marked for replacement is undersized, this would be considered a differing site condition and addressed via a change order. Please see latest hydrant flow test, dated Feb 2025. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YS Seed Project Specifications.pdf, Section 21 13 13, para 1.3 & 1.6; Solicitation Attachment YT Seed Project Drawings.pdf, Sheet FP-101; Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section I, incorporating FAR 52.236-2] | ||||
| 46 | Question | |||
| Please advise if the Government will require a specific project management software for this project. If so, will the contractor be responsible for purchasing the licenses / seats for themselves and / or the government, and how many. | ||||
| Answer | ||||
| No specific project management software is required. | ||||
| 47 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II - Factor 2c. | If a completed CPARS is available, would a CPARS be acceptable as a substitution for a Past Performance Questionnaires (attachment XU)? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 48 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II - Factor 2c. | States: " No more than two (2) of the fifteen (15) contracts executed shall be Design-Build contracts." However, after reviewing attachment XW JB Charleston MACC Work load estimate, it appears that a preponderance of the work listed could very easily be solicited via task order as a design build project. Furthermore, a review of the SOW ATT 1 , SOW AE services, also supports that assessment. To provide the government a full range of a contractors DB past performance, would the government reconsider the 2 design build contract limitation on past performance samples? Or possibly alter the limit of two DB contracts samples to the teaming AE firm? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The Government will not reconsider the two (2) Design-Build contract limitation. This limit applies to the total of fifteen (15) projects submitted by the offeror, which includes projects from the prime contractor, teaming partners, and any other entities. The limit is not applied separately to the A/E firm. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c] | ||||
| 49 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II - Factor 2c. | If an interim CPARS has been completed, would an interim- CPARS be acceptable as a substitution for a Past Performance Questionnaires (attachment XU)? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 50 | Question | |||
| Section L | Would the Government clarify when RFIs are due? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The solicitation was amended on 18 August 2026 to extend the question deadline to 20 August 2026. Please see amendment 001 details on SAM.gov, Notice ID: FA441826R0009 | ||||
| 51 | Question | |||
| Section L | Would the Government consider conducting an additional site visit for prospective offerors? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #236. | ||||
| 52 | Question | |||
| Section L | Would the Government provide the Sign In Sheet for the site visit conducted on August 6, 2026? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The Government will attach the site visit sign-in sheet to the solicitation in a forthcoming amendment. | ||||
| 53 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Per 48 CFR 215.305/DFARS 215.305, will the Government allow use of affiliate past performance experience to meeting the PART II - FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION evaluation requirements? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, the past performance of an affiliate can be considered, but only if that affiliate will have a significant role in the performance of this contract. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c and Section M-3.2] | ||||
| 54 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Since some Government agencies decline to or are prohibited as a matter of policy from completing a PPQ when there is an Interim or Final CPAR already issued for a project, will the Government consider allowing CPARs to be submitted in lieu of PPQs under Factor 2? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 55 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | May Offerors submit a previously-completed signed USACE/NAVFAC format PPQ, or must Attachment XU's format be used? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 56 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Does the RFP intentionally limit Offerors to providing no more than two (2) Design-Build (DB) contracts out of 15 Factor 2 past performance projects? It is unclear why DB, which is prevalently used these days in federal construction, would be limited to only 2 of 15 projects by the RFP. | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, the Request for Proposal (RFP) intentionally limits offerors to providing no more than two (2) Design-Build (DB) contracts out of the fifteen (15) total past performance projects. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c] | ||||
| 57 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Would the Government consider past performance projects that are substantially complete (> 80%) within the past 5 years? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, past performance projects that are substantially complete are acceptable for evaluation. |
The controlling requirement is that the project must be "recent," which is defined as having at least one day of performance within five (5) years of the solicitation's release date. A project that is substantially complete meets this requirement, provided one day of its performance period falls within that five-year window. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section M-3.2]
| 58 | Question | |
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Would non-Government work ie. Local Municipality be considered relevant? | |
| Answer | ||
| Yes, work for a local municipality would be considered relevant. |
The solicitation explicitly allows for past performance references from both "Federal agencies and commercial customers." The relevance of a project is evaluated based on the scope, magnitude, complexity, and recency of the work, not on whether the client was a government or non-government entity. [ref: Solicitation - FA441826R0009, Section L-2.3, Part II.c and Section M-3.2]
| 59 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | Would the Government consider past performance experience that is an aggregate of individual task orders on an IDIQ construction contract with a sum total over $1M? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, the Government would consider the past performance of an aggregate of individual task orders on an IDIQ construction contract. | ||||
| 60 | Question | |||
| Section L, 2.3, Part II | If CPARs are considered acceptable by the Government in lieu of PPQs, would CPARs be excluded from the page count? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 61 | Question | |||
| M005, detail 2 | The hot water piping diagram shows a 2-way modulating control valve for min flow control for the boiler. It's location between the pumps and the boiler will not work. It will need to be located on the other side of the pumps. Also, there needs to be a flow meter for the control system to know how to modulate that valve to maintain min flow to the boiler. That flow meter needs to be in the supply line between the boiler and the bypass valve. Can you please confirm if this will be acceptable? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| In building 464, the heat pump boiler is only serving one piece of equipment (AHU-5) the 2-way modulating control valve is not required. Minimum flow to the boiler will be achieved upon a call for heat from AHU-5 and the associated 3-way modulating control valve before the heating coil. Refer to Attachment - B466 Mechanical RFIs showing the updated hot water piping diagram. | ||||
| 62 | Question | |||
| M106, detail 1 | The B466 mechanical room renovation plan does not show an emergency stop switch for boiler shutdown by the door. Is one required? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, an emergency stop switch is required at each entrance to the boiler room. This is a requirement per ASME CSD-1, called out in specification section 23 52 00. | ||||
| 63 | Question | |||
| M106, detail 1 | There is no sequence of operation for the boiler and pump in B466. Can that be provided? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Refer to Attachment - B466 Mechanical RFIs for the sequence of operation. | ||||
| 64 | Question | |||
| M007, detail 2 | For AHU-5, there is no sequence of operation or list of controls points necessary to complete that sequence of operation. Can that be provided? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Refer to Attachment - B466 Mechanical RFIs for the sequence of operation. | ||||
| 65 | Question | |||
| M007, detail 3 | For AHU-1, 2, 3, and 4, there is no sequence of operation or list of controls points necessary to complete that sequence of operation. Can that be provided? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Refer to Attachment - B466 Mechanical RFIs for the sequence of operation. | ||||
| 66 | Question | |||
| M105, detail 1 | It is unclear if the chilled water valves need to be 3-way or 2-way valves. Can you please clarify this? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The chilled water valves are required to be 3-way valves to maintain the functionality of the existing chilled water loop. | ||||
| 67 | Question | |||
| M002, pump schedule | There is no sequence of operation describing how the chilled water pump VFD should be controlled. If it is to a differential pressure, the location of that device will need to be shown in the piping. Can a sequence of operation, and location of DP if necessary, be provided? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The existing chilled water pump VFD control sequence does not need to be changed. The differential pressure sensor required for correct operation shall be installed in and accessible location in the 2-1/2” chilled water piping between AHU-1 and AHU-3 prior to the Tee that branches off to AHU’s 2 & 4. | ||||
| 68 | Question | |||
| Plumbing Demolition P050, 060, & 070 | There are no indications or legend that indicates “dashed” fixtures should be demolished on the plumbing plans? Is that demolition cost to be included in the CLIN-0001 pricing? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Yes, all fixtures shown with dashed lines on the demolition plans are to be demolished; cross reference with architectural demo plans/notes. The cost for this work is to be included in the base bid, CLIN 0001. | ||||
| 69 | Question | |||
| Plumbing Demolition P050 | Demolition Note “2” is only indicated one place on the plan; does it apply to other places; there are no indications or legend that indicates “dashed” pipe should be demolished on the plumbing plans? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Note only applies to that unique sink, which will be relocated to accomodate accessible sleeping room. Dashed pipe on demo plans indicates demolition. | ||||
| 70 | Question | |||
| Plumbing Demolition P060 & 070 | (a) Demolition Note “1” refers to demolition of ALL water and sanitary piping; however, no piping is drawn or detailed on the plans: please define the Quantity of pipe to be demolished. (b) If ALL piping is demolished; is there new piping being installed in its place? no piping is drawn or detailed to determine sizes or quantities . | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Demo note 1 applies to all water and sanitary lines (including but not limited to supply hoses, stop valves, P-traps, escutcheons) associated with fixtures to be replaced and is to be demolished back to the wall/ floor penetration and shall be protected and prepared to extend to the new fixture during renovation. Domestic and sanitary branch-lines and mains are to remain. | ||||
| 71 | Question | |||
| M101 Keynote 2 & P101 Keynote 4 | There is no specification for pre-insulated pipe; does the direct buried pipe require insulation? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| Applications / keynotes indicate insulation is not required for direct-buried pipe for the HPWH or HPB. | ||||
| 72 | Question | |||
| G001 | Sheet G001 Existing Furnishings, Appurtenances, and Salvage Ites note 1 states Contractor shall remove and temporarily store all existing furnishings. Does this include all Beds, Dressers, Laundry equipment etc…? | |||
| Answer | ||||
| The contractor's responsibilities for existing furnishings, appurtenances, and salvage include receiving, storing, installing, connecting all utilities, start-up, and testing with additional detail provided in Salvage-Storage List now included in the solicitation. [ref: Solicitation Attachment YT Seed Project Drawings.pdf, Sheet G001] | ||||
| 73 | Question | |||
| With the busy year end it is going to be impossible to get our military CO's/COR's to fill out & send in PPQ's by the due date. Can we submit CPAR evaluations versus submitting PPQ's for every project if one exists? | ||||
| Answer | ||||
| Reference question and answer #229. | ||||
| 74 | Question | |||
| Keynote D18 states Demo. Floor Finish (& Portion of slab @select locations; RE: Structura.) Patch & Prepare for new Flooring per Sched. There are no existing floor finishes listed and we were unable to document all finishes at the site visit. Can the goverment provide and exisitng finish schedule? | ||||
| Answer |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .