Questions and Answers.pdf

1. The Ceiling for this acquisition is in Section M, Paragrapah 5.3 “Estimated volume is based on a maximum contract value of $47.5M over 5 years. Offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposed contract usage during this contract period“

2. In Section M Subsection 7.1.2.1, the definitions for “very relevant” and “relevant” say that projects must be “independently corroborated by the Government evaluation team through CPARS and the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project.”

This “and” suggests that CPARS evaluations are essential in order to warrant a rating of “very relevant” or “relevant.” Can these definitions be modified to say either “…through CPARS (if available) and the Government program manager…” or “…through CPARS and/or the Government program manager…”? Language in table of Section M updated and changed to say CPARS “if available”

3. Do the projects in Volume III need to be 100% complete? Yes, please reference Section L, 6.1.1.

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION.

4. There is a reference to “questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition” in Section M Subsection 7.1. Please confirm that the offerors are not required to solicit past performance questionnaires for the projects in Volume III. Confirm, the Government will reach out to the other Government counterparts

5. There is a reference to “past performance questionnaires” in Section M Subsection 7.1.1. Please confirm that offerors are not required to solicit past performance questionnaires for the projects in Volume III. Confirm, the Government will reach out to the other Government counterparts

6. In Section L, Subsection 6.1.1.2 states “Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offeror’s actions under previously awarded contracts.” ‘This sentence is referring only to the five projects being presented in Volume III, correct? If not, please elaborate on what information is being requested here and what page limits apply. Correct, this is referring to Volume III

7. In Section M, Subsection 9.11 provides three example scenarios. Scenario 1 seems to suggest that the USAF might only consider making six (s) IDIQ awards. Is there a maximum number of contracts being contemplated? Section M 9.10. Step 7: states “The Government may award up to six (6) contracts as a result of this solicitation.”

8. Section 9 of the MACC SOW (Attachment 1) describes a program manager. In Section L, Subsection 5.1.2 requires information for a project manager and a quality control manager. It sounds as though the program manager (who “must be available via local phone service throughout the duration of all ongoing TOs”) and the project manager are two different roles. Is that correct? Section L 5.1.2 has been corrected to Program Manager

9. Within Attachment 17, Subsection 1.1.1 (and its subsections) in Section 01 30 00 (Administrative Requirements) say to “make available, on-site, a Project Manager (PM) for purpose of supervising the Work issued by separate Task Orders” and to “provide an alternate representative should unforeseen events prevent the PM from being available on-site.” Please consider the cost implications of this requirement. Every contractor with active projects (even if it was only one project) would be required to provide an on-site project manager in addition to the QC representative. Noted, no change made

10. In Section L, Subsection 5.1.2 instructs offerors to provide, for their proposed key personnel, their name, title, duty, years of experience, and “experience level relating to similar multidiscipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property including size and scope.” What is meant by “experience level” in this requirement?

Section L 5.1.2 Language has been updated

11. In the MACC SOW (Attachment 1) Subsection 40 (Pricing Guideline) says that “When a subcontractor is used, there must be 3 bids from different subcontractors (non-bids do not count).” Based on our past experience performing SABERs at Altus AFB, we believe that the requirement for three competitive quotes in certain trades will be a difficult standard to meet due to the limited number of subcontractors in the region that are capable of (and interested in) bidding on federal construction/repair projects. Because this IDIQ will likely be a multiple-award contract and its task orders will be awarded based on price, consider removing the need for three subcontractor quotes. The competitive bidding process among prime contractors should itself be adequate to produce adequate price competition. And if there are multiple qualified subcontractors within certain trades, that subcontractor-level competition will naturally become part of the prime contractors’ competitive bidding process. Language in SOW section 40 is changed to “should”

12. For 8(a) companies that work primarily in the 23XXXX NAICS codes and who perform multi-discipline construction and repair jobs that are similar to those anticipated for this MACC, it is extremely rare to be awarded a DoD contract that involves work in any of the CSI divisions listed in the Process Equipment Subgroup. A contractor may perform electrical work in a power plant or install a generator, but that work would fall under Division 26 rather than Division 48. A contractor may work on or around water or wastewater equipment, but that work more often falls under Division 33 rather than Division 46. If the task orders under this MACC are not likely to include specifications sections for the CSI Divisions in the Process Equipment Subgroup, would USAF consider revising the definition of “very relevant” in Section M Subsection 7.1.2.1? Please put your company’s work in the category that you feel it fits in based on the Division’s listed.

13. For Volume III, can an 8(a) offeror use recent and relevant projects performed by a sister company (i.e., a subsidiary that shares the same parent, same president, and same management tools and procedures as the offering subsidiary) provided that it includes (in the proposal) a letter of commitment that describes the sister company’s intent to provide meaningful involvement on the prime’s MACC task orders and task order bids? Section L 6 addresses Teaming Arrangement

14. We are an 8A Contractor and is interested in the following solicitation. Is it a requirement to have a bona fide office in this area to submit an offer? Please advise. No