SABER_QUESTIONS_14_July_2015.pdf

FA4460-15-R-0002 Attachment 9

14 July 2015

SABER QUESTIONS

Q1. The Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire states that the PPQ should be sent out and returned to the contracting officer by June 22, 2015. Is this a misprint? Please advise and correct.

A. Amendment 1 to the Solicitation dated 10 Jul 2015 corrected the PPQ to 14 Jul 2015

Q2. Section C. Part III – Past Performance Information (ii.1) states that “The offeror shall forward a copy of the past performance questionnaire to no more than ten (10) of their most recent references, for whom the Offeror has contracted similar services with Federal, State or Local Government agencies and commercial businesses.”

A. PPQ’s should address relevant past performance attributable to the company providing the proposal.

Q3. Can the government please provide a minimum amount of references they will accept (up to 10 is known, but what is minimum)?

A. one

Q4. Reference: Section L-4.B.iv.1 directs the offeror to submit minimum design documentation for the Seed Project.

Question: Please clarify what is required as “minimum” design documentation.

A. Review the Summary of Work elements, for design, construction and reference RS Means Pricing guide to develop a proposal for the project. We are not expecting a design at this point, only that you review what it will take for you to design and construct and price it.

Q5. Reference: Section L instructs offerors to include the seed project proposal in Part II - Price Proposal. However, there is no evaluation criteria in Section M for the seed project portion of the Price Proposal. All evaluation criteria described for Part II, Price Proposal, are related to the coefficients for the base year and option years.

Question: How will the offeror’s seed project proposal be evaluated? Will it be on an acceptable/unacceptable basis like the Technical Proposal?

A. The price proposal for the seed project uses appropriate line items selected from the RSMeans Computerized Pricing Guide (CPG) Divisions and all requirements identified in the Summary of Work.

Q6. Reference: The table listed in Section L-3, pages 63-64, shows Part II as being the Past Performance volume and Part III as being the Contract Forms/Price volume. This conflicts with Sections L-4 and M-1 that identify Part II as the Price Proposal and Part III as the Past Performance.

Question: Please confirm that Part II is intended to be the Price Proposal and Part III is intended to be Past Performance.

A. Part II is Price and Part III is Performance ( Amend Section L)

Q7. Reference: Section M-1, D. iii: “Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving: tasks in various trades such as…that involve similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires to include multidiscipline projects.”

Question: Please clarify/further define “similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” More specifically, is the requirement that the past performance be similar in scope and magnitude to the individual delivery orders that would be awarded under the SABER contract (e.g., a single, multi-disciplined project or delivery order valued between $2,000 and $750,000 requiring design and construction would be considered a relevant contract) or is the requirement to be similar in scope and magnitude to the SABER contract itself (e.g., a $25 million, multi-year IDIQ contract requiring the performance of multiple, multi-disciplined delivery orders for a broad range of maintenance, repairs, alterations, and new construction)?

A. Past performance similar in scope and magnitude to the individual delivery orders that would be awarded under the SABER contract (e.g., a single, multi-disciplined project or delivery order valued between $2,000 and $750,000 requiring design and construction would be considered a relevant contract).

Q8. Reference: Page 38 of the RFP, Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. “The amount of the Bid Guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.”

Question: In what proposal volume does the government wish to receive the Bid Guarantee?

Shall offerors place the Bid Guarantee in Part I, Technical, along with the bonding capacity documentation? If the answer is “yes”, can the page limitation be increased to accommodate the additional pages?

A. The Bid Bond documents can be place in the Part I Technical Factor, and it will not be part of the minimum of 5 pages for Bonding evaluation.

Q9. Reference: Page 38 of the RFP, Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee. “The amount of the Bid Guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.”

Question: Please define “bid price”. In this particular case, is the bid price considered to be the maximum contract value ($25,000,000), the minimum guarantee ($10,000), the seed project price, or another amount?

A. The bid price is the maximum contract value of $25,000,000.

Q10. Reference: Specification Section 01 11 00 -11 Para 1.07.2 requires the contractor to provide “RS Means CostWorks Facilities Construction Costs Data Books.”

Question: Has the reference to “CostWorks” been included in error. “CostsWorks” is an electronic estimating tool used to locate costs in the searchable RS Means Database and has no relationship to the Facilities Construction Cost Data Books.

A. The reference to "Cost Works" in Specification Section 01 11 00, page 11, Section 1.07.2 was included in error. The words "Cost Works" should be deleted and the corrected sentence in the reference section should read as follows, " 2. The Contractor shall annually purchase and provide to the Government two (2) each copies of RS Means® Facilities Construction Costs Data Books for the sole use of the Government, no later than January 30th of each year

Q11. Reference: Specification Section 01 11 10 Para 1.05.D.1 requires that “construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional”. This seems to be in direct conflict with Specification Section 01 11 10 Para 1.05.D.2 which states “ Under the scope of this contract, the complexity will not necessarily require the services of a registered architect or engineer.”

Question: Will the government’s Statement of Work define when Professional design services are required and if required how will the contractor be compensated for the cost for these services?

A. The Scope of Work will define the requirements for each Delivery Order, and the extent of the design required to meet UFC 1-200-1 is dependent upon the complexity of the those requirements. Reference Specification Section 01 45 10- Contractor Quality Control, Part 1 General, paragraph 1.01 PAYMENT, Separate payment will not be made for providing and maintaining an effective design and construction quality control program, and all costs associated therewith shall be included in the Contractor’s coefficient. Specification Section 01 11 00, - Summary of Work, Part 1 General, paragraph 1.06B indicates design documentation is an allowable contractor cost that is to be included in the coefficient.

Q12. Reference: Seed Project SOW

a) Are we to paint the existing conduit?

b) Are we to replace and paint the existing brake metal currently protecting the end grain of the plywood or reuse the existing.

c) Are the existing exhaust grilles at the firing locations to be replaced or painted?

d) Are the new flood lights on the 2nd and 4th baffles to be configured the same as the existing flood lights on the 6th baffle?

e) Are the wooden swing down shooters barricades to be painted?

f) Are the carriage bolts that secure the 2x baffle supports to the metal frame to be replaced or reused.

g) Is the steel under the existing shooters canopy to be painted?

A. a) The Scope of Work does not require the existing or new conduit to be painted. If contractor can achieve efficiencies by painting the existing conduit, then it is acceptable to discuss during the details during the site visit and/or during negotiations of the Delivery Order prior to award.

b) The Scope of Work does not require replacement of the existing brake metal end caps. Reuse is acceptable, unless damaged during the demolition of the existing plywood occurs.

c) The Scope of Work does not require the exhaust grilles to be replaced or painted.

d) The Scope of Work indicates replacement of the current incandescent lights with equivalent LEDs. Yes, then it is acceptable to match the spacing of the LEDs from the 6th baffle to the 2nd and 4th baffles.

e) This work is not required per the Scope of Work.

f) The carriage bolt fasteners are expected to be replaced.

g) The Scope of Work does not require this area to be painted.

Q13. I am about to send our request for PPQ’s to our customers (Attachment 3). I noticed the date on the cover letter you provided indicates responses must be received no late than 22 June @ 3:00pm. Since this date has passed, I fear that clients may ignore the request. If allowed, we can revise the date so you could receive responses prior to the proposal submission due date. If you have a preference for what that date should be, please let us know at your earliest convenience.

A. Amendment 1 to the Solicitation dated 10 Jul 2015 corrected the PPQ to 14 Jul 2015

Q15. We are currently reviewing the drawings. Due to time restraints we are submitting the following comments and RFI based on our extensive knowledge of USAF shooting range acoustics.

Troy Acoustics (a subcontractor) is most interested in providing acoustical panels for this project since it is the only USAF approved acoustic system for indoor and outdoor ranges for anti-ricochet and anti-splatter. This allows the use of the Troy system in lieu of the ETL required two layers of plywood. Is there a requirement to meet the USAF mandated AFOSH CFR29 noise exposure limits (attached) as well as the current 1.5 second reverb time referenced in the ETL?

If baffles remain strictly with plywood, sound studies show that they are non-compliant with with the USAF AFOSH OSHA CFR29 noise exposure limits and the ETL. The USACE defines compliance with OSHA CFR29 as “1.3 seconds reverb time across all octaves from 125 Hz to 8000 Hz at all firing positions”.

Troy Acoustics USAF ETL 1.5 seconds and AFOSH CFR29 (DATED May 10, 2013) 1.3 seconds noise exposure limits compliant shooting ranges include:

Andrews AFB, Barksdale AFB, Eglin AFB, Keesler AFB, Maxwell AFB, Misawa AB, Whiteman AFB, Wright Patterson AFB.

A. It will be the winning offeror,s responsibility to provide a design that meets all regulatory requirements.

Q16. Can the government provide us with As-Built drawings at this time?

A. All available As-Build drawing were posted to Notice on 9 July 2015

Q17. Page 66 of 80, paragraph C, “Past Performance Information” states that past performance information is limited to no more than 2 pages per contract listed. However, the questionnaires provided, attachment 3, contain a total of 4 pages. Additionally, the instructions state that the questionnaires are to be return directly to the Contracting Officer for this contract. However, the same paragraph C instructs offeror’s to submit an original and one copy. These instructions are contradictory. Please clarify.

A. The Clarification is that these are two separate requirements. The Past Performance Questionnaire is for customers to provide us their evaluation of your performance and is not a part of the package that you provide on the 24th of July 2015. The Past performance Information is your submittal of any past performance you want evaluated limited to two pages per contract listed.

Q18. Please provide any record drawings of building 1395, in dwg format if possible, for our use in developing the design for the seed project associated with the subject RFP. We request that these be provided prior to the site visit date if possible, but as soon as time permits.

A. All available As-Build drawing were posted to Notice on 9 July 2015

Q19. Re: Solicitation FA4460-15-R-0002- Little Rock SABER May an offeror submit a recently completed PPQ, CPARs, or CCASS evaluation when providing past performance documentation for a referenced project?

Or- does each PPQ need to be completed, new, on this PPQ forms provided?

This is an effort to save respective contracting officers the work of completing redundant PPQs for the same project.

Please provide a response to the RFIs below; Section C. Part III – Past Performance Information (ii.1) states that “The offeror shall forward a copy of the past performance questionnaire to no more than ten (10) of their most recent references, for whom the Offeror has contracted similar services with Federal, State or Local Government agencies and commercial businesses.”

a. Can the offeror also submit PPQs and information for past performance on key personnel (so long as they stay within the range of 10 total)?

b. Can the government please provide a minimum amount of references they will accept (up to 10 is known, but what is minimum)

A. Only Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) provided with this solicitation will be used.

PPQ’s should address prevalent past performance attributable to the company providing the proposal.

Q20. Could you please clarify information regarding the site visit of July 8th and 9th? Are the site visit dates optional for either the 8th or 9th or is it a two day site visit?

A. Site Visit Clarification posted to Notice 1 July 2015

Q21. Section L - Instructions, L-4 Part 1 - Technical Factor. States a 5-page limit, however, I only see mention of providing bonding capability. Is the bonding capability letter from the Surety the only requirement to the Technical Factor? There is no mention in Section M - Evaluation Factors of any requirement other than the bonding letter.

A. Providing Bonding Caplibiliy is the only requirement.

Q22. The table in Section L-3 Paragraph A. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits indicates that Part II is Past Performance and Part III is Contract Forms/Price.

Other text in Sections L and M indicate that Part II is Price Proposal and Part III is Past Performance. Please clarify.

A. Part II is Price and Part III is Performance. (Amend Section L)

Q23. Thank you for posting AMENDMENT 0001 with the updated PPQ. However, you put that you want the PPQ returned by 14 JUL 2015, which is tomorrow. That doesn’t give our POCs for projects much time to return them with the new PPQ issued Friday afternoon. Can we request they be returned by the due date of the proposal – 24 JUL 2015? Please advise.

A. We require Past Performance Questionnaire be provide in advance of Proposal.

Q24. Section L-4. C, “Past Performance Information”, states that there is a page limitation of 2 pages per contract listed. Does this page limitation exclude or include the Quality and Satisfaction Ratings (Section L-4 C.i.) to be provided for the relevant contracts?

A. The Past Performance Information is your submittal of any past performance you want evaluated limited to two pages per contract listed and includes Quality and Satisfaction Ratings (Section L-4 C.i.) to be provided for the relevant contracts limited to two pages per contract.

Q25. Section L3 Para A, page 63, The table in paragraph A. indicates that three sections need to be part of our proposal (Part I Technical, Part II Past Performance, and Part III Contract Forms/Price) however L-4 paragraph B., and C. indicate these to be Part II – Price Proposal and Part III – Past Performance Information. Please clarify sections and titles.

A. (Part I Technical, Part II Contract Forms/Price) and Part III Past Performance (Amend Section L)

Q26. Section L4 Para B., iv., It is our understanding that all information regarding the seed project be inserted into the Price Proposal. Please confirm this is correct.

A. The Seed Project is priced separately.

Q27. Are the as-built drawings available in CAD format?

A. No CAD format drawings are available.

Q28. Will sealed drawings from a registered engineer be required for any portion of the seed project work?

A. Specification Section 01 11 10, Paragraph 1.05 Minimum Design, third sentence, "The International Building Code section [A] 107.1 states that "construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional." The design professional will determine if sealed drawings are required to meet the statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.

Q29. Are there any reports available regarding LBP or other contaminants?

A. No. The Seed Project Statement of Work, Section 01 11 00 Initial Summary Of Work For Saber, Part 2 Technical Description of Project, Paragraph E., indicates the contractor is responsible for conducting tests, surveys etc. as required for a complete minimum buildable design and construction project.

Q30. In Section L, page 63 of 80, paragraph L3(A), Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, the RFP states, “Proposals shall be prepared in three parts Part I – Technical Proposal, Part II – Past Performance, and Part III – Price Proposal.” The table below this paragraph lists the parts as: Part I. Technical, original and 1 copy with a 5-page limit; Part II. Past Performance, original and 1 copy with a 2 per contract listed page limit; and Part III. Contract Forms/Price, original and 1 copy with no page limit. However, starting on page 65 of 80, paragraph L4, the RFP lists the parts as Part I – Technical Acceptability, Part II – Price proposal and Part III – Past Performance Information. Furthermore, in Section M, page 76 of 80, paragraph M-1(a), the RFP lists the sections as Factor 1: Part I – Technical, Factor 2: Part II – Price and Factor 3: Part III – Past Performance. Please clarify the naming and order. Are we to follow the naming and order provided in L3 or the naming and order provided in L4?

A. Factor 1: Part I – Technical, Factor 2: Part II – Price and Factor 3: Part III – Past Performance. (Amend Section L)

Q31. The SF 1442 in Box 13 states to provide an original and 3 copies. Section L, paragraph L3, within a table on page 63 and 64 of 80 states that Part I, II and III should be provided in original and one copy. Please clarify if Offerors are to follow Box 13 of the Sf 1442 (original and 3 copies of Part I, II and III) or Section L, paragraph L3 table on page 63 and 64 of 80.

A. Original and 1 copy is the requirement. (Amend SF1442 Box 13)

Q32. Section L, paragraph L6 Questions, states that, “all questions must be submitted to the individuals listed in paragraph L3 E no later than close of business five (5) business days after the site visit. The site visit lists two days, July 8th and July 9th. Please confirm that the RFI deadline is five (5) business days after the July 9th, 2015, site visit – therefore the deadlines for submitting RFIs is July 16th, 2015, COB.

A. The date 14 July 2015 that the Government posted to the Solicitation on 9 July 2015 is the last day the Government will accept questions.

Q33. In Section L, page 64 of 80, paragraph L3(B), Page Size and Format, the RFP states, “…typing shall not be less than 12 point font…” In order to include sufficient information detailing Offeror’s experience and capabilities, will the Government consider reducing the font requirement to not less than 10 point font?

A. The minimum font is 12 point.

Q34. Part I, Technical, lists in Section L and Section M that only a letter from Offeror’s Surety demonstrating a bonding capacity of $1M per project and $5M aggregate is the only submission and evaluation criteria, along with the surety’s name, address, phone and point of contact information, which typically fits onto one page. However, the section is allowed 5 pages. Will the Government please confirm that only the Surety Letter demonstrating Offeror’s bonding capacity of $1M per project and $5M aggregate is the only submission and evaluation criteria, along with the surety’s name, address, phone and point of contact information and that no other technical information is required?

A. As stated a bonding capacity of $1M per project and $5M aggregate is the only submission and evaluation criteria.

Q35. The Past Performance section is stated as having a 2-per-contract-listed page limit, but the submission requirements ask for Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five years, Performance Surveys (completed Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPPQs) are not considered in the page limit count), and Subcontractor Consent. What is the 2-per-contract-listed page limit referencing? Is that referencing paragraph 2 on page 67 of 80, which asks for Reference List? Is so, does that mean that the Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five years and the Subcontractor Consent forms are not part of any page limit?

A. The Clarification is that these are two separate requirements. The Past Performance Questionnaire is for customers to provide us their evaluation of your performance and is not a part of the package that you provide on the 24th of July 2015. The Past performance Information is your submittal of any past performance you want evaluated limited to two pages per contract listed. The Past Performance Information is your submittal of any past performance you want evaluated limited to two pages per contract listed and includes Quality and Satisfaction Ratings (Section L-4 C.i.) to be provided for the relevant contracts limited to two pages per contract.

Q36. Will the Government please confirm our assumption of the Past Performance submission requirements listed below is correct:

a. Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Five Years: This section is asking for awards, commendation letters, evaluations, accolades, etc., for any projects within the past 5 years. Also, there is no page limit for this section.

b. Performance Surveys: This section is asking for two items:

i. Completion of Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3). This has no page count. Offerors are to provide PPQs for the 10 most relevant projects that were performed within the past 5 years.

ii. Submit a Reference List: This section is asking for information on the 10 most relevant projects in which PPQs were submitted on and that were completed within the past 5 years. This section is limited to 2-pages per contract listed, and must include items listed on page 67 of 80, paragraph 2, items (a) through (i). Our understanding is that this section also includes a brief narrative description of each project’s relevancy to this SABER. Please specifically confirm that the Government desires relevancy narratives for each project to be included, and that the Government desires those narratives to be included in this section.

c. Subcontractor Consent: This section asks for Subcontractor Consent letters to be included if subcontractor past performance is used. This section has no page limit.

A. a. there is a two page limit on this section as it is part of Para C Past Performance Information

b. i. Completion of Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3). Is a 4 page document Offerors are to provide up to 10 most relevant projects that were performed within the past 5 years.

ii. Submit a Reference List: This section is asking for information on the 10 most relevant projects in which offeror has performed work on State and Federal Government contracts within the past 5 years. This section is part of the past performance Information and is limited to 2 pages per contract listed, and placed in section III, Past Performance of proposal.

c. Attachment 6 provides offeror a letter template for Subcontractor consent.

Q37. Please confirm that Final CCASS Performance Evaluations may be submitted in lieu of completing Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaires.

A. The Past Performance Questionnaires provided with this Solicitation is the only acceptable form.

Q38. In order to save our Government clients’ time, please confirm that previously completed PPQs (as long as they evaluate the same criteria) may be submitted in lieu of completing Attachment 3, Past Performance.

A. The Past Performance Questionnaires provided with this Solicitation is the only acceptable form.

Q37. Is a bid bond required for the Seed Project? If so, where specifically are we to insert the bid bond within the proposal?

A. No, the seed project will be negotiated after award.

Q39. Page 65, paragraph (i), states, “Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 30 of the RFP Section SF 1442. However, blocks 16 and 18 have nothing to complete. Additionally, box 30 is supposed to be completed post-award, once the contract is signed. Typically, SF 1442 Box 20A, 20B and 20C are completed for the proposal/solicitation phase. Please confirm that Offerors are only to complete blocks, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 only.

A. Offerors are required to complete blocks, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20A-C

Q40. Page 65, paragraph (iii), states, “Offerors shall submit a full explanation on the basis for the development of the coefficients. The explanation shall, as a minimum, address the Offeror’s perception of the accuracy of the unit price book (RS Means) and the basis for any assumptions regarding expected volume (dollars) of work under the contract.”

a. Question #1: Is there a page limit for this “full explanation”?

b. Question #2: Can the Government further explain and define, outside of Offeror’s perception of the accuracy of the unit price book and the basis for any assumptions regarding expected volume (dollar) of work under the contract, what they mean and wish to see in a “full explanation on the basis for the development of the coefficients”?

A. a. Pricing has no page limit

b. Price each CLIN based on your experience and knowledge of RS MEANS unit price guide

Q41. Page 66 of 80, paragraph (iv), states, “Offerors shall submit the proposal for the seed project with the minimal design documentation that meets the following: 1) The design elements included in the minimum design addresses all the necessary elements to accomplish the seed projects Summary of Work requirements; and 2) The price proposal for the seed project uses appropriate line items selected from the RSMeans Computerized Pricing Guide (CPG) Divisions and all requirements identified in the Summary of Work are addressed.”

a. Question #1: What are the requirements for the Seed Project Proposal? Are Offerors to follow the requirements listed in the Seed Project SOW, page 7, Part 4, 4.01 Proposal Submittal Requirements, items (A) through (I)? Or are Offerors to follow the requirements of the Specifications, page 16, Section 01 11 10-15, paragraph 1.03 Proposal Minimum Requirements, items (A) through (D)? Or, will the Government define the submission requirements for the Seed Project proposal?

b. Question #2: What “design elements” are required for the seed project proposal?

Neither the Seed Project SOW nor the Specifications specify the design elements requirements. Please clarify and define what the Government means by “design elements” (i.e., drawings, design analysis, product data cut sheets, calculations, etc.)

A. Review the Summary of Work elements, for design, construction and reference RS Means Pricing guide to develop a proposal for the project. We are not expecting a design at this point, only that you review what it will take for you to design and construct and price it.

Q42. Page 66 of 80, paragraph (vi), the RFP states, “Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Section I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in. However, there is no Section C or D. Section E, F & J have nothing to populate. Therefore, will the Government confirm that Section G (only page 19 of 80), Section I (only pages 28, 33 (if known and applicable) and 38 (if applicable)), and Section K in its entirety are required for this section?

A. Follow instructions, and provide information in the sections that have a requirement for you to respond.

Q43. RFP Page 76, Item M-1.B. states “BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' PAST PERFORMANCE

HISTORY WILL BE EVALUATED ON A BASIS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT

THAN COST OR PRICE CONSIDERATIONS (emphasis added).” However, RFP Page 79, Item M-1.D.iii.6-7 states “IF THE LOWEST PRICED EVALUATED TECHNICALLY

ACCEPTABLE OFFER IS JUDGED TO HAVE A “SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE”

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. AWARD SHALL BE MADE TO THAT OFFEROR WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER OFFERS. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision (emphasis added).”

a. Question #1: Will the Government please clarify the basis of award? Is award determined primarily by price, as stated by the latter citation, or is award based primarily on past performance history, as stated by the former citation?

A. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

Q44. Page 66 of 80, paragraph C (ii) Performance Survey, lists relevant types of work and includes “design” as one item. The RFP doesn’t ask for information regarding A/E design capabilities or A/E design subcontractors. Will the Government confirm that no A/E DOR Design information, experience or capability information is required in this proposal, and that the reference to “design” is for Offeror’s to demonstrate experience and capability to complete Design-Build task orders under this SABER contract?

A. Offeror’s need to demonstrate experience and capability to complete Design-Build task orders.

Q45. Please confirm that Part I, Part II and Part III sections are to be submitted in separate binders.

A. Each Part will be in a separate binder, Part I, Part II, Part III

Q46. Please confirm there are no electronic/CD copies of any of the parts of this proposal.

A. Correct, no electronic/CD copies are available.

Q47. Page 64 of 80, paragraph (B) Page Size and Format, the RFP states, “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by part.” Please confirm that this means Part I should be numbered 1-5, Part II should be numbered 1 through the end of Part II, and Part III should be numbered 1 through the end of Part III.

A. Each Part will stand alone

Q48. Are Part I, II and III to each have their own Cover Letters and Table of Contents?

Please confirm documents identifying the proposal and order (i.e., Cover Letters, Table of Contents, tabs, etc.) do not count towards any listed page count.

A. Part I, II and III will have their own Cover Letters and Table of Contents do not count in page numbering.

Q49. Please confirm that an 11” x 17” page counts as one page.

A. An 11” x 17” page counts as one page

Q50. Page 67 of 80 (top of page) states at the end of the paragraph, “Offerors may include with their proposal an explanation on corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.”

a. Question #1: Is there a page limit for this narrative response?

b. Question #2: Is there a time period information/projects described in this section must be within (i.e., explain corrective actions on projects completed within the past 5 years)?

A. a. This would be part of the 2 page Past performance Information

b. Part of your past performance Information

Q51. On Friday, July 10, 2015, Amendment 0001 was posted that stated all PPQs must be submitted to the Department of the Air Force by Noon, July 14, 2015. This requirement seems restrictive as it provides no time for our clients to finish the PPQ evaluations. The previous PPQ letter stated June 22, 2015, which was before the RFP was even released. Therefore, we instructed our clients to submit prior to proposal due date, July 24, 2015, which is typical. As such, will the Government confirm that Offerors will not be penalized if our clients do not submit the completed PPQs prior to Noon July 14, 2015, and revise the PPQ submission date to the same date and time as the proposal due date and time, July 24th, 2015, at Noon.

A. . We Require Past Performance Questionnaire be provide in advance of Proposal for our evaluation team to review.

Q52. Does this range need to comply with the USAF mandated AFOSH CFR29 noise exposure limits? According to the USACE the range must have a 1.3 second reverb time across all octaves from 125 Hz to 8000 Hz at all firing positions.

A. The Seed Project Statement of Work, Section 01 11 00 Initial Summary Of Work For Saber, Part 2 Technical Description of Project, Paragraph E., indicates the contractor is responsible for conducting tests, surveys etc. as required for a complete minimum buildable design and construction project.

Q53. Does the range need to have baffles in compliance with the anti-ricochet and anti-splatter requirements outlined in the ETL?

A. The Seed Project Statement of Work, Section 01 11 00 Initial Summary Of Work For Saber, Part 2 Technical Description of Project, Paragraph E., indicates the contractor is responsible for conducting tests, surveys etc. as required for a complete minimum buildable design and construction project.

Q54. Does the range need to meet the 1.5 second reverb requirement outlined in the ETL?

A. The Seed Project Statement of Work, Section 01 11 00 Initial Summary Of Work For Saber, Part 2 Technical Description of Project, Paragraph E., indicates the contractor is responsible for conducting tests, surveys etc. as required for a complete minimum buildable design and construction project.

Q55 Can the offeror also submit PPQs and information for past performance on key personnel (so long as they stay within the range of 10 total)?

A. Reference Section L.