Atch 8 - FY25 Airfield Striping and Rubber Removal QAs.pdf

FY25 Airfield Striping and Rubber Removal Questions and Answers

Questions Government Response

The SOW makes several references to drawings, but no drawings were provided.

Please provide drawings showing work to be performed.

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

The bid schedule indicates a quantity for rubber removal of 975,000 sf. However, the statement of work identifies an area of approximately 487,500 square feet (2500x65x3). Will rubber removal be required twice (fall and spring)?

Otherwise, please clarify the discrepancy.

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

Please provide an estimate of the average amount of built-up rubber in the areas where rubber removal is required.

Are there any images available showing current conditions of existing rubber on runways?

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

When was rubber removal last performed?

Nov 2024

Review of publicly-available aerial views suggests that some rubber to be removed is on concrete and some is on asphalt.

Please provide approximate square footage for each area.

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

The Solicitation states that a site visit will not be held, but also contains clause FAR clause 52.236-27 requiring offerors to conduct a site visit (as well as paragraphs 21 and 23 of the SOW). Efforts to schedule a site visit per the instructions in clause 52.236-27 have been unsuccessful. Please confirm that offerors may conduct a site visit and clarify the procedures for scheduling one.

Not required per new SOW/Drawings Rev Clause removed

The SOW provides for a maximum total amount of reflective and non-reflective striping, but states that a “priority list” will be provided after contract award. For pricing purposes, please provide an estimate of the amount of runway, taxiway, apron, roadway, and parking lot striping to be included on the priority list.

Similarly, please provide an estimate of

Approximately ½ of the total SF of striping will be required in each of the 2 mobilizations. Striping shall be performed up to ½ the max limit each time based on the priority list. The contractor shall keep a running total of the SF applied and stop when the maximum limit is achieved.

the number of distinct work locations that will be included.

The solicitation states that the contractor may propose either Type I or Type III reflective beads. There is a significant price difference between these beads.

Does the Government have a requirement or preference for Type III beads in certain areas such as runways?

If so, please provide square footage for which Type III beads are preferred. If not, will any evaluation preference be given to offerors who propose the use of Type III beads?

The contractor may propose either type.

We cannot express a preference.

The SOW does not discuss airfield traffic control. Will the contractor be required merely to coordinate runway/taxiway closures with the base, or will the contractor need to provide all equipment and labor necessary for the closure (lighted runway closure markers, barricades, etc.)?

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

Does the Government have any more specific information about the approximate date of the fall work?

No, it will be scheduled for Oct/Nov timeframe

Is there more information available that details the phasing of work, such as what work will be performed in the fall vs.

spring? Will the government require that specific work be done during each period?

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1

The Instructions to Offerors section of the solicitation (Section L) does not provide information such as page limits, contents of the technical proposal, number of past performance references to obtain, submission instructions, etc. Please provide any applicable instructions for offerors to follow.

Further detailed instructions added in Atch 4 Evaluation Factors Best Value (Section L & M)

1. With respect to the evaluation factors for award:

1. The introductory paragraph states that award will be made on a best value tradeoff basis, but paragraph C states that

1. Removed conflicting language as this is a trade off and not LPTA.

2. Yes the technical/management approach will be evaluated on acceptable non acceptable basis of narrative submission of para B, 1 and 2.

higher priced offers will only be evaluated if “none of the lower-priced offers are acceptable for award,” suggesting a “lowest-price technically acceptable” (LPTA) award basis. Please clarify the basis of award.

2. Paragraph B describes an evaluation of offerors’ technical and management approach, but paragraphs C and D suggest that only a performance risk rating (based on past performance evaluation) will be considered in the award decision. Please clarify whether (and how) the technical and management approach factors will be considered in the award decision.

3. Paragraph F instructs offerors to submit sufficient information for evaluation, but paragraph C states that the contracting officer will seek out past performance information. Please clarify whether offerors should provide information regarding past performance.

3. Clarification provided in updated Basis of Award (Section L & M).

Who will approve the contract per FAR 52.204-1 of the RFP?

The Contracting Officer, who is currently Mrs. Omelia Saunders

Per FAR 16.603-4(b), the KO shall insert clause 52.216-25 if a letter contract is contemplated. Please advise if this RFP may result in a letter contract.

No this RFP will not result in a letter contract.

What is the difference between FAR 52.232-32, DFARS 252.232-7013, and FAR 52.232-5(b)? The latter clause discusses the progress payments in construction FFP contracts, which is the

They both spoke speak to progress payments, DFARS 252.232-7013 adds to speaking to the CLIN or CLINS on a contract to which progress payments would apply standard practice in the industry. What is the purpose of adding FAR 52.232-32 and DFARS 252.232-7013?

In FAR 52.252-2 of the RFP, please provide an internet address that we can use to locate clauses incorporated by reference.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

In FAR 52.252-4 of the RFP, what are the portions of the contract that were altered?

None at this time, this clauses provides a notice and permits future alterations to a solicitation or contract as needed.

In FAR 52.252-6 of the RFP, what regulation name authorized the KO to deviate from the FAR?

This clause allows for the KO to deviate and quote the FAR, DFARS or DAFFARS to deviate from as permitted, no deviations at this time

In FAR 52.232-28, does the KO invite the KTR to propose terms under which the Government will make performance-based contract financing payments during contract performance? Or will the USG base its payment per FAR 52.232-5(b) of the RFP?

The USG will base payments per the FAR 52.232-5(b)(Monthly)

In FAR 52.233-2, in the event a KTR filed a protest to GAO, where will they send a copy of it to the KO?

It would be sent to the current KO email address.

In FAR 52.252-3, what are the portions of the RFP that were altered?

None at this time, this clauses provides a notice and permits future alterations to a solicitation or contract as needed as the FAR clauses state.

In FAR 52.252-5, what regulation allows the KO to deviate from the provisions in

FAR?

None at this time, this clauses provides a notice and permits future alterations to a solicitation or contract as needed as the FAR clauses state.

Attachment 4 says that the contract will be awarded to the offeror that provides the best value to the USG. Additionally, the technical approach and past performance will be evaluated greater than that of cost or price considerations.

However, the USG also stated that the proposal will be initially ranked according to price, which shows that the award will be made to the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA). Also, how will the USG evaluate the KTR's technical approach? There is no evaluation factor assigned to this factor.

Prices will be ranked as far as process but selection will not be based on price.

Attachment 4 is updated to alleviate confusion.

Will the USG use the 15.101-1 Tradeoff process when conducting a source selection?

Yes, Evaluation Factors are self-explanatory

For clarification, is the rubber removal method desired for this project high-pressure removal?

Yes

Can the recaptured and filtered water from the rubber removal process be discharged to grade/natural filtration beds?

Yes

Will water for rubber removal and marking removal be provided by the Government from a hydrant located near the airfield?

Yes, with coordination between the contractor and Base Civil Engineering to have a backflow preventor installed

Can the Government provide further clarification of the bid schedule item for the contractor providing their own escort for airfield/restricted areas? Is this in addition to all personnel receiving a badging by filling out a form and being subject to a criminal background check taking flight line driver training? Section 01000, paragraph 1.11.6 states: “All contractors and subcontractors when working in a Controlled, Restricted or other sensitive areas must be escorted at all times. The military agency or unit responsible for the project or work is responsible for providing the escorts. The Contractor shall follow existing procedures and instructions for obtaining entrance to restricted or controlled areas.”

See new SOW/Drawings Rev 1