Questions 1-6-22.docx

BARKSDALE AFB MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

CLARIFICATION 01: The Government provided basic 35% designs for utilization by offerors as attachment 15 to the solicitation. Offerors have the option to either utilize the 35% designs, and expand upon them to meet the requirements outlined in the SOW, or offerors may generate their own 35% designs to meet the requirements outlined in the SOW. Regardless of the method an oferror chooses, they must provide both specifications and drawings.

CLARIFICATION 02: 35% drawings should be on 11x17-sized paper. 35% Design Drawings and Specifications submitted with the proposal will not be included in the 40 page limit for Volume II – Technical Capability.

Question #9: Paragraph 2.3 and 2.3.1(a) of the solicitation requires the offeror to provide past performance for at least three design/build projects; however, 2.3.1(c) says offeror may provide past performance for design/bid/build projects in place of design/build projects. (see excerpt below) 2.3.1(c) appears to indicate offers will be considered from respondents which do not have design/build or have limited design/build experience as a prime contractor by allowing such to submit design/bid/build experience. (see highlight in excerpt below) My intent is to submit as a prime contractor. As a firm we can meet either of the requirements (construction and design) taken individually, but not in the context of a design-build project though we do have design-build experience. My firm has been part of design teams on design-build projects many multiples of the design requirement in the solicitation and also performed construction projects which meets the construction requirement. As an owner of an 8(a) firm interested in growing the company, I would rather not take on partners unnecessarily. Can you confirm the requirement in 2.3.1(c) satisfies the past performance requirement? If so, will firms such as mine relying on past performance which meets 2.3.1(c) be at a disadvantage when evaluated against 8(a) firms using the experience of a larger partner to satisfy 2.3 and 2.3.1(a)?

Answer #9:

An Amendment will be issued changing this portion of the past performance requirement

Question #10: In 2.3.1 Relevant past performance consists of projects for General Construction. The relevant past performance submitted for evaluation must be valued at no less than $500,000.00. Offeror must provide no less than three (3) design/build projects that meet both the recent and relevant definitions above. However in 2.3.1.c. The Offeror may provide design/bid/build projects in place of design/build projects. Please advise if a design/bid/build project will be considered as a “relevant” past performance project?

Answer #10:

Yes design bid build projects will be considered relevant. Please see amendment 2

Question #11: In 2.3.1. a) Offeror must have performed as a Prime Contractor and managed both the design and construction efforts. Please advise if past performance projects are going to be submitted separately by the design and General Construction contractor, that the General Construction contractor is only required to manage both the design and construction efforts on their projects and not the design team’s?

Answer #11:

If past performance will be submitted separately by the design and General Construction contractor, the General Contractor is only required to manage the design and construction efforts on their projects. However, keep in mind, both the Design Contractor and General Construction Contractor must show their capabilities and past performance utilizing a maximum of five (5) projects. Offerors will not be allowed five (5) per company/firm. See amendment 2.

Question #12: Please confirm the 3 design/build projects submitted for relevant and recent past performance, the design portion of the job does not need to be $50,000, if you are using a separate design firm for relevant and recent past performance?

Answer #12:

Correct. If utilizing a separate design firm than what was utilized for the other submitted projects, the design portion of these projects does not need to meet the threshold as it will not be utilized to evaluate an offeror’s design capabilities. Please review Answer 11 as well.

Question #27: SF 1442 – No. 10 & Section A – states that “This is an 8(a) and other Socio-economic Set-Aside solicitation” Question: Can the Government please confirm that in order to be eligible to respond to this solicitation a company needs to have at least one SBA recognized Socio-Economic status (as listed in Sam.Gov) AND also be considered “small” under NAICS 236220. In other words, a Total Small Business or JV that is not recognized as Socio-Economic status in SAM is not eligible to respond?

For an SBA recognized Joint Venture – do both parties need to be recognized as a “small business” per the NAICS?

Do all JV’s need to “approved by the SBA”? If so, does that require an approved “Mentor-Protégé” relationship on file at the SBA?

Answer #27:

Correct, only offerors who have Representations and Certifications proving they are one of the Socio-economic categories listed in the response of Question 1 are eligible for award.

Yes. The SBA defines joint Venture as two or more small businesses pooling their efforts by forming a joint venture to compete for a contract award.

Only JV’s that need to be approved by the SBA are for 8(a) JV’s. The Mentor- Protégé is approved by the SBA headquarters

Question #91: In the Project SOW, II SCOPE, 1 CIVIL: NEW WORK, what is meant by the Contractor shall be responsible for providing all “required personnel life support, shelter, and comfort by importing, relocating and maintaining necessary temporary facilities”?

Answer #91:

This would mean anything in support of contract personnel, i.e. port-a-potties, office spaces, etc.

Question #93: There is an existing panel located along and outside the wrought iron fence line, what is the panel used for and/or should it be demolished?

Answer #93:

See drawings provided (sheet A 2.1 & C 1.2 ), this panel (sniffer) is shown.

Question #101: Where is the location of the temporary VC as referenced in the Attachment 12, Sample Project Statement of Work, ss 2.1.a.i? Location is not shown on the 35% drawings provided. Does the GC have any scope related to the temporary visitor’s center?

Answer #101:

For the sample project, GC will not have any scope in the temporary visitor center location.

Question #102: Solicitation references performing work in an occupied facility, per ss. 4.1.2 Subfactor 2, Measure of Merit #3. Will this facility be occupied and operational by the owner during construction in total or in part?

Answer #102:

This will not be a phased project, owner will move out and contractor will have full control of facility.

Question #103: Refer to sheet ES1.1. There is a note to “provide a new 12 strand single mode fiber optic cable from building 1512 comm. Room to building 1400. What is the location, distance, path, etc. to building 1400?

Answer #103:

See page 1 of “Questions and answers 12-21-21”`. Distance is 600ft. (but must be verified by contractor)

Question #115: Step 5 of the Evaluation Process outlined in Section M of the Solicitation (page 74 of 80) indicates that there is a “target of three (3) awards being made to 8(a) small businesses.” Please clarify whether this a minimum or maximum number of 8(a) participants that will be allowed to be seated on this Multiple Award Construction Contract.

Answer #115:

This is not a minimum or maximum. The Government will award a target of three (3) 8(a) firms

Question #122: The Measure of Merit for the Representative Project Technical Construction Approach, as outlined on page 77 of 80 of the RFP (Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award) states that this requirement is met when the offeror's proposal provides “A description of common construction solutions to overcome situations by the work environment such as …HVAC interruptions, smoke and fire alarm while the visitors center is in operation. Work in an occupied facility as a technical difficulty and must work within the facility hours and during the project timeline.” While a description of these solutions is able to be provided, it is understood that the existing facility will be vacated, as outlined in the Architectural Demolition section of the MACC Sample Project Statement of Work (page 7 of 20), which states that, prior to demolition beginning, the “user will move and store all furniture; then move all of it back into the building after construction completion. The user will move all personal belongings and IT equipment to their temporary facilities.” Please confirm that the Government desires the descriptions requested within the RFP even though they are not part of the Seed Project Scope of Work.

Answer #122:

Correct, For the sample project there will be no phasing and the user will move and store all furniture; then move all of it back into the building after construction completion. The user will move all personal belongings and IT equipment to their temporary facilities.

Question #133: At the site visit, the government stated that there are no storm water detention ponds at the base. There is a requirement under EISA 438 which requires any project with a footprint larger than 5,000 square feet control flow rates and volumes to pre-existing conditions. This requirement is outlined on Page 9 of Attachment 2. Will the Offerors be required to conform to EISA 438 and provide storm water treatment and control, or is this requirement not applicable on Barksdale AFB.

Answer #133:

For this sample project a storm water retention pond is not required however, they are used on Barksdale during new construction, in accordance with applicable directives UFC EISA 438.

Question #134: Along the western edge of the new parking lot area, Sheet C1.2 incorrectly identifies the existing fence in this area as wrought iron. Based on observations during the site visit, the section of fencing is chain-link fence. What is the scope of work associated with this section of existing chain-link fence?

Answer #134:

Whether wrought iron or chain-link, there is no work called out on sheet C1.2 for this section of fencing. If it doesn’t call for new fencing, then it is assumed that existing fencing will remain or moved according to new location on drawing.

Question #136: The existing wrought iron fence and gate is to be relocated to the south side of the new parking lot. Who will be responsible for relocating the security barrier that is currently in front of the gate?

Answer #136:

The Contractor will need to move the Security barrier as part of the sample project, to maintain proper security standards.

Question 143: The Government provided 35% design drawings (sheet C1.2) indicate the relocation of the wrought iron fence and gate (controlled perimeter). Regarding the existing barrier arm located outside of this gate, will the barrier arm need to be relocated, removed, or otherwise?

Answer 143:

This is dependent upon contractor’s design, but if the decorative Iron Gate is moved, the road barrier must be moved along with it and should be included in the design/construction.

Question #153: The solicitation document, page 69 of 80, describes the maximum 5 past performance references that will be evaluated by the government. This section also describes the “Relevant past performance submitted for the design portion of the project..” Is it acceptable to submit PPQs from the builder for one set of design-build projects, and separate PPQs from the designer for a different set of design-build projects?

Answer #153:

Yes, however see amendment 2.

Question #155: The solicitation Section 01300 (10.1) says, “…and other descriptive catalog cut-sheets as appropriate…” Is the Government’s intention to receive cut-sheets for this proposal and are cut-sheets included in the page count limitations?

Answer #155:

Yes and this would not count against page count limitations.

Question #156: The solicitation Section 01300 (10.1.2) says, “-Soil bearing capacities,…” Is the Government’s intention for each bidder to conduct individual geotechnical analysis holes and procure geotechnical reports for the subject conceptual design for this proposal?

Answer #156:

No analysis required, assume soil bearing capacities are sufficient for planned construction.

Question #157: The solicitation Section 01300 (10.1.8) says, “Calculations must be based on residual and static pressures and flow data obtained from water flow tests (as performed by the MACC Contractor in coordination with the Base Water Shop).” Is the Government’s intention for each bidder to procure individual water flow tests for the subject conceptual design for this proposal?

Answer #157:

No. Please use the following for the sample project. Static 59 psi, Residual 57 psi, Flow 1370 gpm

Question #158: The solicitation describes the lowest price selection, the firm fixed price contract, and the desire for a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to change and improve the quality of the project during the post-award design phase. At what point in the award–design-build cycle does the Government re-negotiate the firm fixed price due to LCCA compelled changes to the project?

Answer #158:

Please disregard the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for the sample project.

Question #177: In reference to Section M 2.3.1, Is the offeror itself required to meet both (a) and (b) above, or can the offeror meet (a) and (b) using a combination of their own projects and the design teaming partner’s past performance to meet all 5 construction disciplines in Table 1?

Answer #177:

Section L 2.3.1 and will be amended.

Question #178: Is it your intent to replace or relocate the existing fire alarm panel?

Answer #178:

See drawings and information provided, Note 3, Sheet ED1.1

Question #179: What is the make and model of the existing panel?

Answer #179:

Monaco M2 Conventional

Question #180: There are no requirements found within the RFP regarding Site Lighting and, as observed, there are only a few lights currently provided in the existing parking lot. Is it the intent of the Government to have site lighting provided and, if, so should the correction of the existing lighting levels be provided, as well as the lighting of the new parking lot?

Answer #180, If lighting is not being touched/renovated during this project, then there would be no correction to lighting levels. New lighting should meet required lighting levels in accordance with UFC and other directives.

Question #181: Within the Q&A uploaded on 9 DEC 2021, it is stated, “Offerors have the option to either utilize the 35% designs, and expand upon them to meet the requirements outlined in the SOW, or offerors may generate their own 35% designs to meet the requirements outlined in the SOW.”

The 35% Design provided calls for six (6) tilt-out cabinets and shows details for Gear Bag Storage and M-4 Storage, though no requirement for these units can be found. Should these units be considered required and therefore provided? Please advise.

Answer #181:

Yes they need to be provided, there is a requirement for the SFS personnel to store their “on-duty” gear and have it “readily” accessible. There are currently tilt outs in the facility, they are the cabinets that sit directly behind the pass and ID desk.

Question #182: There are no requirements found requiring DDC and Access Control. Please advise regarding the inclusion of any requirements pertaining to these specialties.

Answer #182:

There is no requirement for DDC controls on this size of HVAC units.

Question #183: On the same Sheet E1.1 Electrical Site Plan, it references installing new 4-inch Sched 40 PVC from manhole 12 to new Comm Room. Where is Manhole 12 located?

Answer #183:

This is shown on the communications drawing that has been provided.

Question #184: Question #23 referred to the use of a particular estimating software and cost pricing. The Government responded that offerors should derive pricing from 2020 RS Means, using appropriate city cost indexes for this area. Within the provided specifications and documents up until now, no reference has been made to utilizing RS Means for this project. Can the government confirm this requirement? If RS Means is required, will the government provide RS means cost documents for offerors to utilize?

Answer #184:

***Recommend: For the sample project the contractor can use any method for costing, but must be submitted in accordance with UFC Costing Guidance 3-740-05 Construction Cost Estimating.

Question #185: It is our understanding that Barksdale AFB has a base-wide Building Automation System with Johnson Controls. Please confirm the Visitor Center building has to have JCI, and does it need to connect to the base-wide system?

Answer #185:

There is no requirement for DDC controls on this sample project.

Question #186: The RFI Responses included 2 drawings, one showing utilities and one showing west gate communications. Are CADD drawing available for these two drawings?

Answer #186:

No CADD drawings are available

Question #187: Answer to Q25 states that a full design specification is not required. Answer to Question #79 states that a full edited specifications should be provided. Please clarify.

Answer #187:

Recommend: MACC SOW Section II (Design Standards), paragraph 10.3 Preliminary (35%) Specifications: Preliminary (35%) Specifications shall consist of edited Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) with applicable sections selected from all engineering disciplines.