Questions and answers 12-21-21.pdf

ÒÒ

C

E b bb b b b b

W

BARKSDALE BLVD

WILBUR WRIGHT DR

BARKSDALE BLVD

b Water Control Valve Water Main Line Sewer Gravity Main

! Comm Segment Electric Underground P Buildings Roads Parking Lots

N:\1. GeoBase\01 - Tab M aps\G-Uti lit ies Sys tem P lan\G-1 1 Com pos ite Utility Sys tem C ons train ts \G-11 D ig P er mitTemp late 11 x1 7.mxd

This map is for reference only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources used to develop the database may be reflected on this map. GeoBase shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, or damages that result from inappropriate use of this document. Alterations of the size or shape of this map will cause distortion in its intended original scale.

This material is For Official Use Only. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, publication, or exhibition of this material is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Destroy as "For Official Use Only" (FOUO).

For questions about the data content provided in this map, please contact the

GeoBase Office (GIO) at (318) 456-6813 or 2CES.CENMP.Engineering@us.af.mill

"Controlled Unclassified Information" µ

0 50 100 15025 Meters

0 100 200 300 400 50050 Feet

Tab: G-11 1 inch = 50 feet

Created: 15 December 2021

LEGEND

2nd CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON

ENGINEERING FLIGHT

Drafting/Survey/Geobase Section

BARKSDALE

AFB

1:600Scale =

Sub-Basin 9

FA460822R0001

RFI Responses

MH12

MH11

Camera Pole

Barksdale AFB BLVD East

Communication conduits from MH12 going toward West Gate are only sub-outs with most of the route being direct buried. There’s no access to MH12 or the means to install any cabling between MH12 and the camera pole. The manhole is now surrounded by concrete since the expansion of the southbound turn lane.

Verified by SCOW on 23 Sep 14

Existing conduit between MH12 & Bldg 1512 communication closet

FA460822R0001

Barksdale AFB Multiple Construction Award RFI Responses (Updated 12/21/2021)

NOTICE:

1. Not all RFIs have been answered, the missing RFI Responses will be posted at a later date.

2. A modification is forthcoming which, tentatively, will extend the proposal due date to

2:00 PM (CST) on 2 February 2022.

3. A Site Utilities Plan and Communications Map have been provided as Page 1 and

Page 2 in this document, respectively.

Question #1: The subject solicitation is an 8(a) and other socio-economic set-aside but the socio-economic categories are not identified. The SBA defines the socio-economic categories as:

8(a) HUBZone Women-Owned Small Business Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned

Could you please confirm the categories?

Answer #1:

The SBA defined socio-economic categories are as follows: Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), HUBZone, and 8(a) Certified Small Businesses.

Question #2: Can you confirm that the responder’s initial proposal should include a full 35% design and specifications for sample project as indicated on pages 68 and 76 of the solicitation?

Answer #2:

Yes, proposals shall include a full 35% design and specifications for sample project as indicated in the solicitation.

Question #3: Attachment 15, the drawings for the subject project are in an AutoCAD zipped file format. We are unable to open these documents for printing. Is there any way the government could send a PDF version of these drawings?

Answer#3:

These were provided as .pdf format on SAM.gov on 2 Dec 2021.

Question #4: If a participant is in the 8a program, and also has an MPA with a large business that qualifies their JV as another 8a entity. Both entities meet the requirements to propose on this MACC. It is permissible to submit 2 proposals for FA4608-22-R-0001 MACC Barksdale AFB?

Answer #4:

FA460822R0001

According to the SBA, the JV implies the firm individually lacks the capacity to compete for the contract. Therefore, it prohibits submitting dual bids. If your firm has the capability to bid on their own, there is no need for a JV. The Government will not accept dual bids based on the information provided by the SBA.

Question #5: Will the seed project be awarded or is it included just for bidding purposes?

Answer #5:

The sample project is for bidding purposes only.

Question #6: Will the Govt accept previously issued PPQs for projects from Navy/USACE Agency in their specific form? Or will the project evaluations have to be done in the sample provided?

Answer #6:

No. PPQs shall be submitted on the attachment provided.

Question #7: Will the Govt. accept CPARS Evaluations?

Answer #7:

Copies of CPARS Evaluations may be included in an offeror’s past performance volume.

Question #8: Is this contract limited to 8(a) firms located in Louisiana or is it open to all 8(a) firms?

Answer #8:

This is open to all 8(a) firms.

Question #13: Due to continued shipping and supply chain delays resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, will the government respectfully consider eliminating the hard copy proposal submission requirement and allow solely electronic submission via DOD Safe portal or email?

Answer #13:

No.

Question #14: FAR 52.219-30 Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Women- Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program.

Mar 2020 is included in the RFP on page 33 of 80; however, a reference to the number of targets planned for WOSB is not stated. Please clarify if the government anticipates awarding a minimum number of contracts to WOSBs.

Answer #14:

There is not a separate target award number for WOSB.

FA460822R0001

Question #15: Section L, paragraph j. Joint Venture Offerors (RFP page 65 of 80) states “If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the signed joint venture agreement with proposal.” Can you please clarify what information should be provided for all JV parties? It seems that Volume I Contract Documents/Pricing and Volume II Technical Approach would be provided once for the JV Prime. The information included in Volume III will be provided for the JV and/or each JV member. Please clarify if there are other specific items that must be provided for each JV member.

Answer #15:

The only additional required documentation for a JV is the JV agreement issued by the SBA.

Volume III information may be provided from either JV member. For example, past performance can be supplied from either JV partner or as a combined JV.

Question #16: Section L, paragraph j. Joint Venture Offerors (RFP page 65 of 80) states “If the offeror is a joint venture, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the signed joint venture agreement with proposal.” Please confirm that the JV Agreement should be included in Volume I with Contract Documentation?

Answer #16:

Yes. Supply the SBA Approved JV agreement in Volume I.

Question #17: The SF1442 block 13 states Original + 1 copy should be submitted while Section L, paragraph 1.3 Distribution states “The “original” proposal should be clearly identified.” Can you confirm that the copies outlined in Section L, paragraph 1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits should be accompanied by an original hard copy for each volume?

Answer #17:

Offerors shall supply one (1) hard copy of the proposal and one copy on a CD.

Question #18: Section L, paragraph 1.2 specifies a 40-page limit for Volume II, Technical Capability. Considering the amount of information required in this volume for the Representative Project (e.g., 35% specifications, plans (drawings) and technical construction approach), will the government respectfully consider excluding the 35% specifications and plans (drawings) from the 40-page limit or increasing the overall page limit for this volume to allow adequate space for the specifications and plans (drawings)?

Answer #18:

Please see CLARIFICTION 02.

Question #19: Section L, paragraph 1.2 states “Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts.” Attachment 12 Sample Project Statement of Work indicates 35% drawings should be on 11x17-sized paper. Please confirm it is acceptable to provide Plans (drawings) printed on 11x17 foldouts in response to Subfactor 1: Representative Project Design? If Plans (drawings)

FA460822R0001

remain included in the 40-page limit for Volume II, please confirm these 11x17 pages will count as one page toward the page limitation for Volume II.

Answer #19:

Please see CLARIFICTION 02.

Question #20: Section L, paragraph 2.3.2, Additional Past Performance requests “The Offeror shall forward a copy of the past performance questionnaire (Attachment 11) to their most recent references, for whom the Offeror has contracted similar services with Federal, State, and Local Governments.” Please clarify if PPQs submitted in accordance with Section L, paragraph 2.3.2 should be for the same five projects outlined in paragraph 2.3.1 in Volume III Past Performance Information?

Answer #20:

Projects listed in the past-performance volume shall match the PPQs that are submitted.

Question #21: In regards to Section L, paragraph 2.3.2, is it acceptable for offerors to submit CPARS evaluations in lieu or requesting completion of a PPQ to relieve the burden of requesting references complete multiple evaluations for the same project? If CPARS are allowed, please confirm they should be included within the Volume III proposal response and are excluded from the Volume III 30-page limit.

Answer #21:

CPARS may be submitted in Volume III, however, they will not be excluded from the Volume III 30-page limit.

Question #22: Per Section H – Special Contract Requirements 1. Ordering Procedures (b) Proposal (2), the contractor is to provide, “A detailed cost or pricing proposal in accordance with the instructions set forth in the FOPR and FAR 15.403-5, Table 15-2”. There is also language that, “Certified Cost or Pricing Data, as defined in FAR 2.101, to be provided..”

Question: Does this indicate that estimates and costs MUST be produced and tracked via a Certified Cost Accounting System?

Answer #22:

No. Estimates and costs will not be required to be produced and tracked via a Certified Cost Accounting System.

Question #23: Attachment 1, MACC SOW, 01300-27 Paragraph 15, states, “Cost estimates will be in accordance with UFC 3-740-05 ‘Handbook: Construction Cost Estimating’” this UFC details exactly how our estimates are to be produced, and includes a reference to a cost book, labeled, “Tri-Services Construction Direct Costs Database”

Question: Are we required to estimate the work using a particular cost estimating software and cost pricing database? If yes, what is this software and cost database? Further, is it the intent that

FA460822R0001

a Co-Efficient and City Cost Index modifier be added onto said pricing? Otherwise, how will low price be determined, when the actual line item costs are determined by a third party?

Answer #23:

For SAMPLE PROJECT only: Cost should be derived from 2020 RS Means, using appropriate city cost indexes for this area. Cost estimate should be detailed down to appropriate line items, showing RS Means number.

Question #24: Is it the requirement that the offeror produce “35% Specifications and 35% Design” on the Representative (Visitors’ Center Expansion) project? Assuming yes, this effort is very significant, both from a time and a cost stand-point. In order to meet the listed requirements (below), will take the combined efforts of at least 7 Engineering professionals, for a substantial amount of hours. Please confirm that this level of proposal submission detail is what is required?

Please consider that an engineering engagement does not allow for 35% calculations, as such the engineering effort will be a significant investment to meet the requirements as written.

• In Section 8 of the MACC SOW, the definition of “Preliminary (35%) Design is:

• Civil / Site (with calculations)

• Architectural Designs (with calculations)

• Structural Design (with calculations)

• Mechanical Systems

• Energy Analysis

• Plumbing

• Fire Protection (with calculations)

• Electrical Systems (with calculations)

• Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (HVAC, Lighting, Plumbing)

• Energy Use Budgets

• General Energy Use Budget

Answer #24:

Yes. Please see CLARIFICATION 01.

Question #25: MACC SOW 10.3 defines Preliminary Specifications (35%) as consisting of edited Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS), with applicable sections selected from all engineering disciplines. The UFGS combines all specifications from the USACE, NAVFAC, and Air Force CE Support Agency guidelines into one, unified, very large, document.

Question: Are we to assume that the MACC contractor is to provide a full design specification for the representative project, per this guideline?

FA460822R0001

Answer #25:

No. The Government provided a basic 35% design as Attachment 15 and the .pdf version on 2 Dec 2021. Offerors may utilize this design and improve upon it to generate a complete 35% design to include specifications, as outlined in CLARIFICATION 01. However, the cost estimate portion will need to include 100% complete design and construction costs.

Question #26: Section H – Special Contract Requirements, 1. Ordering Procedures lists how each Task Order will be issued and the different options the Government may exercise to issue, evaluate, and award task orders.

Question: What are the requirements for each contractor to respond to each task order that will be issued? Is there a defined structure for these requirements that list the expectations and consequences for participation on task orders?

Answer #26:

There is no defined structure, however, contractor’s participation in task order requests will be reviewed during the determination to exercise an option.

Question #28: Section H – Required Insurance – lists the Work Comp, General Liability / Auto insurance requirements.

Question: Does the Government require any additional Errors and Omissions insurance for Design exposure?

Are Professional Engineers required to be licensed in the State of Louisiana or will the Government honor any State’s PE certification?

Answer #28:

The Government is not familiar with this insurance. Contractor will be required to provide insurance based on what is prescribed in the solicitation.

Government will honor any State’s PE certification.

Question #29: On December 2, 2021 – the Government posted a 35% Design Drawing? for the Seed project to Sam.Gov.

Can the Government please explain WHY they issued this 35% Design Drawing

Specifically, does this affect what the Government expects from the Contractor for the Seed Project deliverables?

Answer #29:

The Attachment provided on 2 December 2021 is a .pdf format of the same information provided in Attachment 15 of the solicitation. This was provided in response to a potential offeror’s RFI.

For further information on the Government’s expectation surrounding this, please see

CLARIFICATION 01.

FA460822R0001

Question #30: Section 2.3.2 calls for PPQ (Attachment 11) to be completed and submitted to government point of contact. This might be difficult to accomplish during the Holiday weeks.

Will the Air Force except completed CPAR reviews instead of the questionnaires?

If CPARS are allowed to be used as Past Performance, can the 30 page limit in volume III exclude CPAR forms?

Answer #30:

Yes. The Government will accept completed CPARS reviews in place of PPQs.

No. Submitted CPARS will not be excluded from the 30 page limitation on Volume III.

Question #31: For design projects, does both the “design” and construction have to be completed within the last 5 years? Or just design only (with construction at any stage of completion), or just construction only?

Answer #31:

Design and Construction effort must have started, completed, or be ongoing within the last five years. These can be separate projects.

Question #32: If a CPARS evaluation is available, can we use this instead of sending a new

PPQ?

Answer #32:

Yes.

Question #33: For the past performance volume, it is mentioned that “no more than five (5) past performance references will be evaluated by the Government.” Does this mean that we are to submit a maximum of 5 projects for this section?

Answer #33:

Yes. If Volume III contains more than five (5) performance references, only the first five (5) projects will be evaluated.

Question #34: Are electrical drawings available?

Answer #34:

The Government has provided all drawings that are available.

Question #35: How many hats will be required for this project? Can a Super wear all 3 Hats

(SSHO/QCM/SUPER)?

Answer #35:

For the sample project, it is acceptable for the Superintendent to wear all three hats. However, each individual task order will determine what will be required.

FA460822R0001

Question #36: Will a QFPE be required?

Answer #36:

This will only be required on actual construction projects that require fire suppression/alarms.

However, the sample project will not require to have the submitted drawings stamped or reviewed by a QFPE but pricing will need to be included for complete drawings.

Question #37: Will we need to provide controls for HVAC or can they be standalone?

Answer #37:

For the sample project, the system should be stand alone.

Question #38: Will this project be phased?

Answer #38:

The sample project will require two (2) phases.

Question #39: Will weekend work/night work need to be included?

Answer #39:

Fort the sample project, weekend/night work shall not be included.

Question #40: Is KTR responsible for temporary facilities for badging while work is going on in badge office?

Answer #40:

No. For the sample project, the contractor will not be responsible for temporary facilities while work is going on in the badge office.

Question #41: Will KTR be responsible for FFE Package?

Answer #41:

For the sample project, the contractor will not be responsible for the FFE Package.

Question #42: Please confirm that ATFP requirements will not have to be met due to proximity of existing structure and fence.

Answer 42:

For this sample project, ATFP shortfalls have been accepted, so no ATFP required.

Question #43: Please indicate the personnel loads to ensure that life safety requirements can be met.

Answer #43:

For this sample project, seating capacity for facility is 25. The contractor should design to ensure this capacity could be met.

FA460822R0001

Question #44: Pg. 10 per Attachment 13 indicated need for new water heater? Is Gov’t ok with Instahots to provide the hot water?

Answer #44:

Please review drawings provided. For the sample project, the Government will not authorize the use of Instahots.

Question #45: Please confirm that sprinkler system is not required for the renovation as seen on Pg. 11 of Attachment 13

Answer #45:

For the sample project, the sprinkler system is not required for the renovation.

Question #46: If electrical service transformer needs to be changed and upsized and short-circuit calcs are req’d will Gov’t treat this as unforeseen?

Answer #46:

For the sample project, assume the transformer is sufficient.

Question #47: Currently the bldg. is not meeting ATFP requirements is part of this project to bring the bldg. up to ATFP requirements?

Answer #47:

For this sample project, ATFP shortfalls have been accepted, so there are no ATFP requirements.

Question #48: Please provide asbestos/lead report?

Answer #48:

For this sample project, there are no hazardous materials in the existing facility. For all Task Orders, the report will be provided at time of award.

Question #49: Please provide utility site plan?

Answer #49:

Provided on Page 1 of this document.

Question #50: Is KTR to assume all branchwiring is adequate or is KTR to run all new wiring.

Answer #50:

For the sample project, the contractor shall run all new wiring.

Question #51: Please indicate if we are to provide security cameras under this contract

Answer #51:

For the sample project, security cameras are not required.

FA460822R0001

Question #52: Are we to protect in place flooring while construction is ongoing or replace the building with all new flooring?

Answer #52:

For the sample project, follow the Room Finish Schedule provided in the solicitation documents.

Question #53: Will the Gov’t accept previously issued PPQs for projects from navy/USACE agency in their specific form? Or will the project evaluations have to be done in the sample provided?

Answer #53:

No. PPQs shall be submitted on the attachment provided.

Question #54: Will the Gov’t accept CPARS Evaluations?

Answer #54:

Yes. The Government will accept completed CPARS Evaluations.

Question #55: The drawings included in attachment # 15 (AutoCAD) are only samples and will be the basis or idea of the design criteria, and we, the contractors, will make new drawings with a new design firm?

Answer #55:

Please see CLARIFICATION 01.

Question #56: For Division 9 – Finish

Painting: The type of paint will be provided by the owner or contractors?

Answer #56:

For the sample project, the type of paint will be provided by the contractor.

Question #57: The existing furniture will be removed by the owner or contractors? In Demolition phase.

Answer #57:

For the sample project, the Owner will remove the existing furniture.

Question #58: Can the Air Force provide any previous Geotech information of the project site?

Answer #58:

For the sample project, the Government does not have any Geotech information available.

Assume ground adjacent to parking lot is 18” below current parking lot grade and completely level.

Question #59: Can the Air Force provide additional As-Built drawings of the building?

FA460822R0001

Answer #59:

The Government does not have any additional drawings for the sample project.

Question #60: According to Section L, Paragraph 1.0(j) and (k), Joint Venture and/or teaming agreements are to be included in the offeror package if they are to be used for this project.

Should these documents be included with Volume I?

Answer #60:

Yes, please provide in Volume I.

Question #61: In lieu of having our customer point of contact’s (POC) fill out and send Attachment 11 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), would the government accept CPARS or previously completed PPQs?

POCs are often no longer with the agency where the work was completed.

Furthermore, these evaluations are typically filled out when the POC is most familiar with the project soon after completion and provides a more accurate picture of the work.

Answer #61:

Offerors may submit completed CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQ forms. If an offeror submits a CPARS evaluation, they do not need to submit a corresponding PPQ. Only PPQs submitted on the form provided in Attachment 11 of the solicitation and sent directly to the Government from the PPQ POC will be accepted. Previously completed/signed PPQs will not be accepted.

Question #62: Do the Past Performance Questionnaires (including CPARS or previous PPQs if allowed per the previous question) count toward the page limit of Volume III?

Answer #62:

If an offeror submits CPARS they will count towards the Volume III page limit. Previous PPQs are not allowed. PPQs shall be submitted directly to the Government by PPQ POC.

Question #63: If the offeror is a joint venture, should Attachment 7 be completed for each venturer member company?

Answer #63:

Only one (1) is required, may be submitted by either company.

Question #64: SOW Page 2 Performance Period F. 1. b.

The government has already provided 35%. Are offerors expected to submit a different set of 35% drawings that are different from what the government provided?

Answer #64:

Please see CLARIFICATION 01.

FA460822R0001

Question #65: SOW Page 3 II Scope 1. Civil New Work a.

Will any existing utilities be available to the contractor or should we prepare a bid based on providing all water and electrical requirements for the construction activities?

Answer #65:

For the sample project, utilities are provided by the Government at no cost, however, offerors will have to pay for any required linkages/hook-ups.

Question #66: SOW Page 4 II Scope 1. Civil New Work g.

Since the railroad utility building is in close proximity will coordination with the railroad be required based on the amount of seismic activity this project will require? If so does the government have a liaison for this portion of the Rail line?

Answer #66:

The base will be responsible for making notification to railroad.

Question #67: SOW Page 5 II Scope 1. Civil New Work i Demolition. i.

Will a storage area for removed signage lighting fencing site furniture ect. be provided by the government or should the cost of storing these items in a container be added to the bid proposal?

Answer #67:

For the sample project, the Contractor shall provide the container.

Question #68: SOW Page 13 III. Project Coordination B. Survey Monuments.

Can the government provide the document showing the monument locations?

Answer #68:

For the sample project, there are no survey monuments in the vicinity of the work to be accomplished, so there is no concern of any being damaged or removed.

Question #69: Has the building’s major systems (roof, HVAC, plumbing, electrical), experienced any recent failures requiring repair to ceilings, walls, roof, etc. either interior or exterior.

Answer #69:

No, all systems for the sample project are in working condition.

Question #70: Will members of the MACC be determined prior to review of pricing (Volume 1)?

Answer #70:

No. Volume I will be evaluated concurrently with Volumes II and III.

FA460822R0001

Question #71: Will inclusion in the MACC be decided based on all three Volumes in the submission (Pricing, Qualifications and Past Performance?

Answer #71:

Yes.

Question #72: Will there be projects requiring historic preservation (SHPO, NRHP, etc.)

involvement/oversight?

Answer #72:

On this base there is likely an opportunity that a project will require coordination with SHPO.

2CES Community Planner will handle all coordination/correspondence with SHPO.

Question #73: Has there been any testing for lead paint on the water towers, hangars or administration structures?

Answer #73:

Yes. Some have been tested, each Task Order under this MACC will provide information regarding lead paint and asbestos.

Question #74: What is the protocol for access to the base for hand delivery of the submission package?

Answer #74:

For hand delivery of a proposal, if delivery personnel have Base Access, please deliver the Package to the front desk of the 2nd Contracting Squadron at the address provided in Section L Paragraph 1.3 of the Solicitation. If delivery personnel do not have Base Access, please contact Lt Marco Pirozzoli at 318-456-2203 or Christopher Mitchell at 318-456-6739 and a representative from the 2nd Contracting Squadron will meet you at the West Gate Visitor’s Center (off Barksdale Blvd.).

Question #75: Due to the Covid 19 Pandemic and the current delay in shipping, we kindly ask the Government to reconsider the hard copy submittal requirement and allow an electronic submittal option. During the Pandemic, other Federal agencies have allowed similar solicitations to be submitted electronically.

Answer #75:

No.

Question #76: Please confirm that front end proposal documentation, to include Cover, Title Page, and Table of Contents are not page counted?

Answer #76:

Correct. The front end proposal documentation, to include Cover, Title Page, and Table of Contents are not included in the page count.

FA460822R0001

Question #77: The Volume II – Technical Capability limit of 40pgs is extremely space limiting in allowing Offerors to highlight their best value experience and approaches to the Government.

Would the Government kindly consider allowing the required design specifications and drawings to be excluded from the page count?

Answer #77:

Please see CLARIFICATION 02.

Question #78: We strive to reduce the onus on our Government clients who need to complete the same PPQs repeatedly for proposals. Also, contracting representatives are reluctant to (or even discouraged from) completing PPQ forms if formal performance CPARS evaluations have been completed. Will the Government please consider allowing offerors to submit completed CPARS evaluations or previously completed/signed PPQs in lieu of new PPQ forms?

Answer #78:

Offerors may submit completed CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQ forms. If an offeror submits a CPARS evaluation, they do not need to submit a corresponding PPQ. Only PPQs submitted on the form provided in Attachment 11 of the solicitation and sent directly to the Government from the PPQ POC will be accepted. Previously completed/signed PPQs will not be accepted.

Question #79: Please clarify requirements for submission of specifications: Solicitation requires 35% specifications per 2.2.2.1 a). Attachment 1 states: “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. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) are a joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA). The MACC CONTRACTOR shall provide to the Government an outline specification of intended sections to be used in this project.” The highlighted sentences are contradictory.

Answer #79:

Full edited specifications should be provided.

Question #80: Are any other requirements listed in Attachment 1 required for our 35% submission?

Answer #80:

The SOW provided in Attachment 1 has all requirements for a 35% Design submission.

Question #81: Solicitation section 2.2.2.1 last paragraph states: “To receive an "acceptable" rating, the contractor's specification and drawings must be complete, accurate, and in accordance with "Whole Building Design Guide" standards.” This is an extremely broad statement as the WBDG site contains thousands of documents and standards – please clarify and/or narrow your focus.

FA460822R0001

Answer #81:

Contractor/designer should use documents and standards that apply to this project. As part of a design, it is the responsibility of the Designer of Record to evaluate and use appropriate design standards.

Question #82: Will this representative project be awarded as a task order under this MACC contract?

Answer #82:

No. The sample project will not be awarded.

Question #83: The project requirements call for “electric heat” for the building, yet the project also requires compliance with 10 CFR 435 which requires a minimum 30% reduction in energy use as compared to minimally code (2004) compliant base case. Is there a concern the electric heat required by the project will prohibit the compliance of 10 CFR 435?

Answer #83:

For the sample project, there is no gas to the facility, so running gas line to the facility would be cost prohibitive based on the location that would have to be covered.

Question #84: Are the 100% design plans considered to be fully sealed/signed by the DORs?

Are the 100% plans to be submitted as the “issued for Construction” set?

Answer #84:

For the sample project, offerors are only required to submit a 35% set of design documents.

For task orders issued under the contract, which require design/design-build will be required to submit “sealed/stamped” 100% design documents.

Question #85: Do the respective DORs need to be fully licensed in the State of LA?

Answer #85:

No.

Question #86: In the SOW for the Design & Construct West Gate VCC (Project SOW), II SCOPE, Section 2 ARCHITECTURAL, there is a reference to a Barksdale Design Guide (latest edition). Can this reference document be provided?

Answer #86:

This is provided in MACC SOW (Attachment 1).

https://wbdg.org/ffc/af-afcec/installation-facilities-standards-ifs/barksdale-afb-ifs

Question #87: There is an existing “sniffer” panel and related concrete pad located in the proposed new parking lot area, is the pad and related equipment panel scheduled to be

FA460822R0001

demolished? Is this existing “sniffer” operational and tied into or connected with any Base monitoring systems?

Answer #87:

Sniffer is not operable and does not contain any hazardous materials.

Question #88: In the solicitation document Title 1-A 15% Submittal Design & Construct West Gate Visitor’s Center, Building 1512, Existing Conditions 5 Design Narrative, Architecture Proposed (first paragraph), there is a reference to “k loads”. What is meant by “k loads”?

Answer #88:

This paragraph is talking about the waiting room, so, for the sample project, assume number of waiting chairs on drawing, i.e. that the waiting room can handle a load of a minimum of 17 people.

Question #89: Will additional light poles be required in the new parking lot?

Answer #89:

Not for the sample project.

Question #90: Will the existing VCC remain if full operation during the entire field construction effort?

Answer #90:

For the sample project, the visitor badging area will need to remain open until the existing interior portion of the facility needs to be demolished.

Question #92: Can you please confirm the following applicable systems are currently operational: Mass notification system? Building lightning protection system? Restroom plumbing? Fire sprinkler system? Fire alarm system? Intrusion detection system?

Answer #92:

For the sample project, any system installed is currently operational.

Question #94: There are approximately four existing bollards installed along the wrought iron fence line just east of the Wilbur Wright Drive gate, do these bollards need to be demolished and new ones installed elsewhere?

Answer #94:

For the sample project, leave existing bollards in place.

Question #95: Does the existing traffic arm assembly and related support structures need to be demolished and a new arm assembly/system be installed elsewhere?

Answer #95:

FA460822R0001

For the sample project, the existing arm assembly/system should be re-used.

Question #96: Demolition work at the existing facility may generate lots of dust and remains which may also prohibit use of a certain portion of the facility due to required disconnection of utilities such as power, water, drainage and HVAC. In view of the above can the contractor assume that a vacant facility will be provided to the contractor for his construction and expansion activities?

Answer #96:

For the sample project, the visitor badging are will need to remain open until the existing interior portion of the facility needed to be demolished.

Question #97: Please confirm that present water and drainage mains connection at the existing facility will be disconnected, capped and abandoned in place? And that the new water and sanitary sewer connection at extended portion will be provided after field verification and extension of site water and sanitary sewer lines?

Answer #97:

Confirmed for the sample project.

Question #98: Is a CPARS an acceptable proof of past performance in lieu of the PPQ?

Answer #98:

Yes. Offerors may submit completed CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQ forms. If an offeror submits a CPARS evaluation, they need not to have a corresponding PPQ submitted.

Question #99: Once the selection of the eight Prime contractors is made, will each firm have the opportunity to bid every task order that is issued?

Answer #99:

Task Orders will be issued in accordance with the Ordering Guide in Section H of the solicitation document and resulting contract, there are situations where set-asides may be utilized.

Question #100: On each task order issued for bid, will the design firm have to produce 35% drawings/specs in order to be considered for the award of that specific task order?

Answer #100:

No. This would be very rare, the Government intends to provide design drawings and specifications for bidding in most cases.

Question #104: Refer to sheet ED1.1. Is there a location on base to store the existing comm equipment rack and CCTV camera, hat are scheduled to be reinstalled?

Answer #104:

FA460822R0001

For the sample project, the base communication office will remove all communication in equipment racks. Contractor will demolish the existing CCTV.

Question #105: Please confirm the sewage lift station is in good working order to be reused.

Answer #105:

For the sample project, the sewage lift station is operable and to be reused.

Question #106: Please provide the location of telecommunication manhole #12 where existing 25 pair OSP copper cable is currently spliced.

Answer #106:

See Page 2 of this documenr.

Question #107: Please provide site plan showing location of Building #1400, and any available utility plan showing the routing of the existing 6-strand fiber optic OSP cable to be removed and replaced with 12-strand equivalent.

Answer #107:

See Pages 1 & 2 of this document.

Question #108: Please inform if the black ornamental gate near the new parking will be relocated or built new.

Answer #108:

For the sample project, the black ornamental gate will be relocated.

Question #109: Please provide existing elevations for the project especially the new parking lot addition area as it will require a significant amount of imported backfill.

Answer #109:

For the sample project, assume ground adjacent to parking lot is 18” below current parking lot grade and completely level.

Question #110: What type of subbase will be below the new parking lot over the imported structural fill (limestone, what size?, how deep?)

Answer #110:

Detail shown on drawings provided with solicitation.

Question #111: Will the concrete street/ driveway from the Visitors Center running parallel to the new parking lot be closed during construction? Will we be required to provide a flagman if it is to remain open?

Answer #111:

FA460822R0001

For the sample project, the VCC badging area will remain open until the new addition has been constructed and demolition on the existing part of the facility begins. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring appropriate measures are taken to ensure a safe area.

Question #112: As the bid date for this project is over a month away ( 1-12-2022), as we think it will be in the best interest of the client to achieve a more concise 35% Design submission which is part of the package, please consider extending the deadline for RFI’s for a period time ( at least 1 week) , to allow our Design Team and other Design Teams participating in this opportunity additional time to submit RFI’s and assemble a more concise 35% effort.

Answer #112:

An Amendment will be forthcoming extending the proposal due date.

Question #113: It is stated on the SF1442 (page 1 of 80) that this is “an 8(a) and other socio-economic Set-Aside” opportunity. No clarity regarding what constitutes an “other socio-economic” entity is found within the Solicitation and, as this IDIQ is advertised to be an 8(a) MACC, please clarify what other Small Business designations will be permitted to submit proposals in response to this RFP and if SBA Certification will be required.

Answer #113:

Please reference Answer #1.

Question #114: Step 3 of the Evaluation Process outlined in Section M of the Solicitation (page 74 of 80) suggests that only the 12 lowest priced proposals will be reviewed for technical acceptability, Considering that representatives from forty-two (42) companies signed the Site Visit Attendance Sheets, the stated process appears to invite the undercutting of the actual cost of construction, which would negate the Price Reasonableness and Price Realism section of the aforementioned Section M (page 77 of 80) which states that “proposed prices will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable [sic].” As it is also asserted within Section M that, “competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price consideration,” will all submitted proposals be reviewed to ensure that the Government is receiving the best value and to help minimize the chance of multiple parties attempting to “buy” a seat on this MAC Contract.

Answer #114:

The Government will follow the evaluation process written in section M of the solicitation.

Question #116: Attachment 12 – Project Statement of Work indicates that the ADAAG, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, is to be adhered to (page 6 of 20), while Attachment 13 – Title 1-A 15% Submittal states, “The Facility will meet all ABA requirements” (page 8 of 29). Please confirm that the Architectural Barriers Act will be the standard enforced on this Design Build project.

Answer #116:

ABA will be the standard enforced.

FA460822R0001

Question #117: The Site Narrative included within the Government Issued Attachment 13 – Title 1-A 15% Submittal, indicates that further discussion regarding the inclusion of an additional parking lot is desired (page 6 of 29). At the same time, additional parking is “recommended” on page 8 of 29, is shown on SHT. A2.2 (page 23 of 29), though no Specifications pertaining to the associated Activities are included within said exhibit. Please confirm that the additional parking lot depicted in the Attachment 13 document is to be included in the SOW and corresponding pricing effort.

Answer #117:

Additional parking will be required.

Question #118: As witnessed during the Site Visit on 30 NOV 2021, the elevation of the existing parking lot is significantly higher that the elevation of the area proposed for the new parking lot. Is it the intent of the Government for the new parking lot to match the elevation of the existing area?

Answer #118:

Assume ground adjacent to parking lot is 18” below current parking lot grade and completely level.

Question #119: Please provide geotechnical investigation results/ boring logs for the proposed parking lot location. The in situ subsurface conditions will contribute to the cost involved with this Activity and, in the interest of fair, competitive pricing, all participants should be providing their solutions from the same base information. If no boring logs are available, please provide assumed parameters for all Design-Build teams to base their pricing from.

Answer #119:

The Government does not have any Geotech information available. Assume ground adjacent to parking lot is 18” below current parking lot grade and completely level.

Question #120: On page 8 of 29 of Attachment 13 – Title 1-A 15% Submittal, it is stated that, “We currently can’t meet the requirements for construction defined by ATFP. The vehicle set back distance at our site will be close to zero and the ATFP charts indicate a minimum distance of 16’‐0” to be maintained if the building is constructed of reinforced concrete.” Please clarify what, if any, ATFP requirements should be accounted for in this Design-Build effort.

Answer #120:

For this sample project, ATFP shortfalls have been accepted, so no ATFP required.

Question #121: Please confirm that the Government is providing the temporary facilities referred to in Attachment 12 – MACC Sample Project Statement of Work- Section II SCOPE – Paragraph (2) ARCHITECTURAL – Subparagraph (a.) DEMOLITION – Item (i) (page 7 of 20).

Should the Government desire to have pricing for this effort included within Contractor proposals, please clearly and specifically outline the additional work desired to occur so that participants are able to provide pricing inclusive of/based on the same requirements.

FA460822R0001

Answer #121:

The Government will provide temporary facilities.

Question #123: It was stated during the Site Visit on 30 NOV 2021, that the Base coordinates the SHPO review of Design submittals. Please confirm that the duration of these third-party review periods do not impinge upon the Design duration outlined within the RFP.

Answer #123:

The duration of SHPO responses will not impinge upon the design duration outlined in the RFP.

Question #124: Please confirm that the road barrier located in front of the wrought iron fence gate may remain in-place and not be relocated.

Answer #124:

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 #125: Please confirm that the “sniffer” described on page 6 of 29 of Attachment 13 – Title 1-A 15% Submittal is no longer used and may be demolished, as is indicated therein.

Should demolition be desired, please provide as-built data of the equipment including any underground piping/ appurtenances that may require concurrent demolition.

Answer #125:

Government will ensure power is de-energized from the “sniffer”, contractor should show demolition of any utilities just below grade and appropriately cap. There are no hazardous materials in “sniffer” panel.

Question #126: Please advise whether the abatement of any Hazardous Materials ought to be anticipated, should the “sniffer” require demolition. If abatement is anticipated, please provide parameters for all Design-Build teams to base their pricing from.

Answer #126:

No hazardous materials in the existing facility or sniffer.

Question #127: Section 2.3.2 regarding PPQ’s indicates that Attachment’s 10 (Cover letter) and 11 (PPQ form) should be sent to previous clients for completion and submission directly to the government. If the offeror has previous completed and signed PPQ’s from these clients, may these be used instead and incorporated into the proposal by the offeror directly?

Answer #127:

No. PPQs must be submitted directly to the Government from the PPQ POC on the provided attachment.

Question #128: If the Offeror has completed CPARS, may these be used in lieu of PPQ’s?

FA460822R0001

Answer #128:

Offerors may submit completed CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQ forms. If an offeror submits a CPARS evaluation, they do not need to submit a corresponding PPQ. Only PPQs submitted on the form provided in Attachment 11 of the solicitation and sent directly to the Government from the PPQ POC will be accepted. Previously completed/signed PPQs will not be accepted.

Question #129: Attachment 3 - Insurance Form was included with the SAM documents. We did not see instructions in Section L on where to include this form with the proposal. Please confirm if this completed form needs to be submitted with the proposal and if so, where should it be incorporated?

Answer #129:

The Insurance Form does not need to be submitted with the proposal.

Question #130: A .pdf document titled, “35 percent Design PDF.pdf” was uploaded to the Sam website portal with no explanation provided. As the Seed Project SOW clearly states that the Design-Build team is to develop the design to the 35% level for submittance as part of the proposal, please clarify the intent of uploading this set of drawings and what, if any expectations the Government has of the offerors regarding this document.

Answer #130:

Please see CLARIFICATION 01.

This design was not complete and does not meet requirement of MACC 35% Design Requirements. Since offerors will be unable to talk to the end user about needs/requirements, the additional design drawings provided merely show the approximate square footage that is intended to meet the users need.

Question #131: If the Government anticipates the Offerors to utilize the 35% drawings uploaded to the Sam website portal in any way, please extend the window for RFIs and the submittal of proposals to account for this new information being disseminated and accounted for.

Answer #131:

These documents were provided in the original solicitation posting as Attachment 15, the pdf version was provided based on a request. Therefore, the RFI window will not be extended.

Question #132: Since a 35% design for the Visitor Control Center exists, it seems it would be more prudent for the designers to provide Technical Narratives discussing how they would approach the completion of design for the facility. Please remove the requirement for design firms to provide a 35% design (since already exists) and to provide Technical Narratives only.

Answer #132:

This requirement will not be removed. Please see CLARIFICATION 01.

FA460822R0001

This design was not completed and does not meet requirement of MACC 35% Design Requirements. Since contractor will be unable to talk to the end user about needs/requirements, the additional design drawings provided merely show the approximate square footage that is intended to meet the users need.

Question #135: Are there responses to the Questions listed on Sheet C1.2?

Answer #135:

1. For the sample project, no additional lighting is required

2. For the sample project, ATFP shortfalls have been accepted, so no ATFP required

3. For the sample project, the existing lift station to remain at its current location

Question #137: Does the government have preferred manufacturers for the new equipment that is going to be provided?

Answer #137:

Please see MACC SOW Appendix 5 “Barksdale AFB Standards”.

Question #138: Are there any hazardous material on the existing building? Will the government provide any hazardous material report?

Answer #138:

There are no hazardous materials on the existing facility. There will not be a hazardous material report supplied since this is a “sample” project. The Government will provide a hazardous material report per Task Order, if necessary

Question #139: Are there any Covid-19 protocols that needs to be complied within the base?

Answer #139:

Please see Section I of the solicitation.

Question #140: How long are the approval of submittals will be going to take?

Answer #140:

Material submittals take 14 calendar days

Design submittals take 18 calendar days

Question #141: Please advise if the Superintendent can also act as the QC Manager.

Answer #141:

Please see Answer #35.

Question #142: Project is calling for optic fiber cable from Building 1512 to Building 1400, will the government provide site plan to reflect the distance between those buildings?

Answer #142:

FA460822R0001

See Page 1 of this document. The distance is 600ft.

Question 144: There is no indication of LPS to be provided on the 35% design, nor is there an existing LPS system on B1512. Will LPS be required for the new expansion and/or the existing facility?

Answer 144:

For the sample project, no LPS will be required.

Question 145: Will the government consider allowing Volumes I and III to be submitted via DOD SAFE Site for convenient viewing and security purposes, thus requiring only Volume II- Technical Capability to be hard copy submission?

Answer 145:

No.

Question 146: There is no clear direction in…