QA_RE_Solicitation_19Dec2017.pdf

FA4610-17-R-0002

Q&A RE: SOLICITATION

Rev: 19 December 2017 VELA MACC Q&A RE SOLICITATION

VANDENBERG AFB, EDWARDS AFB, AND LOS ANGELES AFB

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

(VELA MACC)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

REGARDING SOLICITATION

19 December 2017

1. What is the Air Force’s definition of a Bona Fide office for this acquisition?

Answer: The bona fide office requirement and definition fall under the purview of the 8(a) program. Typically a bona fide office means a location where an 8(a) firm regularly maintains an office which employs at least one full-time individual within the appropriate geographic boundary – not including construction trailers or other temporary sites. However, interested offerors should consult with their 8(a) representative to identify if they meet the bona fide office qualification standard. The Air Force does not have a separate definition for a bona fide office.

2. Is the Air Force looking for any 8(a) BD Certified business or an 8(a) BD Certified business in the development phase (years 1 – 4)?

Answer: The Air Force will not distinguish between offerors based upon their development phase. Eligibility will be determined by the SBA in accordance with FAR 19.805-2(b).

3. We have completed many projects for other Federal agencies. The evaluators for some of these projects have moved on to other locations, postings or have retired and can no longer be contacted. These evaluators have completed PPQ/CCASS evaluations for our previously completed projects, will previously completed PPQ’s or CCASS evaluations be acceptable?

Answer: In accordance with Section L subsection L-2 paragraph 2.3.2 “No questionnaire submittals will be accepted directly from the offeror being evaluated.” Additionally, submittal of CCASS evaluations is not prohibited, but is not required as in accordance with Section L subsection L-2 paragraph 2.3.1 “Offerors are cautioned the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.” Section M subsection M-2 paragraph 3.3.3 further states “In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or similar systems…”

4. Can you please provide as-built drawings for Building 13123?

Answer: Available as-built drawings are included as Solicitation Q&A, Attachment 2. Please note, the only available as-built drawings were from the initial construction in the 70’s and the renovation adding GI Java, and the as-built drawings could vary significantly from actual site conditions. Offerors should field verify the as-built drawings to validate the accuracy of the as-built drawings.

5. Can you please provide a hazardous materials report for Building 13123?

Answer: See Solicitation Q&A, Attachment 1.

6. Can the site superintendent also perform the duties of the SSHO if so qualified?

Answer: The Statement of Work (Attachment 1 of Solicitation, dtd 21Nov2017) does not exclude the site superintendent from performing the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). Item #17, last sentence, does state that the SSHO “on each task order [must] meet the minimum qualifications requirements identified in the most current version of EM 385-1-1.” If the Site Superintendent will also serve as the SSHO, that person must be qualified in both areas. Item 28 (pg 25-26) of the SOW also addresses the SSHO but does not limit the duplication of these roles.

7. Can the site superintendent also perform the duties of the QCM if so qualified?

Answer: Per Statement of Work (Attachment 1 of Solicitation, pg 21, #17, dtd 21Nov2017), “The Contractor shall provide a site superintendent and quality control manager (QCM) on each task order. Unless otherwise identified in a TO SOW, the superintendent and quality control officer shall not be same person.” (emphasis added) As well, per Statement of Work (Attachment 1 of Solicitation, pg 21, #18, dtd 21Nov2017), “The quality control representative shall be a person independent of the project superintendent.”

8. Can the SSHO also perform the duties of the QCM if so qualified?

Answer: The Statement of Work (Attachment 1 of Solicitation, dtd 21Nov2017) does not exclude the quality control manager (QCM) from performing the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). Item #17, last sentence, does state that the SSHO “on each task order [must] meet the minimum qualifications requirements identified in the most current version of EM 385-1-1.” If the QCM will also serve as the SSHO, that person must be qualified in both areas. Item 28 (pg 25-26) of the SOW also addresses the SSHO but does not limit the duplication of these roles.

9. In our 25 years of successfully executing projects for the Department of Defense (DoD), our understanding of acquisition is, CPARS take precedent over PPQs. DoD implemented this efficient process for obvious reasons. Therefore, please confirm that completed CPARS can be submitted for projects presented in Factor 3 – Past Performance in lieu of PPQs?

Answer: Submittal of CPARS evaluations will not replace PPQs. The submittal of CPARS evaluations is not prohibited, but is not required as in accordance with Section L subsection L- 2 paragraph 2.3.1 “Offerors are cautioned the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.” Section M subsection M-2 paragraph 3.3.3 further states “In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or similar systems…”

10. To reduce the onus on our DoD clients, and per specific request from those DoD clients, may offerors provide previously completed PPQs for our projects presented in Factor 3 – Past Performance projects in lieu of having our clients fill out new forms? Such a precedent is widely accepted by other acquisition agencies and is deemed in the best interest of the Government and taxpayer. Please confirm our request.

Answer: To ensure fair and consistent evaluations, PPQs should only be submitted using the form included as Attachment 8.

11. Is there a specific meeting place for the site visit on the 12 December?

Answer: Yes, See pg 90 of Solicitation under Provision 5352.215-9001, Notice of Pre-Bid/Pre- Proposal Conference. It states the following:

“(a) A pre-bid/pre-proposal conference will be conducted at 1515 Iceland Ave., Bldg. 8500 RRC Room 215A, Vandenberg AFB, CA on 12 December 2017 at 09:00 AM Pacific for the purpose of answering questions regarding this solicitation.

“(b) Submit the names of all attendees (not to exceed 2 per prime contractor) to Daniel Brock, daniel.brock.5@us.af.mil prior to 7 December 2017 at 3:00 PM Pacific. This information must be provided in advance in order to ensure access to the military base/conference site and adequate seating for the conference attendees.”

12. Is there a specific form that the contractor should use to request base passes for the site visit or should the contractor request base passes per Article 5352.242-9000 Contractor Access to Air Force Installations?

Answer: See Question 11. After submitting your names, Mr. Brock will work with the Visitors’ Center to request base access. REAL ID requirements are in effect at VAFB, yet.

After notification is made to Mr. Brock, he will send a map for directions to the initial meeting location.

13. Can you please provide a base map that identifies the location of building 13123 (or 13323) and where the visitor can obtain base passes once the base pass request has been processed.

Answer: Base passes can be obtained at the Visitors’ Center just outside the main gate at Vandenberg AFB. Please note that other gates (e.g. Lompoc or Solvang gates) will not be able to issue a pass. Depending on the quantity of people picking up passes that day, it may take over 1 hour to process passes. Additionally, while base bases can be obtained at the Visitors’ Center just outside the main gate only non-commercial vehicles (non-delivery/work vehicles and vehicles without company logos) are authorized to enter through the main gate. All other vehicles will need to enter through the Lompoc Gate (Santa Lucia Canyon Rd and Pine Canyon Rd) and will require inspection to gain entry. Access through the Lompoc Gate may take a significant amount of time (in excess of 30 minutes) depending on the quantity of commercial vehicles arriving that day. Therefore it is recommended attendees arrive early and drive non-commercial vehicles to ensure they arrive at the meeting on time. Bldg 13123 is located near the intersection of South Dakota Blvd and Nebraska. More detailed location information will be provided at our initial meeting in Bldg 8500 (see question 11).

14. The Statement of Work for the seed project, Attachment 9a, refers to Building 13123. The concept drawings, Attachment 9b, indicates Building 13323 is the Area of Work. The concept drawings also contain concept plans and scope items for Buildings 13321 and 13323. Can you please clarify which building is to be repaired and which drawings are relevant to the seed project.

Answer: Only Building 13123 is being included in the Demonstration project. The concept drawings were adapted from a previous project and mistakenly identified the building on some sheets. Building 13123 is the northern most building in the set of four buildings.

15. The Statement of Work, Attachment 9a, refers to GI Java. The SOW further states that the GI

Java is not included in the project requirements, except for windows, wall sconces, awning removal, patching of walls and columns, remove wire mold, and other scope items. GI Java does not appear to be identified on the concept drawings, Attachment 9b. Can you please identify GI Java on the drawings or provide concept drawings for GI Java.

Answer: GI Java is identified on sheet AD101 (a typographical error identifies it as JI Java) and sheet A-101. GI Java is the western bay (common area and bedrooms) on the first floor (opposite the mechanical room)

16. The Statement of Work, Article 2.2.1 directs the contractor to bring Building 13123 to current codes and standards.

a. Will the building have to comply with ATFP requirements? Yes

b. Will the building have to be reinforced to prevent progressive collapse? Yes, per UFC 4- 010-01 the building will need to comply with the progressive collapse requirements as the estimated cost of construction is expected to exceed 50% of the replacement value.

c. If the building does have to comply with ATFP requirements what is the stand off distance?

The appropriate blast standoff distance is to the curb line of existing parking lot. The designer will need to use that distance and an appropriate sized explosive device to design the blast resistant windows.

d. Will any vegetation or landscaping need removing due to ATFP requirements? No

GI Java

e. Will one or more of the units have to comply with the ADA/ABA? No, other dorm units are available to comply with ADA/ABA requirements.

17. Can you please provide the duration of the seed project?

Answer: Project duration is determined/proposed by the contractor as part of their seed project proposal.

18. Can you please provide the liquidated damages for the seed project?

Answer: Liquidated damages will be included in the project. Solicitation FA4610-17-R-0002 has been amended to include the liquidated damages. See FBO for Amendment FA4610-17- R-0002-0001. Attachment stipulates liquidated damages to be $1,336.47 / Day.

19. Drawing E101 shows one TV outlet in the bedroom and one TV outlet in the common area.

The notes call for two F-type cable television outlets on opposite walls in each living/bedroom area. Can you please clarify where the contractor is to install TV outlets and how many at each location?

Answer: Provide television outlet at additional location on one side wall in the living area (exact location to be field verified) and an additional location on wall opposite of shown location on each bedroom, providing two locations in living room and two locations in each bedroom.

20. Drawing E101 appears to show one telephone/LAN outlet in each bedroom. This is based on the symbol legend that only identifies “Telephone/LAN” with no symbol, and one typical symbol for Telephone showing on the Typical Power/Communications Plan (sorry) in each bedroom. Please confirm that the contractor is only required to install one telephone/LAN outlet in each bedroom.

Answer: Provide two outlets in each bedroom; one in the shown location and one on the opposite wall, next to the television outlet.

21. On p. 56, Section 252.219-7010 (a)(3) - it states that the offeror’s approved business plan is on file and serviced by the SBA Los Angeles District Office. Our company was initially admitted into the 8(a) program out of the SBA San Francisco District and they originally approved and service our business plan. We do have a bona fide Southern California office, which was bona fide out of the LA District Office. Please confirm that this bona fide office will meet the requirement.

Answer: The text in clause 252.219-7010(a)(3) is placeholder text based upon the SBA district Vandenberg AFB falls under and is not meant to reflect a specific requirement. The district information will be updated to reflect the district information of each of the awardees at time of award. Eligibility will be determined by the SBA based upon the eligibility requirements identified in Block 10 of the SF1442 and SBA procedures.

22. On p. 85, Section L, subsection L-2, paragraph 2.3.2 – it states that Past Performance Questionnaires should be given to the Government Points of Contact for our past contracts and sent back directly to the reviewing agency for this proposal. We have seen the previous answers to questions regarding this, and would like to reiterate the burden this places on small businesses and our Government clients. Many of us are working on simultaneous MACC proposals and have requested and received PPQs from our Government clients. We feel continually requesting additional evaluations places an unreasonable burden on our clients, especially when we have signed, official NAVFAC/USACE PPQ form from within the past year. Although we believe we have a competent and qualified team to execute task orders on this MACC contract, unfortunately, due to our client’s reactions to numerous PPQ requests and the need to continue to fill these forms out for different agencies, we are considering not pursuing this opportunity because of this requirement.

Answer: To ensure fair and consistent evaluations, PPQs should only be submitted using the form included as Attachment 8.

23. Does the project cost exceed either 30% or 50% of the replacement value of the facility?

Answer: The estimated cost is expected to exceed 50% of the replacement value of the facility.

24. At 13 D of the SF 1442, it states that “Offers providing less than 249 calendar days for

Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.” This suggests that the evaluation and award process might take as long as eight (8) months or more. If we are an 8(a) firm when proposals are due, will we be eligible for award if we have graduated from the 8(a) program due to the passage of eight (8) months?

Answer: In accordance with 13 CFR 121.404 “SBA determines the size status of a concern, including its affiliates, as of the date the concern submits a written self-certification that it is small to the procuring activity as part of its initial offer (or other formal response to a solicitation) which includes price.

25. Section M, M-2 paragraph 3.3.2 paragraph states, “In determining relevancy for individual projects/contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, only being proposed to be performed by the offeror.” Is the intent of this statement to limit consideration of a project only to scope relevant under the VELA MACC contract? Or is this intended to weight projects more favorably for variety of trades or percentage of work self-performed?

Answer: This statement is to identify that only the portions of work being performed by the offeror will be evaluated (e.g. a contractor who submits past performance as a subcontractor doing electrical on a multi-disciplined renovation will only be evaluated for their electrical work performed and not the project as a whole).

26. The table of relevancy ratings states, “Projects will be determined very relevant if the requirement is a repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance or minor construction effort on real property with a magnitude between $1M to $10M and involves three or more trades, including design work.” How should the mention of design work be interpreted? Will only design-build projects be considered relevant?

Answer: Design work should be considered efforts which require an element of design work by a registered architect or engineer be completed. No, projects other than design-build may be considered relevant if they contain elements of design work. (e.g. the installation of a fire suppression system which requires an FPE prepare and sign off on shop drawings)

27. Offerors may submit on a “Minimum of 3 contracts and a maximum of 7 contracts for prime contractor”. Assuming an offeror has 3 projects that are likely “very relevant”, would it be a positive or a negative for the offeror to submit additional projects that likely fall in the “relevant” to “somewhat relevant” range?

Answer: The Government cannot answer this as too many variables are unknown which could impact the evaluation. The Government will utilize all submitted past performance, and information obtained from other sources to develop an integrated assessment of an offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance rating identified in Section M.

28. Section M, M-2 paragraph 3.3.6 states, “More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort.” The only recency criteria provided states that projects must performed within the last 5 years. For example, will projects completed in 2014 be scored the same as those completed in 2017?

Confirm that there is no scale for the recency rating.

Answer: Recency is not evaluated on a scale.

29. The reference to the 65% design states, “The Contractor shall stop work until the Contracting

Officer issues a Notice to Proceed to the next design milestone.” The reference to the 95% design states, “The Contractor shall stop work until the Contracting Officer issues a Notice to Proceed to the 100% design.” Since the contractor is required to “stop work”, will the contract be suspended between submittal of design phase documents and NTP for the next submittal?

Answer: Task orders will not be suspended between submittals of design phase documents.

The referenced statement is included so contractors do not begin the next phase of design (e.g.

95% or 100%) until the previous phase is approved.

30. At 13 D of the SF 1442, it states that “Offers providing less than 249 calendar days for

Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.” This suggests that the evaluation and award process might take as long as eight (8) months or more. If we are an 8(a) firm when proposals are due, will we be eligible for award if we have graduated from the 8(a) program due to the passage of eight (8) months?

Answer: Per the SBA “A concern that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) BD program may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract if it was a Participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of offers contained in the contract solicitation, and if it continues to meet all other applicable eligibility criteria. (See 13 CFR 124.507(d).”

31. Provide missing drawing sheet AD201 “Exteriors Elevations Demolition.”

Answer: A revised Attachment 9b has been added through Amendment 02 which includes the missing drawing.

32. Confirm if the testing and inspection costs will be carried by the Owner.

Answer: Per Attachment 9a, Sample Project TO SOW, pg 9, para 2.4.2, “the Contractor shall complete all inspection and commissioning requirements prior to final inspection.”

33. Confirm if commissioning costs will be carried by the Owner.

Answer: See Question 32.

34. Provide latest hazardous material (asbestos/lead paint) report for Bldg 13123.

Answer: See Question 5.

35. Delineate extent of new sidewalks on Sheet G-001 (see note #10).

Answer: No new sidewalks are to be provided unless damaged by the contractor. Contractor shall power wash all sidewalks affected by construction activities and/or a minimum of 20’ away from the building in all directions.

36. Are new window blinds a requirement for this contract?

Answer: Yes, provide vinyl vertical blinds in all units meeting AF dormitory standards.

37. What is the contract duration for this design/build task order?

Answer: See Question 17.

38. In reference to Specification 01 00 00, is it required for the contractor to have separate individuals for superintendent, quality control manager and safety officer for this project?

Answer: See Questions 6 and 7.

39. What is the make and model of the fire alarm system we will be tying into?

Answer: Hochiki FireNET 4127 (contractor should field verify).

40. What is the make and model of the Building Management Control System we will be tying into?

Answer: There is no known BMCS in the facility but contractor shall field verify system requirements prior to executing design efforts.

41. What is the make and model of the Electronic Key Card System we will be tying into?

Answer: Saflok System 6000, Saflok Client Program 3.07

42. What furniture, fixtures and equipment will the Owner be responsible for removing/storing/handling?

Answer: All furniture will be removed by the contractor to storage provided by the Government within 5 miles of the project site. No loading dock is available so it is recommended that a truck with a lift gate will be needed. Fixtures and equipment not to be demolished will be removed by the Contractor and stored by the Contractor in a building provided by the Government, but most, if not all, fixtures and equipment will be demolished.

43. What furniture, fixtures and equipment will the General Contractor be responsible for removing/storing/handling?

Answer: All furniture will be removed by the contractor to storage provided by the Government within 5 miles of the project site. No loading dock is available so it is recommended that a truck with a lift gate will be needed. Fixtures and equipment not to be demolished will be removed by the Contractor and stored by the Contractor in a building provided by the Government, but most, if not all, fixtures and equipment will be demolished.

44. Provide Architectural/Plumbing/HVAC/Electrical as-built drawings for Bldg 13123

Answer: See question 4.

45. Provide estimated percentage of roof sheathing replacement per note #10 on sheet AD-102) due to unforeseen circumstances.

Answer: The Government does not provide a quantity or percentage.

46. What is the current warranty on the existing roof?

Answer: No warranty exists for the roof.

47. Which subcontractor is responsible for the existing warranty on the roof of Bldg 13123?

Answer: No warranty exists for the roof.

48. Note #6 on sheet A201 mentions to “clean all concrete floor surfaces at balconies, stair risers and treads”. Do these areas get new epoxy floor finishes also?

Answer: No, the notice intends to communicate the expectation of pressure-washed surfaces.

49. Confirm that the building elevation for Building 13323 (as shown on Sheet A201) is the same as Bldg 13123.

Answer: Yes, confirmed.

50. Confirm the color of the exterior plaster shown on Sheet A201.

Answer: See Attachment 1f, VAFB Facility Excellence Standards, Apr 17.

51. Confirm the wall finish and color of the CMU wall enclosure (note #33 on Sheet A-101)

Answer: See Attachment 1f, VAFB Facility Excellence Standards, Apr 17.

52. Confirm the flooring type for the enclosed equipment room/utility area at Gridline R8.

Answer: Flooring in the enclosed equipment room/utility area at grid line R8 is bare concrete (existing slab in Mechanical Room and new exterior concrete slab, sloped to drain, with a broom finish.

53. Provide current water pressure flow tests for Bldg 13123.

Answer: The Government does not have current water flow test results. The Contractor shall assume that sufficient water pressure is available.

54. What is the finished ceiling requirement for all the rooms? Will the ceilings be just painted

(existing) concrete planks?

Answer: Ceiling in interior areas to be drywall installed on suspended metal tracks or joists, similar to existing conditions. Some areas do have lower ceiling heights so provide highest ceiling height available (8’-0” minimum) with soffit areas as needed for mechanical space.

55. What does “GI Java” mean? For example, on the window schedule it calls for blast rated windows with GI Java.

Answer: GI Java is a coffee shop for airman located within the dormitory.

56. Attachment #9 of the RFP (Memo dated 2/7/16) indicates that “the proposal shall include… a redacted construction estimate (i.e. no specific pricing information). What does this mean, especially since the solicitation contains a complicated Excel spreadsheet file called “Attch_1c_-_CCEB.xls” (Construction Cost Estimate Budget)?

Answer: On the redacted copy, the Contractor will list line items and quantities but no prices.

57. Will the entire building be given to General Contractor for renovation or will work require phasing?

Answer: For the purposes of this proposal, the Contractor can assume that the entire dormitory will be given over to the Contractor for renovation.

58. Will sales tax need to be included in pricing?

Answer: All costs must be included in the contractor’s proposed price.

59. Please define note #5 sht. G001 “Provide Energy Monitoring equipment as directed by

Installation Energy Manager (30CES/CEA01)”. Can the type and quantity of energy monitoring equipment be more clearly defined for bidding purposes?

Answer: Disregard note regarding Energy Monitoring equipment.

60. Can the Government provide existing Site Utilities plans?

Answer: See Question 4.

61. For bidding purposes, should we assume a replacement backflow preventer is required per Sht.

G001 note #9?

Answer: Yes, any and all backflow preventers noted on the drawings and/or serving the building shall be replaced.

62. How much wood repair is required based on Note # 11 sht. G001?

Answer: Contractor shall field verify that existing wood trellis is free from dry rot and/or termite damage. Any damaged wood shall be replaced with like sized wood.

63. On sht. A102 it is noted to replace roof concrete tile, wood cleats, and plywood that is damaged. This will be difficult to determine until you remove built up roof. Can the government provide an assumed quantity for replacement for bidding purposes?

Answer: No, the Government cannot provide a quantity.

64. Can the Government provide as built drawings to determine the extent of the existing

Electrical, HVAC, Communication, Fire Suppression, and Fire Alarm systems?

Answer: See Question 4.

65. Is installation of close circuit Television (CCTV) required?

Answer: Field verify locations/wiring and provide new wiring and boxes in existing locations.

66. Attachment 7, Past Performance Information, Item A asks for the Offeror Name, Cage Code and DUNS Number. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture but we are submitting the past performance of a project that was performed by one of the JV Partners, what information should be provided under Item A? The JV name, cage and DUNS number or the JV Partners information that performed the work?

Answer: The information on the questionnaire should match the contractor that performed the work.

67. In the event of a government shutdown this weekend will the site visit still happen next

Tuesday?

Answer: IF there is a government shutdown, the site visit will be postponed.

68. In regard to demolition note 18 on sheet AD101, does the existing boiler and associated equipment require replacement?

Answer: Yes, all existing boiler and associated equipment, to include water heater, require replacement.

69. Scope of work conflict between sheets G001 and AD101. Site plan note 6 on sheet G001 states that the existing gas regulator shall remain. Demolition note 13 on sheet AD101 states to remove and replace existing gas regulator. Confirm which is required.

Answer: The regulator should be replaced.

70. Confirm if fire protection scope extends to the GI Java Space.

Answer: Yes, the fire protection should extend to the GI Java Space.

71. Confirm specification reference on item 2.2.1. (d); 15995 is the old format.

Answer: The referenced specification has been replaced by UFGS 01 91 00.15 (15995 was converted to 23 08 00.00 10 during the MasterFormat conversion in 2004 and 23 08 00.00 10 has been superseded by 01 91 00.15 as of May 2016).

72. Is a VRF system an acceptable system type for this project?

Answer: No, replace existing boiler system with new boiler system.

73. Please provide existing electrical oneline diagram for the facility, including service transformer through branch circuit panelboards.

Answer: All available, applicable as-built drawings have been added as Solicitation Q&A, Attachment 2. Please note, the only available as-built drawings were from the initial construction in the 70’s and the renovation adding GI Java, and could vary significantly from actual site conditions. Offerors should field verify the as-built drawings to validate the accuracy of the as-built drawings.

74. Please provide information on existing energy monitoring system; reference keynote 5, drawing G001.

Answer: See Question 59.

75. Please provide information on the Base Fire Alarm reporting system (Monaco, telephone based, etc.); reference fire protection note “J”, drawing G001.

Answer: See Questions 39-40.

76. Please provide peak demand electric meter data for facility for the last (if available).

Answer: Electric meter data is not available at this time and will not be available for proposal purposes.

77. The VELA MACC SOW, item (7) requires fairly extensive electrical design at 35% which normally would be provided at 65% and beyond. Please consider electrical matching a similar level of design as that provided under item (6) for mechanical design.

Answer: Comment noted. As a standard the requirements in the VELA MACC SOW will remain, however, individual task order Statements of Work may require less design effort be conducted.

78. There are interior walls being demo’d. Are these CMU or stud partitions? It appears from the language on the drawings that they are stud walls but if they are CMU lateral load bearing then a lateral analysis will be required. If this is the case the building may not work for seismic? See note 3 on sheet AD101.

Answer: There is some demolition of CMU wall (installation of new doorway). Lateral analysis has been done on previous renovations similar to this project and newly installed block wall in existing doorways to be filled has been found to be adequate.

79. Regards to Attachment 7-past performance information and Attachment 8-past performance

Questionnaire, we understand the project customer/client shall email Attachment 8 to the government directly. Does the Government also want the Attachment 7 to be a part of the email in lieu of the contractor submitting the Attachment 7 in their submission package?

Answer: Offerors should include copies of Attachment 7 in Volume III of their proposal.

80. Does the Attachment 8c, Client Authorization letter, get mailed directly to the Government by the project customer/client in lieu of the contractor submitting it into their submission package?

Answer: Attachment 8c should be completed by the joint venture partner and submitted with Volume III to authorize the Government to obtain present/past performance from its commercial customers.

81. Will the Government accept Attachment 8 from the project customer/client past the January 05, 2018 Deadline?

Answer: Questionnaires received after the Volume III due date from customers/clients on projects identified in Volume III – Past Performance may be considered.

82. Given the fact that we’re now entering the Christmas Holiday Schedule, we’re finding that many of our project customers are either on vacation or will be on vacation through the New Year. Would the Government consider extending the current submission due date by two weeks?

Answer: The proposal submission dates have been revised. Please refer to Amendment 0003 **Revised 15 December 2017**

83. Regarding Section M, paragraph 3.0 (page 91 of 93) - The evaluation process outlined in paragraph 3.0 stipulates five steps. Step 2 includes a "technical acceptability" evaluation, during which all compliant offerors are evaluated for technical acceptability. Step 3 assesses a "past performance confidence rating," however, it is unclear if this step of the evaluation will occur for all technically acceptable proposals. The specific concern is with this sentence, found in paragraph 3.0 for Step 3: "Past performance evaluations will continue until the Government identifies seven (7) technically acceptable offerors with "Substantial Confidence" ratings."

Based on this sentence, it appears that the Government may discontinue evaluations of technically acceptable proposals as soon as there are seven proposals which have substantial confidence ratings. This could unduly eliminate an offeror who is found technically acceptable in Step 2 simply because they have the misfortune of being proposal number eight in the review process. As there is no ranking of proposals performed in Steps 1 or 2, there could be no way that is not arbitrary to ensure that all compliant, technically acceptable proposals are evaluated. Will the Government perform a Step 3 past performance confidence rating for all proposals which are found to be technically acceptable in Step 2?

Answer: The Government may or may not perform a past performance confidence rating for all proposals not eliminated in Step 2. As Step 3 step states “…evaluations will continue until the Government identifies seven (7) technically acceptable offerors with “Substantial Confidence” ratings or until the Government evaluates all proposals not eliminated from competition in Step 2.” (emphasis added) If the Government identifies seven (7) technically acceptable offerors with “Substantial Confidence” ratings it may determine to cease evaluating proposals for past performance confidence ratings.

84. Regarding Section L, paragraph 1.3.3 (page 91 of 96) - Charts, tables, or diagrams may be submitted on paper larger than 8 ½" x 11", so long as the charts, tables, or diagrams do not exceed 11" x 17". Please confirm that the construction schedule required under Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.1, may be submitted on 11" x 17"?

Answer: Schedules may be submitted on 11” x 17” paper, however, as stated in Section L paragraph 1.3.4, 11” x 17” paper will be counted as two pages.

85. Regarding Section L, paragraph 1.3.4 (page 91 of 96) - Information on 11" x 17" sheets will be counted as two pages. In order to facilitate easier evaluation of the construction schedule required under Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.1, would the Government consider counting 11" x 17" pages used for the construction schedule as a single page against the 50-page limit for Volume II? This adjustment would solely apply to the construction graphic schedule, and aims only to provide the Government with an easier view of the entire schedule without impacting narrative responses to other requirements within Volume II.

Answer: 11” x 17” paper will be counted as two pages regardless of what information is submitted on the sheet.

86. Regarding Section M, paragraph 3.3.2 (page 94 of 96) - This section states, "In determining relevancy for individual projects/contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, only being proposed to be performed by the offeror." This statement appears to limit the relevancy rating solely to the portion of a project self-performed by the offeror.

* Please confirm that Offeror's project experience relevancy rating will be based on the portion of the work for which the Offeror is accountable. For example, an Offeror who was a subcontractor accountable for the concrete scope of work on a building renovation would be evaluated solely for the concrete scope of work, and not for the entire building renovation.

Using this same logic, a Prime Contractor would be assessed on the relevancy of the concrete scope of work and all other aspects of the project, even if performed by subcontractors, because the Prime Contractor is accountable for the successful performance of the entire building renovation and the contract itself. Please confirm that this understanding is correct.

Answer: Yes, consideration for work performed as a subcontractor will only be given to the portion of work the offeror was responsible for, and work performed as a prime contractor will be given to the entire project as the offeror would be responsible for the entire project as the prime contractor.

87. Regarding Section L, paragraph 2.1 (page 83 of 96) - Paragraph 2.1 requires five separate items to be submitted in Volume I. Two of these items (under paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) are labeled as "Chapters." The other three items do not have this designation, nor is there any other reference to using "Chapters" to organize the proposal information to be submitted. To ensure that we present the information according to the Government's intention, please confirm the divider tabs can be labeled as follows:

• Tab 1 - Executive Summary (Paragraph 2.1.1)

• Tab 2 - Chapter 1 - SF 1442 (Paragraph 2.1.2)

• Tab 3 - Chapter 2 - Section K (Paragraph 2.1.3)

• Tab 4 - Amendments (Paragraph 2.1.4)

• Tab 5 - Construction Cost Estimate (2.1.5)

Answer: Yes, as long as the items are able to be separately identified, the organization will be acceptable.

88. RFP page 93 of 96, paragraph 3.2.1.1 states "The sample project proposal shall include a cover letter identifying the proposed cost..." This conflicts with RFP page 84 of 96, paragraph 2.2.2.1 which states "The estimate should be identical to the construction estimate submitted in Volume I, with the exception that the pricing information shall be removed." Please confirm that the cover letter to be included in Subfactor 1 shall NOT include pricing information.

Answer: The cover letter included in Volume II should include the overall proposed cost. The construction estimate submitted in Volume II should not include pricing information.

89. Based on research of the record drawings provided by the Government, we are providing the following two-part RFI for the Mechanical and Plumbing scope:

• According to the record drawings, the equipment in the mechanical room in Building

13123 also serves Building 13322 (NIC) via underground conduits. This includes domestic hot water from the water heaters, cold water and presumably heating hot water for space conditioning from the Boiler (no HVAC as-builts were provided to confirm this). The scope of work states to replace the boiler and water heaters with new. In order to size these equipment, please provide heating water, cold water and domestic hot water loads for Building 13322 (NIC).

• As part of this project, a new chilled water system will be provided to serve Building 13123. Since Buildings 13123 and 13322 (NIC) share a mechanical room, would the intent be to feed Building 13322 off of this system as well? Please provide anticipated chilled water loads for Building 13322 (NIC) if this is the case.

Answer: Yes the connected building should be fed off Bldg 13123. Contractors were offered opportunity to inspect existing equipment during the site visit to identify load requirements. The Contractor is required to identify/verify load requirements to complete the design should award be made.

90. Per the Government’s responses indicating that the building DOES have to be reinforced for

Progressive collapse (Question 16, Q and A dated 8 Dec 2017), implies these issues:

• No structural record drawings were provided for this building to date. They are needed to do analysis. Only two architectural sheets were provided and these sheets provide limited to no structural information.

• To do a progressive analysis on this building, and to develop a viable solution it could take a couple of weeks of effort.

• Looking at the current elevations that were provided with the RFP drawings and based on the era of the building, it is safe to say that the building:

o Will not meet the requirements for a tie force analysis so an alternate path analysis would be required o That the court yard face of the building would not pass an alternate path analysis o That the back side of the building probably would not pass an alternate path analysis o That the end walls may pass an alternate path analysis but we have no existing as-builts to confirm this o That it would be a significant cost to upgrade this building for progressive collapse. We believe, based on the comment response, that the cost of the renovation exceeds the 50% building replacement cost threshold, that upgrading this building for progressive collapse would then push the cost of the building renovation past the replacement cost of the building.

Answer: The Contractors should propose based upon the information provided. The estimated renovation cost in relation to the replacement cost will not impact the Government’s evaluation of offerors on the VELA MACC program. However, it may impact the Government’s determination as to whether it should award the sample project should the funding become available.

91. We do not believe Comment 78 was not answered correctly. Are the walls asked about

CMU? We understand that there are some doors that are being infilled and others being installed however, there are complete walls being demolished inside the building and there is no way to determine if these are lateral CMU walls or not. If they are lateral, no door infilling will replace the lost lateral capacity of these walls and the building will need to be re-analyzed based on current code requirements. Structural record drawings would have been helpful.

Answer: All available as-built drawings were provided. Contractors were provided an opportunity to perform necessary inspections during the pre-proposal conference/site visit.

92. Please clarify bathroom wall finish. For restrooms (not specifically for bathrooms), the FEP requires a 42-inch high ceramic tile wainscot with a decorative band of two colors.

Answer: Restrooms and bathrooms are viewed the same in the Vandenberg AFB Facilities Excellence Standards.

93. Please clarify discrepancy between Note 4 on Drawing A101 which requires fiberglass surrounds for shower enclosures and Note 26 on Drawing A102 which requires ceramic tile surrounds for shower enclosures.

Answer: Per the Unaccompanied Housing Guide ceramic wall tiles should be used around bathtubs and showers.

94. Please identify interior finish selections: ceramic tile, sheet vinyl, carpet.

Answer: Exact finish selections are to be submitted and approved by CE after award.

Contractors should comply with the Vandenberg AFB Facilities Excellence Standards and other codes when selecting finishes.

95. The FEP allows either resilient base or carpet base in carpeted areas. Does the Government have a preference?

Answer: The Government would prefer carpet base but either option would be acceptable.

96. Please clarify requirement for door access control. The drawing note implies that the project will provide only infrastructure for the card readers. Will the access control be provided by a separate contractor to the Government?

Answer: The Government manages the access control and the installation of the infrastructure and card readers for access control on the new doors is required to be provided by the Contractor.

97. Question and Answer #16 , dated 8 Dec 2017, asks if the building must meet current codes and standards. The responses states that the building will have to comply with ATFP requirements. The Government responses warrant additional questions:

c. If the building does have to comply with ATFP requirements what is the standoff distance? The appropriate blast standoff distance is to the curb line of existing parking lot. The designer will need to use that distance and an appropriate sized explosive device to design the plast (sic) resistant windows. Additional Question:

The parking lot is not depicted on the drawings. Can the distance from the curb line to the face of the building be provided?

d. Will any vegetation or landscaping need removing due to ATFP requirements? No. Additional Question: Because we are told that we must meet ATFP AND the answer to this is NO is it safe to assume that there is no vegetation within the unobstructed space?

Answer: The Government does not know the exact distance, but does know it meets the minimum standoff distance required by ATFP requirements. The exact distance from the curb line to the face of the building could have been verified during the site visit. There is no vegetation within the unobstructed space which will impact ATFP requirements.

98. Is the intent of the project to tie the new HVAC and plumbing equipment into the existing campus control system to be monitored and controlled?

Answer: No existing campus control system exists.

99. We are wondering whether you are looking for solely DB firms or if you are open to admissions from traditional architectural firms?

Answer: This solicitation is set-aside for 8(a) certified small businesses.

100. Please confirm where you would like Teaming Agreements to be submitted within our proposals? Also, please confirm that these legal documents will not count against the page limitations?

Answer: Teaming Agreements may be submitted in Volume I with the Executive Summary.

There is no page limit on Volume I. Please note however, only joint venture partners will be considered during the past performance evaluation in accordance with Section M subsection M-2 paragraph 3.3.4.

101. In the Governments Past Performance Information Form (RFP Attachment 7) can you please clarify what exactly you are looking for under Box E, Question #3 “Estimate at Completion”.

Are you asking for the estimated completion date or the estimated dollar amount of the contract at completion? Please confirm.

Answer: “Estimate at Completion” should be the estimated date of completion for projects which are still ongoing.

102. Section L, Volume II, Sub factor 2 Program Management Plan and Past Performance Form I.

The requirement for the program management organization chart calls for key positions in the organization and the hiring criteria to hold the position and not a specific individual. Section I of the Past Performance Form requires the name of key individuals who participated in the contract that has been written up and are currently proposed to support this acquisition. Since the management plan does not want names and only positions should Section I of the past performance form talk to positions filled and not names. Please clarify because as written it is a conflict in instructions between the two requirements.

Answer: The Government does not believe there is a conflict between the two requirements as the two are not mutually exclusive. The program management plan is being evaluated for technical acceptability to ensure the contractor will provide the necessary personnel to meet the requirements of the VELA MACC SOW. For this, identification of specific persons is not required but rather identification of positions to be filled is necessary to ensure the contractor has a plan to meet the staffing requirements of the VELA MACC SOW. The past performance evaluation identifies the confidence of the Government that the contractor will successfully perform the program. In this instance, the identification of the personnel responsible for the positive (or negative) performance and their role in the new program could have an impact on the Government’s confidence in a contractor’s ability to perform successfully.

103. Section L Instructions, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal, Pages 84 and 85 and Section

M, 3.3, Factor 3 Past Performance, Pages 93 and 94. Section L for Attachment 7 lists requirements for at least 3 and no more than 7 contracts to document our ability to perform the MACC. Section M adds projects/contracts language that will be evaluated. a) Are we to assume that both contracts and projects can be used to fulfill the requirement? b) Additionally, can we write up a contract and also write up an individual task order under the contract that count as two examples? c) Lastly, can we combine task orders in a single write up that were completed at the same installation if they were done under the same contract?

Answer: a) Projects should be contracted efforts either as a task order or stand alone action. b) An IDIQ base contract is not recommended to be submitted as work is not typically performed on the base contract but on individual task orders. As such, it would not meet the relevancy requirements identified in the relevancy table in Section M subsection M-2 paragraph 3.3.2. However, should an IDIQ base contract be submitted along with individual task order(s) they will each count as towards the number of submitted past performance contracts. c) Task orders should be submitted separately as they are separate contracts/projects.

104. Would the Government assess a performance…