Pre Site Visit Q and As Final responses.docx

Questions Received Prior to Pre Proposal Conference and Site Visit

1) Please clarify the due date for questions. Solicitation Section L.4 (page 90) states that questions must be submitted no later than close of business five (5) business days after the site visit. Page 16 of the solicitation, second to last paragraph, states that questions during the conference and site visit shall be submitted no later than 19 Nov at 2:00 p.m. (which is 2 days after the site visit).

Answer: There are multiple question due dates. The initial due date for questions is in preparation for the site visit, and is 11 Nov 2021. The 19 Nov 2021 due date is to get all questions in from the site visit, so they may be answered in a timely manner. Finally, it is requested that all questions (i.e. follow-up questions, final questions, etc.) be provided NLT 24 Nov 2021. Any questions asked after 24 Nov 2021 may not be responded to.

2) Please reference page 87 of the solicitation, Section L.2.5.1., Cover Page (Page Limit 1). The list of items to include on the 1-page Cover Page includes a “SAM Profile”. Please clarify: Does this mean we are to list the company’s Unique Entity ID?

Answer: By SAM Profile, we are looking for the SAM Unique Entity Number associated with your SAM Registration.

3) Per Solicitation Section A, a bid bond in the amount of 20% of the Seed Project offer price is required. Should offerors place this bid bond in the proposal following the Price Schedule? We do not see it listed in the Section L requirements.

Answer: Bid bonds shall be included in Volume I Contract Documents section with other required bonding documentation. Per section L.2.5.2.1, “Include your completely filled out copy of the solicitation document, and applicable fill-ins, Representations and Certifications, acknowledgment of amendments, contract clauses, and evidence of bonding capability.”

4) One of the factors which will be considered during past performance evaluations is "7. Projects on which offeror and proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together." Please clarify where the contractor is to provide a proposed design firm. There is no mention of providing this information in the instructions.

Answer: If the contractor is planning to team with a design firm, then the teaming information should be contained in the Teaming/Joint Venture section. If the contractor is not planning to team with a design firm, they should ensure that their past performance demonstrates their ability to properly select and manage design firms for different projects/contracts.

5) Regarding past performance for teaming arrangements and joint ventures the RFP states "If the offeror intends to fulfill the requirements of this RFP in a teaming arrangement or joint venture, the offeror must provide complete information as to the arrangement, including identifying the responsibilities of each entity, and the contractual relationships and authorities of the firms involved. The offeror must provide a list of any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements or joint ventures with the same teaming or joint venture partner." Where is this list and other information to be provided...i.e. which factor and what is the page limit for this information?

Answer: Section L.2.5.3. states “Volume II - Past Performance (Page Limit: 21, excluding PPQs and Teaming/Joint Venture Information)” this indicates that the Teaming/Joint Venture information should be included in Volume II, the past performance section. There is no page limitation on Teaming/Joint Venture information and it does not count towards the page limit of 21 pages for the Past Performance Volume.

6) The RFP states "Additionally, consideration will be given, but not limited to, such things as...contract environment..." Please clarify what you mean by "contract environment".

Answer: By contract environment we are considering where the work is being performed (i.e. Military base/facility, government building, state building, local business, etc) and the associated requirements that come with the contract environment.

7) Please confirm that a project superintendent, Site Safety and Occupational Health officer, and quality control manager are all required for the Seed Project.

Answer: A project superintendent, Site Safety and Occupational Health Officer (SSHO), and Quality Control Manager are all required for the seed project. The Project Superintendent and SSHO can be the same individual but the Quality Control Manager shall be a separate individual with no other duties per Spec. Section 01 45 00.00 10, para. 3.3.2. Therefore, the QC Manager cannot be the Project Manager.

8) To clarify, per Attachment 11, Section 01 11 00, para 1.2.1.1 "Building 852 Project's demolition and construction will be done WITHOUT phasing to simplify the complexity of issues". The SOW states that the included Phasing plan is to be follow. Please advise.

Answer: Please disregard Attachment 11, Section 01 11 00, para 1.2.1.1. This statement was developed early in the project before it was the clear the users required phasing. The project will be phased as directed in the SOW and as described in Attachment 13 - PRQE 063118 Phasing Plan.

9) Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. The text size shall not be less than 12 point font. Would the Government consider excluding the header and footer from the spacing and font requirements?

Answer: No, text size and line spacing requirements will not be adjusted for the header and footer.

10) Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. The text size shall not be less than 12 point font. Would the Government consider excluding tables and graphics from the spacing and font requirements, as long as they are legible?

Answer: No, all text size shall be no less than 12 point font and line spacing shall be 1.5.

11) Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on up to seven (7) completed or current contracts. And …. If necessary, each project may use multiple Past Present Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for one (1) project (one for each individual reference). Would the Government please confirm that offerors may cite IDIQ contracts as past performance citations and may provide PPQs (or CPARS) that correspond with these IDIQs?

Answer: Offerors may cite IDIQ contracts as past performance citations and may provide PPPQs (or CPARS) for either IDIQ contracts or project contracts.

It should be noted though, as indicated in Section M.3.2, “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” is one of the important factors which will be considered during the past performance evaluation.

12) For each past contract submission, provide a summary (not to exceed 3 pages for each submission) of past performance information per reference. And …If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the teaming agreement must provide information on relevant contracts as specified in paragraph L.2.5.3.2. The maximum number of references combined shall not exceed 10 total.” Will the Government please expand the page count to 30 pages for the past performance volume to allow for up to 3 pages per reference, not to exceed 10 total references, if necessary for joint effort/teaming purposes?

Answer: As indicated in Section L.2.5.3. “Volume II - Past Performance (Page Limit: 21, excluding PPQs and Teaming/Joint Venture Information)”, page limitation remains at 21 pages for the Past Performance information excluding the Teaming/Joint Venture information. If all references include the Joint effort/teaming partner, then seven shall be included in the past performance section and the remaining three shall be included in the Teaming/Joint Venture section.

13) What is the total construction duration allotted for the B852 Seed Project?

Answer: As noted in Attachment 13 – PRQE 063118 Phasing Plan, the total construction duration allotted shall be 12 months (365 days) from start of demolition (Phase 1 through Phase 3). Contractor will have one month (30 days) following NTP to complete Phase 0 requirements in preparation for the start of construction.

14) What are the LD’s associated with the seed project?

Answer: The Liquidated Damages Rates for this project are: $492.32 for the first day and $421.83 for each day thereafter.

15) Page 87. – L.2.5.1 Cover Letter – Please clarify what you want for “SAM Profile” and “Key Personnel”

Answer: By SAM Profile we are looking for the SAM Unique Entity Number associated with your SAM Registration. By Key Personnel, at a minimum, we are looking for the names of the Program Manager and Quality Assurance Manager that will be responsible for the MACC contract efforts.

16) Please clarify that all RFIs are due 5 business days after the site visit – 24 Nov 21 as the RFP it states they are due on 11 NOV 21, 19 Nov 21, and 24 Nov 21.

Answer: As you have noted there are multiple question due dates. The initial due date for questions is in preparation for the site visit, and is 11 Nov 2021. The 19 Nov 2021 due date is to get all questions in from the site visit, so they may be answered in a timely manner. Finally, it is requested that all questions (i.e. follow-up questions, final questions, etc.) be provided NLT 24 Nov 2021. Any questions asked after 24 Nov 2021 may not be responded to. The intent is to provide information as quickly as possible, and allow for follow-up questions if necessary.

17) Please state the actual dollar daily value for Liquidated Damages The Liquidated Damages Rates for this project are: $492.32 for the first day and $421.83 for each day thereafter.

18) L.2.5.3.2 Recent and Relevant Requirements – The range of highlighting past performance from the past 3 years is very competitive and highly restrictive to many small business contractors. Many past IDIQs (of similar format) allow up to 5 years of past performance experience from the date the solicitation is released. Will the Government consider altering the solicitation to read projects performed within five years from issuance month of the solicitation?

Answer: No, the Government has determined that for the purposes of this solicitation three years is optimum.

19) IDIQ contracts containing Seed Projects typically involve subcontractors providing pricing to the Prime Contractor “at the last minute”. This competitive nature, in turn, helps the Government by allowing contractors to find the best value for the Government. Eliminating the requirement for electronic mailed proposals or even submissions through SAFE will hinder competitive pricing because of the need to hand deliver or mail in proposals prior to the actual bid date. In addition, hand-delivered packages creates an undue risk of COVID. Please consider allowing Contractors to submit their proposals via SAFE.

Answer: The risk of a pricing difference does not warrant an adjustment to the proposal submission method. The proposal method of submission was selected based on risks with the award process. We do not intend to allow for electronic submission. As noted in section L.3. Submission, “Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail or facsimile are not authorized and shall not be considered for evaluation.” With regards to the COVID concern, hand delivery of proposals is not required, as the offeror may submit via the mail in method. If the offeror does choose to hand deliver their package, mask requirements are in place to address the risk of COVID.

20) With Thanksgiving approaching and the 7 day submittal of PPPQs prior to proposal submittal date and the 7th day before proposal submittal date is the Monday following Thanksgiving, we ask the Government to remove the criteria to submit PPPQs 7 days prior to the 06 Dec 21 or allow contractors to submit previously completed PPPQs or CPARS evaluation.

Answer: There will be no relief for the submissions of the PPPQs in advance of the proposal. The Government is committed to gathering as much past performance information as possible to perform a fair evaluation, with the tight timeline to award, this additional time is necessary for the Government to complete the necessary actions. Contractors shall indicate which references the questionnaire was sent to NLT 30 Nov 2021, and the Government will begin contacting the individuals on 1 Dec 2021 if we have not received the associated PPPQs by the requested timeframe.

PPPQs will not be accepted from the Contractor, they shall be provided directly from the individual completing the PPPQ. Per Section L.2.5.3.3 of the solicitation, “In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in CPARS,, the contractor may attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 22nd Contracting Squadron office before the official closing date and time of the solicitation.” It should be noted though that previously completed PPPQs will not be accepted.

21) “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” Are contractors to provide overall IDIQ’s as past performance or individual task orders under each respective IDIQ for past performance projects?

Answer: Offerors may cite IDIQ contracts or individual task orders/projects as past performance citations and may provide PPPQs (or CPARS) for either IDIQ contracts or project contracts. It is important to note though, as indicated in Section M.3.2, “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” is one of the important factors which will be considered during the past performance evaluation.

22) “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” If individual projects under an IDIQ are required for past performance can CPARS be used for the IDIQ in lieu of PPQ for the individual task order? Some IDIQ’s we have do a blanket CPARS instead of doing individual CPARS for each respective task order.

Answer: Per Section L.2.5.3.3 of the solicitation, “In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in CPARS, the contractor may attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 22nd Contracting Squadron office before the official closing date and time of the solicitation.”

23) In Section L.2.5.3.2 (Recent and Relevant Requirements), it states: “Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on up to seven (7) completed or current contracts …” In Section M.3.2.(2)(i) (Past Performance, Evaluation Process, Recency Assessment), it states: “To be recent, the effort must be ongoing with substantial progress or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.” For current/ongoing contracts, how does 22 CONS define “substantial progress” in terms of percent complete?

Answer: Substantial progress is not easy to define, as each contract is different. A defined percentage would not accurately reflect the intent, as smaller projects would require that a larger percentage of the work be accomplished, while for very large projects a smaller percentage of the work would equate to the same level of actual progress. For this situation, you should consider substantial progress to be enough effort that your customer for that contract can answer at least half of the questions on the PPPQ with relevant responses (not N/A).

24) In Section M.3.2 (Past Performance), the solicitation states: “More current performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less current or relevant effort.” Does this statement mean, for example, that a project completed in 2019 will be scored less favorably than one completed in 2020 or 2021? To comply with the solicitation, all contracts submitted by offerors must be less than 3 years old, which basically equates to a contract completed between CY 2019 and CY 2021. Given this relatively narrow timeframe, would 22 CONS consider giving equal recency weighting to any contract submitted within the past 3 years?

Answer: No the statement is not intending to convey that. Recency is determined by the contract having performance in the last 3 years. The contract can be currently in progress or just completed during this time period. Any contract having performance in the 3 years prior to the issuance of the solicitation is considered Recent.

The intent of the statement indicated is about scoring dealing with actual performance, not whether a contract is recent. With regards to the Performance Confidence Assessment, when looking at performance of the contractor over the period of a contract, if performance on that contract has changed over a period of time, i.e. gotten better or worse, then the more current performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment.

25) Page 88 - L.2.5.3.1 General: “Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on up to seven (7) completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and commercial) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications.” Question: Please clarify the terms for “current contracts”. What % of work needs to be completed?

Answer: Current contracts in this usage is “a contract that has been awarded and is not yet complete.” There is no percentage of work that is required to be completed to be considered a current contract. Defining contracts by a percentage of work completed is not really an appropriate method. Since a percentage is based on the overall size of the contract a smaller contract would demonstrate less performance to achieve a higher percentage of work completed while a larger contract completing the same amount of work would be a significantly lower percentage. When considering the best projects to include, you should consider substantial progress to be enough effort that your customer for that contract can answer at least half of the questions on the PPPQ with relevant responses (not N/A).

26) Page 100 – M.3.2. Past Performance: “Some of the important factors which will be considered during past performance evaluations include: 6. Ability to perform in the area (Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Arkansas), or successful performance operating in a geographically separated location from main office location.” Question: Please clarify the terms for “operating in a geographically separated location from main office location.” Is this designated by a certain amount of miles from office to jobsite? Would working in a different state, regardless of miles, qualify?

Answer: Operating in a geographically separated location from the main office location can be considered as demonstrating the ability of your organization to locate, contract and effectively manage a local team including local subcontractors from your main office location in a similar distance as your main office location would be from McConnell. This would not be designated by a specific number of miles or just the allocation of working in a different state.

27) Will an electronic submission or an extension of one day be considered to allow for proposals to have the most competitive pricing? The due date is currently on a Monday, requiring that bids be shipped out on Friday.

Answer: The proposal due date will be extended by one day to 7 Dec 2021. Due to risks associated with the award process, we do not intend to adjust the proposal due date any further or allow for electronic submission. As noted in section L.3. Submission, “Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail or facsimile are not authorized and shall not be considered for evaluation.”

Late Questions

28) Reference RFP page 86 of 103, paragraph L.2.2 which requires that pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. Question: Please confirm that this requirement does not apply to callout boxes, graphics, tables, charts, graphs, drawings, teaming agreements, as well as forms and documents that were not generated by the Offeror (e.g., bid bond, SF1442, SF30, etc.).

Answer: Signed documentation provided in whole, such as teaming agreements and documents not generated by the Offeror are not required to meet the line page requirements for line spacing, 12 point font, and margin size. These documents must be legible. All other text is required to meet the line spacing requirements.

29) Tables and other graphics will appear extremely cumbersome with 12-point font. For readability, professional organizations in the industry typically use 6-point to 9-point for graphics. For example, the IEEE recommends 8-point and ASME recommends no less than 6-point. Question: Will the Government consider allowing tables and other graphics to use a font size that is less than 12-point but no less than 6-point?

Answer: No, all text size unless contained in an excepted document shall be no less than 12 point font.

30) In the interest of reducing the burden on Government staff and maximizing workload efficiencies, will the Government accept recently completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) that answer similar and/or the same past performance questions, such as the NAVFAC PPQ-0 forms?

Answer: No, the government is interested in getting the most recent information on past performance as possible. Per L.2.5.3.3, “Evaluators are only allowed to use the RFP Attachment 8 PPPQ. Altered or substituted questionnaires will not be evaluated.”

31) In the interest of reducing the burden on Government staff and maximizing workload efficiencies and should previously completed PPQ-0 form is acceptable, please confirm that Offerors may attach the completed PPQ-0 form to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 22nd Contracting Squadron Office.

Answer: No, previously completed PPQ forms will not be evaluated and as noted in L.2.5.3.3 “…PPPQs will only be accepted from Project Owners or their authorized representatives. PPPQs will not be accepted from Prime Contractors, Subcontractors, or Manufacturers.”

32) Reference RFP page 89 of 103, paragraph L.2.5.3.4 which states that the maximum number of references combined between the Offeror and teaming member(s) shall not exceed 10 total. However, there is an overall page limit of 21 for Volume II that covers up to seven (7) completed or current contracts by the Offeror, not to exceed three (3) pages per contract description. Question: We respectfully request the Government to consider removing the overall page limit of Volume II, in turn, each contract description shall not exceed three (3) pages. This translates to 30 pages of contract descriptions for a total of 10 contracts combined for the Offeror and teaming member(s).

Answer: As indicated in Section L.2.5.3. “Volume II - Past Performance (Page Limit: 21, excluding PPQs and Teaming/Joint Venture Information)” this indicates that there is no page limitation on Teaming/Joint Venture information and it does not count towards the page limit of 21 pages for the Past Performance Volume. Page limitation remains at 21 pages for the Past Performance information excluding the Teaming/Joint Venture information. If all references include the Joint effort/teaming partner, seven shall be included in the past performance section and the remaining three shall be included in the teaming section.

33) Reference RFP page 89 of 103, paragraph L.2.5.3.4 which requires the offeror to provide complete information as to the teaming arrangement, including identifying the responsibilities of each entity, and the contractual relationships and authorities of the firms involved. Question: Please confirm that this information is excluded from any page limit.

Answer: As indicated in Section L.2.5.3. “Volume II - Past Performance (Page Limit: 21, excluding PPQs and Teaming/Joint Venture Information)” this indicates that there is no page limitation on Teaming/Joint Venture information and it does not count towards the page limit of 21 pages for the Past Performance Volume.

34) According to Section L.2.5.1, the cover page (limited to one page) of the proposal shall include: “…name of company (Prime contractor), relevant contact information, to include contact name(s), phone, numbers, email addresses, mailing address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number, and Small Business size status, /applicable socio-economic subcategories, SAM Profile, key personnel, etc.” In light of the one-page limit, what is the government looking for in the “SAM Profile” and “key personnel”?

Answer: By SAM Profile we are looking for the SAM Unique Entity Number associated with your SAM Registration. By Key Personnel, at a minimum, we are looking for the names of the personnel (i.e. Program Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, etc.) that will be responsible for the MACC contract efforts.

35) Regarding Past Performance Questionnaires per Section L.2.5.3.3 (Past Performance Contract Submission Requirements), the solicitation states: “Questionnaires must be received in the 22d Contracting Squadron office not later than 7 days prior to the closing date of the solicitation.” Seven days prior would be Monday November 29th, the Monday after Thanksgiving. Considering the lack of availability of government personnel during the week of Thanksgiving, would 22 CONS consider waiving the 7-day requirement and accepting PPQs through the closing date of the solicitation?

Answer: There will be no relief for the submissions of the PPPQs in advance of the proposal. The Government is committed to gathering as much past performance information as possible to perform a fair evaluation, with the tight timeline to award, this additional time is necessary for the Government to complete the necessary actions. Contractors shall indicate which references the questionnaire was sent to NLT 30 Nov 2021, and the Government will begin contacting the individuals on 1 Dec 2021 if we have not received the associated PPPQs by the requested timeframe.

36) Please clarify the deadline for questions. Is it the close of business on the fifth business day after the November 17 site visit (November 24)?

Answer: There are multiple question due dates. The initial due date for questions is in preparation for the site visit, and is 11 Nov 2021. The 19 Nov 2021 due date is to get all questions in from the site visit, so they may be answered in a timely manner. Finally, it is requested that all questions (i.e. follow-up questions, final questions, etc.) be provided NLT 24 Nov 2021. Any questions asked after 24 Nov 2021 may not be responded to.

37) Would 22 CONS consider a proposal due date that is not on a Monday? With Monday due dates, offerors who ship their proposals need to finalize their responses on Friday, while offerors who are hand-delivering their proposals can continue working until Monday.

Answer: The proposal due date will be extended by one day to 7 Dec 2021. Due to risks associated with the award process, we do not intend to adjust the proposal due date any further or allow for electronic submission.

38) The first sentence in section L.2.5.2.2 says: “Include your completely filled out copy of the Price Schedule and any related documents to the seed project Price (i.e. price breakdowns).” Please consider eliminating the requirement for these “related documents to the seed project price” and “price breakdowns” or clarify exactly what the minimum requirements are for this information.

Answer: The only required price documentation is the completed copy of the price schedule. If additional information is desired to be provided, with regards to the seed project price, this is to indicate that it would go in this location with the completed price Schedule.

39) In Section M.3.2, the second-to-last sentence before Table 4 says “The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.” What are past performance information forms (PIFs)? Are they the project/contract summaries that offerors create to provide the information required by Section L.2.5.3.3?

Answer: The term PIF is synonymous with PPPQ.

40) The up to seven (7) contracts/requirements/projects that the offerors summarize in Volume II are not IDIQ contracts, but rather single-project contracts and/or IDIQ task orders, correct?

Answer: Offerors may cite IDIQ contracts or individual task orders/projects as past performance citations and may provide PPPQs (or CPARS) for either IDIQ contracts or project contracts. It is important to note though, as indicated in Section M.3.2, “Projects with a similar contract type and magnitude (such as MACC/MATOC, SABER, JOC Firm Fixed Price ID/IQ contracts) using terms and conditions similar to those set forth in this solicitation (i.e. Liquidated Damages, Material and Workmanship, and Warranty of Construction to name a few)” is one of the important factors which will be considered during the past performance evaluation.

41) Can an offeror use projects from sister companies (subsidiary firms that share a parent with the offeror and that are managed by the same president as the offeror) to demonstrate recent and relevant past performance if the sister companies would “significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort?” If so, would letters of commitment (rather than teaming agreements) suffice to document the support to be provided by the sister companies?

Answer: Sister company information may be utilized for past performance. Information indicating the relationship shall be provided separately from the Past Performance documentation, and shall not count as part of the Past Performance volume page count. A commitment letter, describing the arrangement, including identifying the responsibilities of each entity, the commitment of resources, and the contractual relationship and authorities of the firms involved shall be provided.

42) Paragraph L.2.5.3.4 says “The maximum number of references combined shall not exceed 10 total” when each party to a teaming agreement provides information on relevant contracts. If projects from sister companies (subsidiary firms that share a parent with the offeror and that are managed by the same president as the offeror) are acceptable in the demonstration of past performance, does this mean that an offeror that includes some sister company projects can include up to 10 (rather than up to 7) example projects in Volume II?

Answer: An offeror may include up to 10 example projects if including a sister company via a commitment letter.

43) Given the short timeframe between government answers to questions (after 11/19) and the proposal due date (12/6), and the Thanksgiving holiday in between, would the government consider extending the proposal due date one to two weeks to provide offerors more time to assess the impacts of the answers to questions and produce and deliver a quality proposal?

Answer: The proposal due date will be extended by one day to 7 Dec 2021. Due to risks associated with the award process, we do not intend to adjust the proposal due date any further or allow for electronic submission.

44) Additionally, Section L.2.5.3.3 of the solicitation states that PPPQs must be received no later than 7 days prior to the closing date of the solicitation. While we are being as proactive as possible in requesting the PPPQs, with the Thanksgiving holiday coming up next week it may be difficult for some of our customers to ensure timely PPPQ submission by Monday, 11/29. Would the government consider allowing additional days for submission of the PPPQs?

Answer: There will be no relief for the submissions of the PPPQs in advance of the proposal. The Government is committed to gathering as much past performance information as possible to perform a fair evaluation, with the tight timeline to award, this additional time is necessary for the Government to complete the necessary actions. Contractors shall indicate which references the questionnaire was sent to NLT 30 Nov 2021, and the Government will begin contacting the individuals on 1 Dec 2021 if we have not received the associated PPPQs by the requested timeframe.

Questions Received Day of Site Visit

45) Reference RFP page 88 of 105, paragraph L.2.3.3.2 Recent and Relevant Requirements, which states, “Relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of construction and work elements described in the solicitation and attached Statement of Work and Specifications. At least two (2) listed contracts must include design-build construction projects with a project magnitude between $2,000 and $10,000,000.” Question: Please confirm that this does not preclude the Offeror from submitting relevant JOC, SABER, MACC, MATOC, etc. task orders with a project magnitude in excess of $10,000,000 for the remaining allowable relevant projects.

Answer: Offerors are not precluded from submitting task orders with a project magnitude in excess of the $10,000,000, as long as “…at least two (2) listed contracts must include design-build construction projects with a project magnitude between $2,000 and $10,000,000.”

46) Reference RFP page 88 of 105, paragraph L.2.3.3.2 Recent and Relevant Requirements, which states, “Each proposal shall provide recent and relevant information regarding an offeror's actions under previously awarded contracts. Recent is defined as projects performed within three (3) years from issuance month of the solicitation.” Question: We respectfully request that the eligible performance period be increased to five (5) years from issuance month of the solicitation as the recent pandemic has significantly curtailed Government awards for JOC, SABER, MACC, and MATOC projects.

Answer: No, the Government has determined that for the purposes of this solicitation three years is optimum.

47) The stated Seed Project magnitude is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Is there a Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) for this project? If so, can this value be provided?

Answer: We cannot disclose any value information beyond the Seed Project Magnitude.

48) The stated Seed Project magnitude is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Is there a statutory limitation for this project? If so, can this value be provided?

Answer: We cannot disclose any value information beyond the Seed Project Magnitude.