20R0003 Atch 12 Q and A 200512.pdf

Whiteman AFB MATOC Solicitation Q&A

FA462520R0003

5/12/2020

Q1: Paragraph 1.5, Ordering Procedures, in the Attachment 1, Statement of Work, states, “Individual TOs will be competed equally among all awardees after award of the seed project.” The first page of the RFP (SF 1442) states that, “The Representative Project outlined in this solicitation will be used for evaluation purposes only. Whereas the project represents a real requirement at Whiteman AFB, a task order will not be issued against the MATOC for the project upon award of the IDIQ Contract.”

Please clarify whether or not the representative/seed project is awardable.

A1: The Representative project is not awardable. The SOW Paragraph 1.5 (Attachment 1) has been updated accordingly.

Q2: Paragraph 5, Section 2, Contract Administration, in the MATOC SOW states that the A/E professional must be licensed and registered in the state of Missouri to practice in the applicable field.

Will the government please consider allowing A/E teams to provide architects and engineers who are licensed in their home state in lieu of Missouri? Or, at a minimum, please confirm that the A/E professionals for non-site specific disciplines, such as architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, interior designer, etc., can be licensed and registered in their home state. And, that only site specific disciplines, such as civil and fire protection engineers, are required to be licensed and registered in Missouri.

A2: The SOW Section 2 Paragraph 5 has been updated to include the following verbiage: "A/E professionals for non-site specific disciplines - architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, interior designer - must be licensed and registered in a US state to practice in the applicable field. A/E professionals for site specific disciplines - civil, fire protection - are required to be licensed and registered in the state of Missouri to practice in the applicable field".

Q3: The Construction Cost Breakdown, Attachment L-4, only includes columns for labor and material.

Are offerors to lump equipment cost into the material line item? If not, where are “equipment” costs to be shown?

A3: Equipment costs should be shown under Division 11, Equipment.

Q4: Regarding Available Drawings – The Government indicated that both PDF and native CAD files would be issued for this project. While there is a file named 20R0003+Atch+6+B3008+As-builts+Compilation+CAD, it is a PDF file. Please confirm that native CAD files will be issued for the project.

Q5: See Attachment 11, B3008 Native CAD files.

Q5: In Factor 2 Experience and Factor 3 Past Performance in Section M of the solicitation document, Offerors are to include projects that are between $1M-$7.5M, however it’s also stated in Section M, under paragraph 2.2, under sub-paragraph b (page 62 of 66 of the solicitation), that the, “Government will evaluate the extent of experience for strengths and weakness in the following areas: vi, projects with a higher contract value”. If a submitted project is over $7.5M will the project be considered relevant and a strength?

A5: Section M, Paragraph 2.2.b.vi. is referring to contracts that have a higher contract value that are still within the $1M-$7.5M range. IAW Section M, Paragraph 2.2.a.i, a project must have a value between $1M-$7.5M to be considered relevant.

Q6: The SOW section 2 item 5 states: The A/E professional must be licensed and registered in the state of Missouri to practice in the applicable field. Since these projects are on federal property, is a professional licensed and registered in any state acceptable?

A6: The SOW Section 2 Paragraph 5 has been updated to include the following verbiage: "A/E professionals for non-site specific disciplines - architectural, mechanical, electrical, structural, interior designer - must be licensed and registered in a US state to practice in the applicable field. A/E professionals for site specific disciplines - civil, fire protection - are required to be licensed and registered in the state of Missouri to practice in the applicable field".

Q7: We need the architectural, structural and MEP files in CAD format in order to create drawings for the proposal. One of the posted updates on the project included two As-Builts Compilation labeled as ‘PDF’ and ‘CAD’ (see snapshot below), but the ‘CAD’ is still in ‘PDF’ format. We need the AutoCAD files to create base plans for the renovation.

A7: See Attachment 11, B3008 Native CAD files.

Q8: Factor 3 – Past Experience & Factor 4 – Past Performance, If Company A was previously in a joint venture with Company B and Company A performed in JV A/B in the same role as they hold in the proposing joint venture between Company A and Company C, may the experience of JV A/B be submitted for Company A as part of JV A/C on this contract?

A8: Yes

Q9: Will the Owner allow a member of Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Safety Manager) to also act as Design Manager?

A9: Yes

Q10: Please provide the approximate percentage of projects anticipated to be issued with 100% design (i.e projects that will be design-bid-build versus design-build).

A10: With no historical MATOC at Whiteman Air Force Base it is difficult to forecast. The approximate percentage of projects anticipated to be issued with 100% design cannot be provided.

Q11: What percentage of task orders are anticipated to be awarded as low price and what percentage will be LPTA requiring offerors to provide content as indicated in the SOW 12.7.

A11: With no historical MATOC at Whiteman Air Force Base it is difficult to forecast. The approximate percentage of task orders anticipated to be awarded as low price and the percentage that will be awarded as LPTA cannot be provided.

Q12: SOW states the new AHUs shall be compatible with the existing base wide system. Please provide controls manufacturer and the local contact information.

A12: Johnson Controls is the manufacturer. They are using the Metasys system. No local contact can be provided at this time.

Q13: The Government requests information regarding the composition of the design team under Factor 4, Technical Capability. Does the Government anticipate Offerors to include letters of commitment from each design firm and if so, where should Offerors include this information?

A13: Letters of commitment are not required from the design firm.

Q14: How long should we assume for milestone deliverable reviews by the Government?

A14: Dependent upon project. Regarding Factor 4 - Technical Approach to Performing the Representative Project, Offerors should use a period of 2 weeks for milestone deliverable reviews.

Q15: Will the Government be using Specs Intact?

A15: Yes, the government is familiar with this format and uses it.

Q16: Please clarify if B3008 is a Seed Project or a Representative Project. In Atch 2 B3008 project is not a Seed Project for immediate award upon the MATOC IDIQ award being made but only a Representative Project for evaluation purposes, as Sec L pg. 48, Factor 4 states. The SF 1442 Block 10, para 6 conflicts with the SOW para 1.5. The SF 1442 states the Representative Project (B3008) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will not be issued as a task order/TO against the MATOC upon award of the MATOC IDIQ. The SOW Ordering Procedures state individual TOs will be competed equally among all awardees after award of the Seed Project. Please clarify.

If there is no Seed Project, and at a future date as mentioned in on the SF 1442, Block 10, will B3008 be re-issued as an individual TO for all awardees and at that time re-addressed as an actual RFP?

A16: There is not a seed project as mentioned in the SOW, this is a representative project only. As noted in Block 10, Whiteman AFB does intend to issue a task order against the MATOC for this project, but not at this time. The SOW Paragraph 1.5 (Attachment 1) has been updated accordingly.

Q17: Is there any plumbing work required for changing the air handler?

A17: There are lines from the chiller, and hot water feed, going to the AHU's; these will need to be disconnected and reconnected.

Q18: What is the existing water line size feeding the water heating system?

A18: Two inch

Q19: Section M, 2.3.b.: STATES: “Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” If the offeror is unable to submit the past performance of a teaming partner or subcontractor, please clarify the purpose of ATTACHMENT L-3 Consent Letter?

A19: Section M, Paragraph 2.3.b has been amended to state: “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. Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangements, and/or Mentor Protégé partners may be included as part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance submitted on behalf of a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé, and/or Teaming Arrangement may be from projects performed by individual partners. Past performance will not be considered for teaming partners or subcontractors that do not meet the requirements of FAR 52.207-6. A copy of the written agreement between the parties mentioned in FAR 52.207-6 is not required to be submitted at this time, however the Government may require such documentation be provided at a later date. ” Attachment L-3 Consent Letter is required under Factor 3 - Past Performance when the offeror is submitting a proposal on behalf of a Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangement, and/or Mentor Protégé as defined in FAR 52.207-6.

Q20: Section L, 5.3 states, “Past performance submitted on behalf of a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protege and/or Teaming Arrangement may be from projects performed by the individual partners. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.” but directly conflicts with Section M, 2.3.b.: that states: “Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” Please clarify.

A20: Section M, Paragraph 2.3.b has been amended to state: “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. Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangements, and/or Mentor Protégé partners may be included as part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance submitted on behalf of a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé, and/or Teaming Arrangement may be from projects performed by individual partners. Past performance will not be considered for teaming partners or subcontractors that do not meet the requirements of FAR 52.207-6. A copy of the written agreement between the parties mentioned in FAR 52.207-6 is not required to be submitted at this time, however the Government may require such documentation be provided at a later date.”

Q21: Are past performance questionnaires limited to individual task orders, or may offerors request a PPQ for an IDIQ contract as a whole?

A21: IDIQ type contracts may be submitted under Factor 3 - Past Performance. Section L, Paragraph 5.3 and Section M, Paragraph 2.3 have been updated accordingly.