20R0003 Atch 8 Q and A 200506.pdf

Whiteman AFB MATOC Solicitation Q&A

FA462520R0003

5/6/2020

General Questions

Q1: Does Phase II portion of the proposal include design drawings to be submitted? If so, based on the SOW Section 1: General Requirements 1.2 Project Effort Description is required to meet the Phase II design drawings? Complete, Consummate or Construction Effort only?

A1: Refer to Section L, Paragraph 6.1 – “a conceptual design proposal” is required. The Government is not requiring a specific percentage of completion for the Factor 4 design submission. Offerors are expected to put forth the level of effort necessary to demonstrate their proposed technical solution at a conceptual level. The proposal/submission must meet the requirements listed in Section L Paragraph 6.1, adequately correspond with the submissions for Section L, Paragraphs 6.2-6.3, and support the Factor 5, Price Proposal.

Q2: Factor 4 submission requirements include significant design efforts for a representative project that is not awardable. This amount of effort is extremely burdensome on small businesses and A/E team partners for a project that is not awardable. Furthermore, with the available information in the RFP, it will be difficult to obtain competitive pricing from subcontractors who know the project is not awardable. In an effort to support our small businesses and A/E team partners, would the government consider revising Factor 4 to a simple narrative, floor plan and design experience/qualifications? If not, would the government consider a stipend?

A2: Factor 4 requirements will not be reduced. Furthermore, the Government will not consider a stipend. IAW Section L Paragraph 2.0 "NOTE: All proposal preparation costs will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation cost".

Q3: Atch 2 Rep Project SOO 02Jan2020. The SOO for the seed project in B3008 does not indicate what level of design is expected for this MATOC proposal pricing exercise? Are we to prepare a concept or 35% design for submission with the proposal? How are we to interpret this SOO in relation to the Project Effort Descriptions listed in the Solicitation?

A3: Refer to Section L, Paragraph 6.1 – “a conceptual design proposal” is required. The Government is not requiring a specific percentage of completion for the Factor 4 design submission. Offerors are expected to put forth the level of effort necessary to demonstrate their proposed technical solution at a conceptual level. The proposal/submission must meet the requirements listed in Section L Paragraph 6.1, adequately correspond with the submissions for Section L, Paragraphs 6.2-6.3, and support the Factor 5, Price Proposal.

Project Effort Descriptions listed in the Atch 1 SOW, Paragraph 1.2

Q4: 1.2.1. Complete Design Effort Required: Is the contractor to be told, in the RFP for each TO, what level of design is required for this effort (35%, 65%, 95% and / or 100%? Further, this paragraph states that the approved design .."shall be used for construction and will be the basis of inspection."

Question - is this stating that the Construction for the TO will be awarded at the same time the Design is awarded, and to the same contractor?

A4: IAW Atch 1 SOW dated 02April2020 Paragraph 8.2 "Each TO shall identify the maximum level of design accomplishment required…". Each TO will be awarded as a Design-Build or Construction only project. A Design-Build TO will be awarded to one MATOC contractor to accomplish both the design and construction under one TO.

Q5: 1.2.2. Consummate Design Effort Required: Is the contractor to be told, in the RFP for each TO, what level of design will be provided the contractor, and what level of design we are to take the partial design out to? Further, this paragraph states that.. "upon acceptance and notification by the Government, construction execution shall commence and be completed in accordance with contract requirements." Question - is this stating that the Construction for the TO will be awarded at the same time the consummate design is awarded, and to the same contractor?

A5: In this type of effort, the task order solicitation will include the provided design. Therefore, yes Contractors will be told what level of design will be provided. Also IAW Atch 1 SOW dated 02April2020 Paragraph 8.2 "Each TO shall identify the maximum level of design accomplishment required…” Each TO will be awarded as a Design-Build or Construction only project. A Design-Build TO will be awarded to one MATOC contractor to accomplish both the design and construction under one TO.

Q6: 1.2.3. Construction Effort Only: 100% design will be provided to the contractor to price and build.

Question - are we to assume it likely that this 100% design will have been produced by one of the MATOC contractors, under the other two Project Effort Descriptions?

A6: No. If a project is executed as a Construction only effort, the 100% design will not have been produced by a MATOC contractor.

General Questions Cont...

Q7: Throughout the RFP and SOO, it states that Offerors and A/E members are to field-verify conditions, and that the as-builts are not warranted as current conditions. With the current situation with COVID that caused the site visit to be cancelled, how is the government going to equally evaluate the design and pricing on this project, when significant assumptions are going to be made since the current conditions can not be verified? Item #12 in the SOO states, “The designer shall verify (by field investigation) information shown on the as-built drawings (which is relevant to the project) for accuracy to ensure a quality-designed project.” How is this possible without accessing the building?

A7: A video was provided to help the contractor to assess current conditions. If specific information needs to be verified, please submit a question and we can produce additional photos/videos to relay that information. Due to COVID, we understand the additional assumptions that will have to be made and will take that into account for each submission.

Q8: Regarding Section L, Factor 4 (6.1.c), please clarify if the list of code deficiencies to be addressed by design only apply to the work required in the Project SOO and not the entire building.

A8: The list of code deficiencies applies only to the work in the SOO.

Q9: Will awarded MATOC contract holders be allowed to stage a field office trailer on Whiteman AFB to manage all issued/awarded task orders out of?

A9: No

Q10: Considering the current environment and not knowing when the COVID pandemic will cease, please confirm that FAR 52.249-14 will be incorporated into the MATOC base IDIQ Contract.

A10: FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, is used when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated.

IAW Block 10 of the 1442, this IDIQ will be used for the issuance of firm fixed priced task orders, therefore, FAR 52.249-14 will not be incorporated into the base contract..

Q11: Factor 3, Past Performance is limited to 15 pages for up to 5 projects. Since the Questionnaires are not to be included in the proposal and sent directly to the government from our clients, please confirm that the 15 page limit is specifically for items required under paragraph 5.4, Contract Information. And, if so, if Offerors are submitting the same five projects for Factor 2 as for Factor 3, we are essentially submitting the same information twice. In an effort to streamline the evaluation, would the government please consider removing the additional project write-ups for Factor 3, as it will be already provided in Factor 2, and only evaluate the questionnaire or performance evaluations from the Factor 2 projects?

A11: That is correct, Factor 3 page limitations only apply to the information required under Section L, Paragraph 5.4, Contract Information. Factor 3 requirements will not be removed.

Q12: Under Factor 3, Past Performance, is the Attachment L-3, Consent Letter, only required for firms who submit projects under Factor 2 or Factor 3? For example, since no A/E project experience is requested, please confirm that our A/E team member does not have to complete this form.

A12: Attachment L-3 is required if the Offeror is submitting a proposal along with a Joint Venture partner, Teaming Arrangement partner and/or Mentor Protégé partners.

Q13: Can Offerors submit previously completed PPQs or CCASS/CPARs in our Factor 3 sections in lieu of requesting additional evaluations from our government clients? And if so, please confirm these documents won’t be counted in the 15 page limit.

A13: We will accept previously completed PPQs as long as they are received from the requiring activity (Government Agency/Commercial Organization for which the work was performed). The PPQs must still be for projects that meet recency and relevancy requirements of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to contact the requiring activity for additional information. If information from the requiring activity substantiating the quality of performance for the project is not received, it may impact the Offeror's Performance Confidence Assessment.

Q14: Regarding Factor 4, if complete design calculations are going to be required, please confirm that those items, along with the UFGS index won’t be counted towards the 15-page limit.

A14: Design calculations are excluded from the 15-page limit. The solicitation Section L Paragraph 6.0 has been updated accordingly. The UFGS index will remain in the 15 page limit.

Q15: The Factor 5, Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form has Elgin AFB, Florida listed in the location. Is it acceptable for Offerors to change this? Also, each sub-division tab has Florida State Sales Tax. Can this be updated to Missouri?

A15: Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form has been updated in Amendment 04 published on 04/30/20. The update changed Eglin AFB, Florida to Whiteman AFB, MO. Also offerors may exclude sales tax from the form. The form has been updated to remove the row for sales tax. The total evaluated price for Factor 5 will exclude sales tax.

Q16: The Factor 5, Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form doesn’t have a spot for design fees. Are offerors to include these under Division 01, General Requirements?

A16: Yes, design fees should be included under Division 01, General Requirements, as applicable.

Q17: Pertaining to the Factor 5, Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form, each sub-division tab includes one spot for the sub-contractor’s overhead and one spot for the subcontractor’s profit, which is pulled from the Summary Sheet. However, for certain division, such as Division 09, Finishes, we anticipate having multiple subcontractors within that Division. Each subcontractor will typically have different overhead percentages and profit percentages. How are Offerors to complete the form when this occurs?

A17: In the event an Offeror has multiple subcontractors for a single division, copies of the division tab may be created. For example, if an Offeror had three subcontractors for Division 09, Finishes, the Offeror may create two additional copies of Division 09 (three total, one for each subcontractor). It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure all costs flow properly to the Summary Sheet.

Q18: Pertaining to the Factor 5, Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown Form, the Division 03 tab already has 10% overhead and 15% profit added. Typically, all other sub-tabs link back to the Summary Page. Please confirm that this is a typo and that Offerors can redo the formula to link back to the Summary page.

A18: This was an administrative error. Offerors can modify the formula to adequately demonstrate their proposal. The form has been updated to remove these pre-filled percentages.

Q19: Please confirm that Section B is not required to be completed for either volume or phase.

A19: Section B is not required for either volume or phase.

Q20: The government identified four TO estimate cost ranges in Section L, paragraph 1.0(b)(ii)(1-4).

Can the government provide any information as to the anticipate cost range that most TOs will be issued under? For example, does the government anticipate most TOs to fall within the $250,000 to $500,000 range or the $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 range?

A20: We anticipate most task orders to fall within the $500K - $3M range but with no historical MATOC at Whiteman Air Force Base it is difficult to forecast. Also, Attachment 1 SOW Paragraph 1.5 states "On average, projects may range from $500,000 - $7,500,000.00…". For a definitive answer on the range of task orders issued under this contract refer to FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations on page 24 of the 1442.

Q21: Reference FA462520R003, Section L, 6.1: Will this level of conceptual design be required for every design-build solicitation issued under this MATOC?

A21: No, conceptual design will not be required for design-build solicitations.

Q22: Reference FA462520R003, Section L, 6.1.d.i: Please confirm a site plan is not relevant to the SOO and not required for review.

A22: The Site Plan has been removed from Section L Paragraph 6.1.

Q23: Reference FA462520R003, Section L, 6.1.d.ii: Please confirm Elevations are not relevant to the SOO and not required for review.

A23: Elevations have been removed from Section L Paragraph 6.1.

Q24: Is it the government’s intent for all future task orders to have offerors complete a construction cost breakdown sheet similar to the Attachment L-4, Construction Cost Breakdown, provided in the MATOC’s RFP?

A24: Yes

Q25: Volume A, Contract Documentation & Company Information, doesn’t include completion of the SF21442 or SF30s for each amendment. Please confirm that under Tab A, Volume A, offerors are to include signed SF1442 and all SF30s for issued amendments.

A25: See Q&A dated 4/30/20, question number 3.

Q26: Will the government please consider allowing and equally evaluating previously completed PPQs in lieu of having our government clients complete multiple PPQs? If so, should offerors include these previously completed PPQs within our proposal or have our government clients forward the previously completed questionnaire back to Whiteman AFB 509CON?

A26: We will accept previously completed PPQs as long as they are received from the requiring activity (Government Agency/Commercial Organization for which the work was performed). The PPQs must still be for projects that meet recency and relevancy requirements of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to contact the requiring activity for additional information. If information from the requiring activity substantiating the quality of performance for the project is not received, it may impact the Offeror's Performance Confidence Assessment.

Q27: Section L, 6.0 Factor 4 – Representative Project Technical Capability, 6.1 lists drawings to be included in the Representative Project Statement of Objectives. However, drawings would not be relevant to this SOO, as even a floor plan drawing would only carry a note to replace. Schedules and narratives with supporting details seem to be what exhibits this project best. Please clarify exactly what drawings are required for this specific SOO.

A27: The Site Plan and Elevations have been removed from Section L Paragraph 6.1.

Q28: Sec. M, Para. 2.1, “CRITERIA” – The end of this paragraph states: Additionally, the Offeror must provide a narrative describing the organization's program management policies, procedures, and processes. Do these policies, procedures and processes fall within the 16 page limit? There was no reference of the management policies, procedures and processes in the paragraph “Measure of Merit”. Would a table of contents for each be satisfactory? If not, what are the minimum requirements for these three items?

A28: Sec. M, Para. 2.1, “CITERIA” has been updated to remove the following verbiage: "Additionally, the Offeror must provide a narrative describing the organization's program management policies, procedures, and processes".

Q29: Sec. L, Para. 3.2.d, - “…that individually meet the certification and experience…” Sec. M, Para.

2.1, as we read it, only has one key person with a certification – Safety Manager has to be OSHA certified. Confirm that is the only certification or license required for the four key personnel.

A29: Confirmed

Q30: Sec. M, Para. 2.1, “CRITERIA”, a.ii.b – “Each individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience,…” Describe in more detail what you want to see under “duty”? (do you mean responsibilities?) Under same item, states: “….in size and scope of the contract in resume format.” What specific format are you looking for? Resume formats can vary by chronological, by topic, types of work, etc. Clarify what format is required for the resumes.

A30: Yes, duty means responsibility. Any format will work as long as requested information is provided.

Q31: Sec. M, para. 2.2.a.ii – states: “…minimum criteria: ii. Completed within the last seven (7) years…” Also, in Sec. M, para. 2.3, a.Recency Assessment, “been performed in the past five (5) years…” Please clarify if projects need to be within the last 7 year or 5 year envelope? PS - Q/A #47 did not clarify if you want 7 or 5 years.

A31: Projects for Factor 2 - Past Experience, must be completed within the last seven years as of the proposal submission date (with the exception for a substantially completed project as listed in Section M, Paragraph 2.2.a.ii). Projects for Factor 3 - Past Performance, must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. The key distinction is that these time limitations are for separate factors.

Q32: Sec. L, Para. 2.3, B. Phase I 4.0. Factor 3 Past Performance – has a limit of 15 pages. Many CPARS are three or more pages and PPQs are normally five pages. If we use five projects, as allowed, then the page limit of 15 could easily be exceeded. Most proposals do not have a page limit on the past performance, since the information is from reviews and standard forms. Please consider removing the page limit or at a minimum increasing the page limit to 30 pages.

A32: The Factor 3 - Past Performance page limitation does not apply to CPARS or PPQs.

Q33: Q/A dated 4/20/20 – Q/A for #5 and Q/A dated 4/30/20 – Q/A #2 – We are confused regarding these answers. It appears that CPARS will be acceptable. However, earlier in the answer to Q#2, it sounds like you still want Attachment L-1 from the references or at a minimum the contacts as requested in Sec. L, Para. 5.5.b. The information requested in Attachment L-1 is in a different format.

Please let us know if that is the preference or if all forms of past performance (i.e. PPQ, CPARS and L-

1) will be treated equally?

A33: Attachment L-1 is the Past (and Present) Performance Questionnaire; these are not separate documents. The process outlined in the Q&A dated 4/30/20 – Q&A #2 was provided to demonstrate how the Government will address requirement activities (Government Agencies or Commercial Organizations) that do not provide PPQs on behalf of the Offeror upon request. The answer goes on to state "...CPARS will be accepted in lieu of past performance questionnaires...". CPARS and PPQs will be treated equally, however, as mentioned in Q&A dated 4/30/20 – Q&A #2 "... if information supporting the quality of services performed is not available from the Government Agency/Commercial Organization for which work was performed, it may negatively impact the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment".

Q34: Sec. L, Para. 3.1 – “Offeror shall affirm unequivocally that the proposed key personnel are either currently employed by the prime Offeror…” What do you want to see for “affirm unequivocally” proof? Will a short statement on the resume suffice?

A34: An affirmation included on the resume will suffice.

Q35: Sec. L, Para. 4.2 – “The IDIQ and subsequent task order will be considered overall one project.”

As we interpret this sentence, someone could list several task orders within the IDIQ and use that as one project, which would allow a much broader compliance with all the details requested. Most RFPs allow the use of one task order as a project. Please clarify the intent.

A35: Individual task orders may be provided as separate projects. However, an Offeror's experience as an IDIQ holder will not be realized under these projects. An IDIQ along with a single task order may be submitted and will be considered one project IAW Section L Paragraph 4.2.

Q36: Q/A dated 4/20/20 – Q#3 – Most RFP’s required all firms to submit their qualifications (ie Volume B items) for the Phase I and then make a short list. This allows those firms that did not make the short list to not expend any more effort. The short list of firms is notified to proceed to Phase II (ie Volume C items). As we interpret the answer to Q#3 you are requiring all firms submit all information by May 19th. It appears by calling the qualifications “Phase I” and then the project details and pricing as “Phase II” that you intended to have two sequential Phases. Please review and adjust to what the industry is normally seeing on two phase selection processes, which is the sequential phases.

A36: All three volumes must be submitted by the solicitation close date.

Q37: In Factor 3 Past Performance under Section L (page 50 of 66 of the solicitation), Offerors are allowed no more than 15 pages total (3 pages per project up to 5 projects). The Attachment L-1, Past and Present Performance Questionnaire document is 6 pages without being completed (which could be at minimum 30 pages = 5 projects at 6 pages each).

a) Is it the Government’s intention to have Offeror’s include any portion of the L-1 form for each of the 2-5 projects, and if so, are these pages included in the 15 page limit?

b) If Offerors are not to include any portion of the L-1 form for each of the 2-5 projects, what is the Government anticipating Offerors to include in the Past Performance Factor? Are Offerors only to include the requested information in requirements a-m in Section L, page 51 of 66 of the solicitation for each project?

A37:

a) PPQs or CPARS should be included for each project submitted under Factor 3 - Past Performance.

Neither PPQs or CPARS will be counted against the Factor 3 page limitation.

b) Factor 3 - Past Performance page limitations only apply to the information required under Section L, Paragraph 5.4, Contract Information.

Q38: We have received feedback from many of our federal and DoD clients that if a final CPAR already exists or if they have previously completed a PPQ for our projects, they are not likely to complete any additional future PPQs. To alleviate the burden on our federal and DoD clients would the Government consider allowing CPARs and previously completed PPQs to be submitted for Factor 3 Past Performance in lieu of the Attachment L-1?

A38: We will accept previously completed PPQs as long as they are received from the requiring activity (Government Agency/Commercial Organization for which the work was performed). The PPQs must still be for projects that meet recency and relevancy requirements of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to contact the requiring activity for additional information. If information from the requiring activity substantiating the quality of performance for the project is not received, it may impact the Offeror's Performance Confidence Assessment.

Q39: Given the current situation with Covid-19 and firms transitioning to a home work environment, would the Government consider extending the submittal date to allow adequate time to adjust proposal responses once Q/A is final?

A39: We will not be extending the solicitation at this time.

Q40: Can we use our own company specifications for this project, or are we required to use specs from the AFB?

A40: AF, DoD specs are required.