Whiteman SABER RFIs_Answers_Sept 24.pdf

Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) Solicitation No. FA462524R0004

1. Is there a deadline for submission of Requests for Information (RFIs)? Also, is there a preferred format or method to submit RFIs (e.g., in writing via email)?

A. RFIs can be submitted in writing via email. Submission date for RFIs is 25 September 2024.

2. Section L, PART I - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION (page 49 of 59) states, “Limited to no more than six pages. Past Performance Questionnaires and CPARS submissions are not included in the page limit.” Can 509 CONS please confirm organizational documents such as the Cover, Title Page, Table of Contents and Tab Dividers are also excluded from the 6-page limitation for Part I – Past Performance?

A. Cover, Title Page, Table of Contents and Tab Dividers count towards the 6 page limitation for Part I – Past Performance.

3. The SF1442, Block 13A indicates an Original and 1 copy. Since this response is required to be submitted via PIEE, can you please confirm that one electronic original will suffice?

A. One electronic copy will suffice.

4. Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions (page 49 of 59) outlines requirements to submit the SF1442, acknowledge amendments, and submit fill-in clauses for Sections C-I and Section K in its entirety. However, it is not clear which volume should include this information. Should these administrative documents be submitted as part of Part II – Price proposal since pricing information is required in Block 17 of the SF1442?

A. These documents do not have to be a part of a volume but can be submitted outside of the 2 volumes required.

5. Section L, Part I – Past Performance, paragraph J. Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement (Page 50 of 59) states, “…If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, Offerors must provide complete information as to the arrangement…” Will a copy of an executed JV agreement be adequate to meet this requirement if proposing as a

JV?

A. Yes.

6. Section L, Part I – Past Performance, paragraph J. Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement (Page 50 of 59) states, “…If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, Offerors must provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts. The consent letter will not count towards the six-page maximum for Past Performance.”

While it is clear that the Consent Letter required by each team/JV member is excluded from the page limitation, can 509 CONS please confirm the “complete information as to the arrangement” and “list of past and present relevant contracts” are also excluded from the Part I, six-page limitation?

A. The JV/Teaming Agreement will not count towards the page limitation. The list of past and present relevant contract will count towards the 6 page limitation.

7. Section L, Part I – Past Performance, paragraph D allows CPARS to be submitted in lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). If submitting CPARS in lieu of a PPQ, should all five pages of the PPQ along with the CPARs be submitted via e-mail to 509CONS.PKA.Construction@us.af.mil, ATTN: Caleb Kirchhoff, in the same manner as PPQs or can the CPARS be included within the proposal response, since it is noted to be outside the page limitation?

A. Submit any CPARS evaluations with the proposal.

8. Section L, Part II – Price (page 50 of 59) states, “B. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) developed in the Price Evaluation Worksheet must be input in Block 17.” Can 509 CONS please confirm that references to Block 17 in this statement refers to Block 17 of the SF 1442?

A. Yes, Block 17 refers to the Block 17 on the SF1442.

9. Section L, Part II – Price (page 50 of 59) paragraph B. Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments (SF30s) states, “Acknowledgement of solicitation amendments (SF30s) will be accepted electronically via Solicitation Module of PIEE and on submitted SF1442.” However, this paragraph also provides an email address. Can 509 CONS please confirm that amendments are NOT required to be emailed and can be included in our proposal response uploaded to PIEE?

A. Amendment acknowledgements can be submitted with the response through the

PIEE module.

10. Section L, Part II, page 50, Para A and Attachment 5, Price Evaluation Worksheet:

Para A states the Coefficients shall not be below “1” for Standard, “1.15” for Restricted and “1.2” for Secured Area. Should Attachment 5 reflect these minimums vs the minimums currently in Attachment 5 respectively in the Agency’s example/model…”1.080”, “1.110” and “1.200”.

A. The coefficients proposed will not be below the stated minimums as stated in the solicitation. The examples noted in Attachment 5 have been removed as to not cause any additional confusion.

11. Attachment 5, Price Evaluation Worksheet: The first tab “Bid Schedule” reflects

Design Fee estimate as “20 Projects” for formulation purposes; however, the second tab “Bid ScheduleDraft2" reflects Design Fee estimate as “15 Projects” for formulation purposes. Which is the correct tab to complete for proposal submission?

Further, Section M, Part II, page 58, Paragraph D states the Design Fee will be multiplied by “17 (average # of SABER projects to be awarded per year”. Can 509 mailto:509CONS.PKA.Construction@us.af.mil

CONS please clarify these inconsistencies and provide clear direction on which tab of Attachment 5 should be used?

A. An updated Attachment 5 will be posted to the SAM posting. Offerors shall follow the directions in the L & M of the solicitation.

12. Section L, Part I - Past Performance Information (page 50) skips paragraphs/bullets “H” and “I.” Is this intentional?

A. This is not intentional and a formatting error.

13. Section M, Part I – Past Performance Information (page 57) skips paragraph/bullet “E.” Is this intentional?

A. This is not intentional and a formatting error.

14. Is 509 CONS looking for individual task orders submitted under SABERs, MACCs, MATOCs, JOCs, etc. to have a value of at least $5,000,000, or should the total value of the master contract be $5,000,000 or greater?

A. Submit any past performance that best represent your company in regard to recent and relevant work as noted in the solicitation.

15. Additionally, may offerors provide references for IDIQ construction contracts that are currently in performance, or do the contracts need to be completed?

A. Any contract can be submitted as long as there has been enough performance to determine quality of the work completed.