22_May_Q&A.docx

DOCX document 45 KB Posted May 22, 2017

Attached to: SABER
Solicitation number: FA4661-17-R-0002
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

About this file

From the source

Q&A Clarifications

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Amendment_02.pdf	PDF	May 22, 2017
9203_Plan - Kyle Smith Porch Design.dwg	DWG drawing	May 22, 2017
05700023.zip	ZIP file	May 22, 2017
Dyess_9203_1.dwg	DWG drawing	May 22, 2017
6501617C.zip	ZIP file	May 22, 2017
Dyess_9203_2.dwg	DWG drawing	May 22, 2017
09300080.zip	ZIP file	May 22, 2017
Dyess_AFB_SABER_Questions_and_Answers.docx	DOCX document	May 17, 2017
AMENDED_SABER_SOW.pdf	PDF	May 17, 2017
Attachment_5_-_SABER_Pricing_Schedule_AMENDED.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 17, 2017
Amendment_01.pdf	PDF	May 17, 2017
Initial_Q&A.docx	DOCX document	May 10, 2017
Attachment_3_-_Question_Submission_Form.doc	DOC document	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_8_-_Wage_Determination.pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_6_-_SABER_SOW_(Revised).pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_4_-_PPQ.pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
06._FA4661-17-R-0002_(20_Apr).pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_7_-_Site_Visit_Registration_Form.doc	DOC document	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_1_-_SABER_Technical_Specifications.pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_9_-_Past_Performance_Information_Document.docx	DOCX document	Apr 20, 2017
2014_Renovations_Bldg_9203.pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_5_-_SABER_Pricing_Schedule.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 20, 2017
Attachment_2_-_Sample_Project_Bldg_9203.pdf	PDF	Apr 20, 2017

Show all 23

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Dyess AFB SABER Questions and Answers

FA4661-17-R-0002

22 May 2017

Page

Section

Para

Question

Please extend the PPQ and proposal submission deadlines 3 weeks due to RFP inconsistencies and ambiguity over past performance project requirements in the RFP to allow sufficient time for client response and proposal preparation.

Cons Response: PPQ date extended to 1600 CST, 01 June 2017. Proposal due date extended to 1600 CST, 06 June 2017.

Attach. 2 SOW Page 1

1.3.1

Will the fan coil unit in the vestibule be removed and disposed of or removed and relocated? Attachment 2 Sample Project Bldg 9203 1.3.1 “Remove exterior vestibule, framing, glazing, ceiling, lighting, tile flooring, tile grout, and HVAC. Existing porch & overhang is existing to remain, unless noted otherwise. Cap existing HVAC lines & patch masonry as required to match existing.”

CE Response: Fan coil shall be demo’d per SOW 1.3.1.

Attach. 2 SOW Page 1

Item 1.3.8, “embed railings in concrete footings”

Is it acceptable to drill and anchor (embed) the railings in the existing concrete porch floor?

CE Response: Concrete footing required per 1.3.8, “ Provide ABA compliant handrails & railing at West end of building’s ramp (“L” shape area only). Embed railing(s) in concrete footings. Provide handrail mounted to building where applicable. All railing & handrails shall be painted schedule 40 pipe with all edges ground smooth. Rout & seal damaged sidewalk at drain location.

Attach.2 SOW Page 1

Item 1.3.8, “embed railings in concrete footings”

Or are these new railings beyond the existing concrete floor (west side of the building)?

CE Response: Contractor shall provide design, but railings shall be installed with concrete footing per 1.3.8 for stability & ABA complaint.

Are task orders under this SABER anticipated to be design-build or design-bid-build, or a combination?

Cons Response: Dependent upon the level of the complexity of the requirement, CE will develop a design with the SABER contractor and CONS. The contractor will then provide a proposal to the Government for acceptance.

Is the Sample Project intended as a Seed Project in that it will be awarded as the first project under this SABER?

Cons Response: Yes.

Is the Sample Project a design-build or design-bid-build?

Cons Response: This project will require the submittal of a proposal and pricing design for acceptance by the Government.

RFP, p. 83 & p. 85

E & ii

1 & ii

Should past projects used in Volume III Past Performance be for contracts (i.e. SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, MACC) or single projects (task orders), or both? The RFP seems to indicate both contracts and projects but gives one contract value of $1M - $5M. RFP p. 83, e. Past Confidence Assessment, paragraph 1 “Relevant contracts include performance of at least two simultaneous projects consisting of multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property with a total aggregate contract value of $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00. Examples include, but are not limited to Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Job Order Contracts (JOC), Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) or that work involves, but is not limited to, carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior/exterior electric, steam fitting, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry and welding.” RFP p. 85, ii (Relevancy assessment) “Multidiscipline projects that encompass a variety of subspecialties will be considered more relevant than those projects that only address single specialties, as these more closely address the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.”

Cons Response: Contracts and task orders fulfill this requirement as long as all requirements are met.

If past performance is required at the project level, are past projects that resemble the Sample Project viewed more favorably than those covering different divisions?

Cons Response: Past performance of, “Multidiscipline projects that encompass a variety of subspecialties will be considered more relevant than those projects that only address single specialties, as these more closely address the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.” As stated by the RFP pg. 85.

RFP p. 83, 85

E & ii

1 & ii

If past projects at the task order level are included can the award value begin below $1,000,000 to be representative of the Sample Project?

Cons Response: Please see question #120.

RFP p. 83, 85

E & ii

1 & ii

If past contracts at the contract level (i.e. SABER, JOC, MACC, MATOC) are included can the award value be greater than $5,000,000 to $100,000,000 to reflect this SABER IDIQ, which is expected to range from $25,000,000 - $100,000,000 aggregate?

Cons Response: Please see question #120.

RFP p. 83, 85

E & ii

1 & ii

If both task order and contract past performance is to be included, is inclusion of one type viewed more favorably than another?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #9.

RFP p. 84 and p. 85 and p. 71

e and i (recency assessment) and 5.2 paragraph 1

Is the past project completion time-frame 3 years OR 5 years from date of issuance of the solicitation? Does it include ongoing contracts? Substantial completion? Page 84 RFP “Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past five years to include ongoing contracts.” Page 85 “3 years”. Page 71 RFP “Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation”

Cons Response: Recency and relevancy will both be defined as “completed within the past three (3) years” for all past performance and will be amended as such in the RFP.

RFP p. 84 and p. 85 and p. 71

e and i (recency assessment) and 5.2 paragraph 1

Can the past project completion time-frame be 5 years so offerors may provide the most relevant contracts/projects to the Government to demonstrate teaming arrangement or JV substantial history of successful collaboration on contracts for determination of best value?

Cons Response: Recency and relevancy will both be defined as “completed within the past three (3) years” for all past performance and will be amended as such in the RFP.

RFP p. 71

“The price for the awardable TO will be used to determine .” p. 71, RFP. Please finish sentence.

Cons Response: Sentence removed.

RFP SF 1442 and Page 51

Is a bid bond required? P. 1 – SF 1442 offeror guarantee required; page 51 – “offerors shall not furnish a bid guarantee”.

Cons Response: No Bid guarantee is required. This will be amended in the 1442.

RFP p. 71

5.2

Page 71, RFP 5.2 paragraph 1 states “include information on three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners, Joint Ventures, and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.” Does JV past performance count toward both members or only one member in fulfilling the requirement of 3 contracts per member?

Cons Response: Joint Ventures are considered a single company.

RFP p. 71

5.2

Page 71, RFP 5.2 paragraph 1 states “Past performance information on recent contracts performed by teaming partners and significant subcontractors may be included however the prime contractor’s past performance will be weighted as significantly more important than that of subcontractors. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance.” In a JV, are both members of the JV considered the prime or is only the managing member of the JV considered the prime?

Cons Response: Joint Ventures are considered a single company.

RFP p. 71

5.2

Page 71, RFP 5.2 paragraph 1 states “include information on three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners, Joint Ventures, and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.” We are a JV. If the non-managing member in a JV’s past performance is used, is this offeror NOT considered the prime and thus the past performance weighted as less than that of the managing member’s or JV’s past performance?

Cons Response: Joint Ventures are considered a single company separate from each of the founding companies.

RFP p. 72

5.2.1

May we include CCASS’, CPARS and PPQs previously completed for our past performance projects? RFP p. 72, 5.2.1 paragraph 2. In addition to the PPQs the Government’s evaluation will include “information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information. “

Cons Response: Other information may be included, but is not required, and each past performance reference may not exceed 5 pages per the RFP.

RFP p. 72

5.2.1

Please confirm the Attachment 4 Verbatim Copy of PPQ Cover Page AND additionally included CCASS’, CPARS and PPQs provided to aid in the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror will NOT contribute to the page maximum of 35 pages for Volume III. RFP p. 72, 5.2.1 paragraph 2. In addition to the PPQs the Government’s evaluation will include “information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information.”

Cons Response: The contractor is not required to provide information from any sources other than PPQs and PPIDs. Each past performance reference may not exceed 5 pages per the RFP.

RFP p. 66

2.3 Electronic Offers

Please confirm proposals in their entirety (Volumes I – IV) may be submitted through email or AMRDEC and that CDs will not be required.

Cons Response: Confirmed.

RFP p. 67

2.3 Electronic Offers

Will Volumes I – IV be accepted in Adobe PDF format or only “Microsoft (MS) Office Word 10, MS Office Excel 10, MS Office Project 10, and MS Office Power Point 10, as applicable”?

Cons Response: This will be amended to include Adobe PDF, with the exception of the pricing schedule which will be required in the Microsoft Excel format provided with the RFP.

RFP p. 72

5.2.2

RFP P. 72 “5.2.2 Organizational Structure Change History”. If no substantive changes have occurred in the Offeror’s history is this section not to be included?

Cons Response: This response would not be required, if it does not apply to your business.

RFP, p. 70-71

Sub-Fact 4–Sample Task Order

A & A4

What is the total project duration for the Sample Project Bldg 9203?

CE Response: Contractor shall include duration in their proposal.

RFP p. 71

5.2

Does the Govt. wish to receive a maximum of 7 past contracts or 10? RFP. P. 71 states a maximum of 7 recent contracts and then states "also include information on 3 recent contracts performed by each of your partners, JVs, etc." Is the 3 from a partner or JV member to be included in the 7?

Cons Response: Minimum of 4 and maximum of 7 past contracts to demonstrate prime contractor’s ability. “Also include information on three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners, Joint Ventures, and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.” This will be in addition to the 4 to 7 for the prime contractor.

RFP p. 83, e

RFP p 85, ii

RFP, P. 71, 5.2

How many simultaneous projects must there be for a contract to be considered relevant – 2 or 3? The RFP is contradictory. “Relevant contracts include performance of at least two simultaneous projects consisting of multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property with a total aggregate contract value of $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 (RFP, p. 83, e). “Evidence of three of more construction projects completed simultaneously and on schedule” (RFP, p. 85, ii Relevancy Assessment).

Offerors must also demonstrate the ability to successfully complete three or more active contracts simultaneously (RFP. P. 71, 5.2 Relevant Contracts) Cons Response: Three or more will be required. See amendment 01.

63 & 72

2.0 (6) & 5.2.1

Please clarify/confirm PPQ deadline. Section L, pg. 63 states 15 May 2017. Section L, pg. 72, 5.2.1 Specific Content, para 3, states ‘no later than proposal due date’.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #1.

84 & 85

1st & 2nd

Please clarify definition of recent past performance. Page 84 states ‘completed within the past five years’; while page 85 states ‘completed within the past 3 years’.

Cons Response: Recency and relevancy will both be defined as “completed within the past three (3) years to include on” for all past performance and will be amended as such in the RFP.

Attach. A

Sample Project SOW

1st bullet

Please provide CAD File of existing floor plan for Sample Task Order as stated in SOW Attachment A: Original Construction Design Drawings for Building 9203.

Cons Response: Please see new attachments on FBO post of As Built drawings.

1st

Please advise what level of design/documentation is required for submittal for the sample task order with this proposal. 35%, 65%, 95%, or 100%?

Cons Response: Typically, SABER projects require a 30% level of design to be included with the proposal.

n/a

Will a copy of the site visit sign in sheet be provided?

Cons Response: No, the form contained private information and will not be dispersed to the public.

2nd

Please clarify if the price proposal for the sample task order is to be included in Volume II – Technical Volume.

Cons Response: Subfactor 4 of Technical Volume states: “(5) The offeror provides a price proposal that includes the proposed CLINS with pricing (based on proposed coefficients) and quantities applicable for executing the project through the usage of RS Means (Unburdened) Cost Database estimating software. However, the proposed CLINs will be evaluated for technical acceptability and the price will be evaluated for reasonableness.” The price proposal for the sample task order should be included in the technical volume.

Attach. 9

PPI document

Although this provision is located within the past performance information document, it seems to only deal with proposed work under this solicitation and not past work. Is this to be a statement about the sample task order or the Dyess SABER in general?

Cons Response: Section J should describe the work you accomplished on that particular past performance submission. Past performance submissions shall meet the requirements listed in sections L and M.

note

Regarding the Standard Form 1442 Page 1 of 87, it states, “All prices should be valid through 30 November 2017.” This equates to 192 days from the due date of May 22, 2017. In Section L, Page 63 of 87 in the instructions, it states, “Period of acceptance of Offers: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm until 180 days after the proposal due date.” Please clarify which is the correct number of days to hold our offer firm.

Cons Response: The acceptance date will be 180 days from proposal receipt. The revised date will be 03 December, 2017.

5.1

Will the Government consider official CPARS or previously completed PPQs in lieu of Attachment 4?

Cons Response: No.

Attachment 5

Section B

Attach. 5

Is there a CCI to be applied on our price schedule?

CE Response: No additional adjustments for location factors are added. Refer to C 302.

L, 2.3

Are PDFs allowed?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #23.

L, 4.2.3,

Sub-Fac 4

Are we to submit a summary of our QC Plan, or a full draft form of our QC Plan?

Cons Response: A draft QCP shall be submitted that meets all requirements of the RFP.

L, 4.2.3, Sub-Fac 4

RFP states Offerors are to provide a draft QCP. Our QC Plan is approximately 30 pages, can this be excluded from the page limitations?

Cons Response: Technical Volume page allotment has been increased to 45 pages.

Attach. 5

Section B

Attach. 5

What is the Project Fee on the Bid Schedule?

Cons Response: Project fee is $500. See amendment 01.

SF1442

Block 10

RFP SF1442 Requires Split due dates: 15 May for PPQ's and 22 May for RFP; Please confirm.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #1.

3; 7; 12; 16; 20 of 87

RFP Section B

N/A

RFP Section B - Bid Schedule - What is the Project Fee noted in CLIN 0001; CLIN 1001; CLIN 2001; CLIN 3001 and CLIN 4001?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #41.

30/31 of 87

RFP Section F. 9

RFP Section F.9 Construction Sign - second paragraph indicates the sign is to be metal, does it have to be made out of metal or can PT wood be used?

CE Response: Metal must be used.

41 of 87

Section I

(c)

RFP Clause 52.217.9 identifies that the contract duration, with all options shall not exceed 31 May 2022 - does this mean the government plans to award on or about 31 May 2017 (base plus 4-years back from 31 May 2022)?

Cons Response: Contract will be a base year plus four option years from the date of contract award.

58 of 87

Section J

List

RFP Section J - List of Documents shows Attachment 9 as CAD Drawings - the files provided on FBO as Attachment 9 were a Word document for Past Performance Information. Please clarify and/or provide CAD drawings.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #30.

66 of 87

Section L

RFP Section L 2.2.1.1 refers to a maximum page size of 11 x 14 - was this to read 11 x 17 (Ledger Size)

Cons Response: Yes. 11 x 17

71 of 87

Section L

RFP Technical Sub-Factor 4, par (5), 3rd and 4th line seems to trail off, "The price for the awarded TO will be used to determine. Is this the intended completed sentence?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #15.

71 of 87

Section L, 5.1

Section L, 5.1 General refers to Attachment 9 as the PPI, Section J refers to Attachment 9 as CAD Drawings, please clarify.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #30.

71 of 87

Section L

Section L, 5.1 Second paragraph requires consent letters from subcontractors - are these expected to be the same subcontractors as listed in Section L Sub-Factor 4?

Cons Response: Section 5.1 is in reference to past performance, not the sample project.

71 of 87

Section L

Cons Response: In addition to.

71 of 87

Section L

Section L 5.2 - requires submission of 4 and a max of 7 most recent projects demonstrating "your ability". Three sentences later, the requirement calls for "Also include 3 recent contracts performed by each…teaming partners, Joint Venture. If the page limit is 35 pages for this section, and 5 pages per PPI - it appears the government is limiting the number of Projects if you are submitting with a key subcontractor or as Joint Venture. Please verify that we can submit 7 projects for "our ability" as well as the 3 projects per teaming partner, Joint Ventures and or significant subcontractor as long as we do not exceed the 5 page limit per project

Cons Response: Overall page limit has been removed for past performance. Each past performance submission shall not exceed 5 pages.

73 of 87

Section L, 6.1

Section 6.1 requires rounding to the nearest tenth - which would be 0.0; however the example shows 0.91, which is showing the "1" in the hundreds column. Please verify that we are to round to two decimal places.

Cons Response: You are correct. See amendment 01.

80 of 87

Section M

Evaluation of Sub-Factor 1 refers to a PMP, but there is no other reference to the term outside this section - it is not referred to in Section L under Sub-Factor 1. Please confirm that the PMP as mentioned in Section M is referring to the Man agent/Operation Structure Section as described in Section L.

Cons Response: The PMP provided must meet all requirements of both sections L and M.

27 of 36

SOW, C504.1

Quality Control Plan - is this referencing the SABER Contract or a T/O? It appears to be the first T/O as it states no work will be allowed to begin until the Plan is approved.

Cons Response: This is in reference to the SABER contract.

28 of 36

SOW, C505.1

CQC System Manager, can the knowledge, skills and abilities listed in the RFP Section L be used?

Cons Response: Yes

1 of 18

00 01 04

SABER Spec 00 01 04 - 1.4 Contractor's Environmental Manager - Does this person need to be identified in the Proposal Org Chart?

Cons Response: That position is not specifically listed in the organizational chart requirements of sections L or M.

1 of 18

00 01 04

SABER Spec 00 01 04 - 1.4 Contractor's Environmental Manager - Is this person per the SABER contract or per specified Task Order?

Cons Response: An Environmental Manager shall be on the site of work for each task order.

8 of 18

00 01 04

SABER Spec 00 01 04.1 - Part 4, is an EPP required for the SABER Contract or individual T/O?

Cons Response: Per task order.

SOW (Sample), 1.2

Sample Project: The scope of work references Attachment “A” – Original construction design drawings for building 9203 in both CAD and PDF. We do not see either. Can these be provided, please?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #30.

1 of 2

SOW (Sample)

Sample Project: Who is the current warranty holder/installer/overseer of the fire alarm/mass notification panel?

CE Response: CE Operations

1 of 2

SOW

(Sample), 1.3.8

1.3.8

1.3.8 Last sentence, “Grout and seal damaged side walk at drain location”. Where is this located?

CE Response: Located at the 90 degree bend in the access ramp. Crack caused by pvc drain below slab.

2 of 2

SOW

(sample) 1.4.2

1.4.2

1.4.2: “The contractor is also responsible for obtaining all information necessary to properly design and provide all work.” Will every task order require a design with the proposal?

CE Response: Some task orders in the past have been complete designs for SABER construction. This will vary based on complexity of the requirement.

1 of 2

SOW

(Sample)

When the vestibule is removed the last two sections of handrail along the porch will need to be installed. This is not mentioned on the scope of work. Is this required?

CE Response: For safety purposes, install a matching set of railings returning to the building.

1 of 2

SOW

(Sample)

When the vestibule is removed will a wall sconce similar to the existing be required?

CE Response: No.

Will the sample project became a task order for the successful bidder?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #6.

May we have a copy of the site visit sign in sheet, please?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #32.

Attach #6

SABER SOW

C 106

According to the software provider that is required for this solicitation they indicated the Government will be removing the software and publications of 04 RS Means Assemblies, Facilities, Master Composite, Facilities Maintenance and Repair and codes. Please Advise

CE Response (5-11-17): Change the SoW as follows:

C 106.3 Software: The Contractor shall provide one (1) network license for four (4) concurrent terminals to operate the R.S. Means Facilities Construction Cost Data described above shall be 4Clicks Professional Project Estimator program (the operating system shall be Windows 10 compatible). The software shall remain the property of the Government at the termination of the contract period. The software shall be upgraded yearly at no additional expense to the Government. Software will be installed by local systems administrators on the Civil Engineering server and shall allow multi-user and multi-tasking activities simultaneously. The software will allow the local systems administrator to add negotiated non-prepriced items to the database. 4Clicks, 719-574-7721, www.4Clicks.com Software programs will include:

C 302.3.1. The R.S. Means (Unburderned) Facilities Construction Cost Data shall serve as the basis for establishing the value of the work to be performed on a unit price basis. All calculations for work under this contract shall be accomplished using the Total O&P Line Item Cost in R.S. Means without City Cost Coefficient. All other Contractor’s costs are to be included in the coefficient. See paragraph C304.12.1.1.

C 304.12.1. Pre-priced Items: The base cost of pre-priced items of performance shall be determined based on the R.S. Means Facilities Construction Cost Data which shall be updated annually at the expense of the Contractor. The cost to the Government of each pre-priced performance item shall be calculated as follows:

Attach #6

SABER SOW

C302.3.7.2

Division 2 as follows: Construction Dumpsters and/or any spoils/rubbish handling/hauling and/or disposal fees for quantities of less than 20 Cubic Yards (8 Tons). Please confirm if this is supposed to be included in the coefficient or not?

CE Response: Include in coefficient.

Attach #6

SABER SOW

C302.4

What level of design is required for the seed project and the overall solicitation?

CE Response: Refer to C 302. The seed project will require drawings for approval on ABA concrete porches & handrails.

Attach #6

SABER SOW

C302.5

Are to provide a detailed cost estimate or just the coefficient? It indicates in the SOW that “After the Government’s acceptance of the design drawings, the Contractor shall prepare a fully detailed cost estimate to complete the project.” Please advise if a detailed cost estimate is required as the Government will not have time to review the proposed design prior to receiving a cost estimate if it is included in the proposal

CE Response: The overall coefficient is required for the entire SABER contract. In addition, a full construction estimate is required for the Sample project.

Attach #6

SABER

SOW

C304.1

The Contractor will be awarded a Proposal Development Fee (Design Fee) in accordance with Bid Schedule, Proposal Development Fee. After reviewing attachment 5, bid schedule, there is not a place to insert a fee for the design.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #41.

Seed Project

Will the seed project be awarded?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #6.

3-25

Solicitation

Do these pages need to be filled or do the contractors just provide Attachment 5, pricing schedule?

Cons Response: The Pricing schedule only.

Solicitation

SubFactor 4

For proposal purposes does the contractor have to purchase e4clicks for seed project pricing or can another form of an RS Means based program be utilized? i.e. RS Means CostWorks, Win estimator, etc. Please advise

CE Response: Any software using RS Means pricing is allowed for the initial SABER proposal.

Solicitation

SubFactor 4, (2)

In lieu of resumes can the offeror provide what requirements they will be requiring for the certain positions since a contractor will not hire certain employees until the solicitation is awarded.

CE Response: Yes.

Attach #2

Sample Project

Is this the only as built that is being provided for the sample project?

If so, can we request original floor plan, canopy, structural, mechanical, and electrical as built drawings as work is required for all trades involved? It indicated that an AutoCAD file was provided with the solicitation documents but there doesn’t appear to be one. The as built drawings will aid in the design since we were limited at the site visit where we could go. Please advise.

CE Response: As-Builts have been provided.

Attach #2

Sample Project Scope of Work

At the site visit it was indicated that three exterior doors were to be replaced. Please confirm.

CE Response: No doors to be replaced. Only one new interior covered in SoW 1.3.5.

Attach #2

Sample Project

1.3.5

Does the new construction related to the new vestibule need to be in accordance with UFC 4-010-01? If so, please advise of the Building Category (Primary Gathering or Inhabited) to be considered.

CE Response: No, the new construction is interior.

Solicitation

Sub Factor 1

Can either the PM or Superintendent perform duties of either the QC Manager or Safety Manager if they meet the requirements of each?

Cons Response: Separate resumes shall be submitted for each position. A single individual may fill multiple roles if all requirements are met.

General Question

Do we need to staff the contract when no task orders are being performed?

Cons Response: The contractor shall be ready to perform throughout the life of the contract should a task order be awarded.

Solicitation

Bonds

Page 51 indicates not bid bond is required. Page 1 of the SF 1442 requires a bid guarantee. Please advise if a bid bond is required.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #16.

General Question

Can the Government provide the history of the number of delivery orders awarded and amounts from the previous SABER contract?

Cons Response: This information cannot be provided at this time.

Seed Project Floor Plan Notes

Drawing

“provide new concrete sloped ramp to comply with ABA”

Please note that in at least one instance the flared side of the new ramp at one door will fall under another exterior door that does not receive a ramp. Is this acceptable or does the new concrete ramp need to be widened to encompass both doorways that are adjacent to each other?

CE Response: Widening to encompass both is not required. Adjacent door is access to an Electrical Room.

Seed Project Floor Plan Notes

Drawing

“provide new concrete sloped ramp to comply with ABA”

Please note that in at least one instance an existing canopy/roof support will not allow required clearance where new ABA ramp is to be added. Is it acceptable to have the existing column occur within the flared sides of the new ramp?

CE Response: Yes.

Attach #2

Sample Project

1.3.4

1.3.4 Sawcut & remove exterior porch concrete at two doors to provide an Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) compliant entrance into the OSI & Wing Safety doorways.

The existing canopy support structure and footings will most likely not allow saw cutting at one or both of the entries indicated. In at least one instance the existing canopy/roof support will not allow the required clearance at an existing door to meet ABA clear floor space requirements. Will this requirement be removed or flexibility allowed due to the inability to change the existing support structure of the exterior canopy/roof element?

CE Response: Modification of existing porch supports is not required or desired.

Attach #6

SABER

SOW

C304.14

Design Time Allowed Based on Projected Magnitude

The time allowed for design after completion of the initial site visit is extremely aggressive ranging from 9 working days to 12 working days. In many cases this will not allow enough time to develop design documents and perform a thorough quality control review prior to submitting. May the RFP indicated design time(s) be increased if necessary to allow a reasonable period to accomplish design and quality control sufficient to estimate the relative task order?

CE Response: The CO may allow additional time for unusual circumstances. See C 112.1.

N/A

Please provide the previous coefficients from past SABER contract.

Cons Response: This information cannot be provided at this time.

2.3

Will readable PDF format be acceptable for electronic copy?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #23.

5.2.1

RFP states Past performance Questionnaire are due no later than the proposal due date. However, attachment4 shows no later than 2PM CST 15 May 2017. Please confirm which information is correct.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #1.

2.2.1.1

Section L, para 2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format- indicates that tables, charts, graphs and figures shall not exceed “11 by 14” inches in size.

Question: Is the 11 by 14 a typo? Should that be the common ledger size paper, 11 by 17 inches?

CE Response: Please refer to question #47.

4.2.3 Sub 4 (1)

Question: Is a requirement of the “Work Performance Plan” to provide actual copies of material submittals or to provide a completed AF66 “Submittal Register” indicating what submittals would be required with the project?

CE Response: The Work Performance Plan requirements are indicated in Section L & have nothing to do with the unrequired AF66.

4.2.3 Sub 4 (2)

Question: Is the proposer required to list actual subcontractor names or to just list the tasks to be performed by subcontractor once they have been prequalified and contracted?

CE Response: “The names, qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of proposed on-site personnel, including subcontractors.”

SOW

Site security

Question: Does interior work in the sample project facility require escorts?

CE Response: No.

SOW

1.2

SOW Para 1.2 Attachment List-lists As-Built Drawings for Bldg. 9203 in both .dwg and .pdf formats.

Question: The listed drawings do not seem have been included with the SOW, can they be made available to proposers?

Cons Response: Please refer to questions #30.

SOW

Question: Has the existing facility in the area proposed for construction been surveyed for hazardous materials? If yes, can those results be made available to proposers?

CE Response: No.

SOW

1.3.5

SOW Para 1.3.5 requires the contractor to provide a new vestibule within the OSI facility.

Question: Are there any specific security requirements for this vestibule (i.e. full height walls, security bars on duct work)?

CE Response: No.

SOW

1.3.5

SOW Para 1.3.5 requires the new storefront door to be provided with closer and lock only.

Question: Will this door be considered an emergency exit? If so, it would need to remain unlocked during business hours or be fitted with panic hardware for emergency egress.

CE Response: No.

2.2

The page limit for Volume II, Technical, is stated as 30 pages.

The stated number of pages seems unreasonably low considering the amount of information required in Volume II. For example, if you consider the Sample Task Order requirements alone, a detailed RS Means price breakdown could easily be 10-15 pages, plus a comprehensive work performance plan including design documentation, resumes, equipment list, and schedule could easily be 20-30 pages. That leaves little to no room for the required management/organizational structure (sub-factor 1) and QC Plan (sub-factor 3). Would the government please increase the page limit for Volume II so that offerors have enough room to provide a complete response to all Volume II sub-factors?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #40.

4.2.3 Subfactor

100

Please provide the Dyess AFB standard drawing title block in DWG format.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #30.

SF1442

Blocks 10 and 13

101

Block 10 of the SF1442 says “All prices should be valid through 30 November 2017”. However, Block 13 (D) says “Offers providing less than 60 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.”

Please clarify: Should the Government acceptance period identified in Block 13 equal the number of calendar days from the proposal due date to 30 Nov 2017? This would be greater than 180 days.

Cons Response: Refer to question #35.

SF1442

Block 10

102

Block 10 of the SF1442 states: “PPQ form are due by 15 May 2017, NLT 2:00 pm CST”.

Question 1: On May 15th, does the government wish to receive the entire Volume III, or just the PPQs from our references?

Cons Response: PPQs from your references only on revised due date.

5.2.1

103

The last paragraph of 5.2.1, which talks about submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires, states: “Questionnaires must be received no later than the proposal due date.”

This conflicts with the SF1442, Block 10, which states that PPQs are due on 15 May 2017. Please clarify the due date of the PPQs.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #1.

84 85

e. & e.2.(i)

104

Page 84, Section e, “Past Confidence Assessment”, includes this statement: “Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past five years to include on-going contracts”. This conflicts with Section e.2(i), which defines “recent” as completed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Please clarify the definition of “recent”.

Cons Response: Recency and relevancy will both be defined as “completed within the past three (3) years” for all past performance and will be amended as such in the RFP.

SOW

1.4.2

105

Is there an alternate entrance/exit to Building 9023 that the tenants will be able to use during construction ?

CE Response: No.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #125.

SOW

1.4.2

106

Is there any desired phasing of the project?

CE Response: No.

Cons Response: Please refer to question #125.

SOW

1.3.8

107

With the addition of the ABA compliant handrails to the existing West end entry ramp, does the government consider that ramp to be fully ABA compliant ?

CE Response: Yes.

2.3

108

Would it be acceptable to provide electronic copies of the proposal in PDF format (Adobe) rather than MS Office 10 format?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #23.

SOW

1.3.1

109

How many pipes serve the existing fan coil unit in the vestibule. Are there valves to isolate the fan coil unit for demolition? Where are those located?

CE Response: 2 pipes, valves are available to isolate the fan coil & are located in the adjacent mechanical room. Coordination with CE HVAC to shut down system for demolition required.

SOW

1.3.2

110

In the existing vestibule, what purpose does the switch next to the light switch serve?

CE Response: Former intercom buzzer. Remove, cap wiring, & provide painted metal coverplate.

SOW

C302.3.7.2

111

States that all abatement activities will be paid as “non-pre priced items, however, page 18 section C302.3.9 states different, see next question.

CE Response: Delete paragraph C302.3.7.2; d. Use C302.3.9 for asbestos pricing.

SOW

C302.3.9

112

States that all abatement activities is a pre-priced item yet page 17 section C302.3.7.2, para. 2D states different. Which is correct?

CE Response: Delete paragraph C302.3.7.2; d. Use C302.3.9 for asbestos pricing.

SOW

C302.3.1

113

Please clarify which RS Means book is to be utilized for pricing. E.g. Is the Facilities Construction book to be used and only if no line item is found? Are the other Means books to be utilized?

CE Response: 4Clicks estimating software shall be used for all pricing using the R.S Means Computerized Pricing Guide. All other Means books shall be used for pricing reference for non-typical work.

RFP

114

The overall magnitude of this contract reads between 25 million and 100 million, however, page 87, see below, states otherwise.

Cons Response: $25 Million is the total contract ceiling.

RFP

115

Page 23 lists the maximum contract value of 25 million, however, page 1, see above entry, states otherwise. Which is correct?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #114.

RFP

6.1

116

Page 73 makes it seem that a volume is required for this but it is not mentioned in the 4 volumes required. Please clarify.

Cons Response: Volume IV Price & Administrative documents is a required volume per section 2.2, pg 65

Attach 9

117

"H. For each of the applicable sub-factors under the Technical factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that sub-factor."

RFP Section M Evaluation Factors and Subfactors include:

"Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management/Organizational Structure Subfactor 2: Bonding Capacity Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 4: Sample Task Order Factor Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price " In answering Question H, what are the applicable sub-factors that we should address under the Technical Factor in Section M? Does the Government want a narrative for each of the Subfactors 1 - 4 for each past performance project? Should we address Factor 2 Past Performance - Relevance and Recency?

Cons Response: The sub-factors under Section C. Technical factors, of Section M, of the RFP are as follows:

Subfactor 1: Management/Organizational Structure Subfactor 2: Bonding Capacity Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 4: Sample Task Order Factor These sub-factors applicability will be based on the “contract/program (citation)” evaluated by each individual past performance information document. As per the PPI document, Attachment 9,”Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify… Limit the number of citations submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraphs Section L, paragraph L-1.E, respectively, of Section L of this solicitation.” Past performance and price are factors, not sub-factors, and will not be addressed in this section.

118

RFP, page 81 "Offeror must provide evidence it is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum multiple project aggregate bonding capacity of $5M.

B. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following and does not have a technical risk rating of anything higher than moderate.

(1) The offeror submits a bonding capacity documents that meet the aggregate and project amounts, backed by a bonding surety with a best company rating of ‘A’. The document must also include the surety company’s name, address, phone number, and points of contact."

Does the Government want a letter from the surety, or is more required for substantial confidence? Is more than a letter required, since the RFP states "documents"?

Cons Response: Documents changed to document(s). A single letter is all that is required with the afforementioned criteria dictated.

119

We are a JV. Per Q&A guidance, we intend to submit 7 past projects for the JV, and 3 for each member, for a total of 13 past projects. Please confirm this is OK.

Cons Response: Yes.

120

Amendment 1 Q&A states "Aggregate value of past performance projects submitted must be $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 per the RFP." Does this mean that the 13 past projects submitted in sum must be between $1MM - $5MM in sum? May the aggregate be over $5MM?

Cons Response: As per section M of the RFP, “Relevant contracts include performance of three or more simultaneous projects consisting of multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property with a total aggregate contract value of $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00. Examples include, but are not limited to Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Job Order Contracts (JOC), Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) or that work involves, but is not limited to, carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior/exterior electric, steam fitting, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry and welding. Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past three (3) years to include on-going contracts.”

This past performance information will be used to evaluate the contractor’s capability to perform multiple projects simultaneously. The aggregate amount of $1M to $5M will ONLY include the projects performed simultaneously and not all past performance information as a whole.

121

In the replies, you stated a CAD drawing of As-Builts had been provided, but this is not located on FBO. Can this please be uploaded?

Cons Response: Please refer to question #30.

122

The answer to "What level of design is required for the seed project and the overall solicitation?" states "CE Response: Refer to C 302. The seed project will require drawings for approval on ABA concrete porches & handrails."

Do you wish for us to include the drawings with our SABER IDIQ proposal now or with the task order proposal after the IDIQ has been awarded?

Cons Response: These drawings will be required with the SABER proposal.

123

Will the projects be bonded individually or will a blanket bond be required for each annual contract and option period?

Cons Response: As per Section L of the RFP, Subfactor 2:

“A. Offeror must provide evidence it is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum multiple project aggregate bonding capacity of $5M. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all of the following:

1. The Offeror must submit bonding capacity documents that meet the aggregate and project amounts, backed by a bonding surety with a best company rating of ‘A’. The document must also include the surety company’s name, address, phone number, and points of contact. “

124

CE Response (5-1-17): The Work Performance Plan requirements are indicated in Section L & have nothing to do with the unrequired AF66.

Follow on question: If a completed AF66 form is unacceptable/unrequired, please clarify if actual “material submittals”, requiring many pages, are to be included in the Work Performance Plan. If they are to be included, then the page count will need to be increased significantly from the indicated 45 page maximum. Additionally, most material submittal sheets are available only in hard copy or electronically in Adobe PDF format.

Cons Response: No material submittals will be required with the proposal for SABER ID/IQ. Material submittals will be requested from the SABER awardee prior to work on Sample project at Bldg. 9203.

125

Is there an alternate entrance/exit to Building 9023 that the tenants will be able to use during construction?

CE Response: No.

Is there any desired phasing of the project?

CE Response: No.

Follow on question: If there is no alternate entrance/exit for the tenants of Building 9023 to use during construction, will the work need to be phased or completed in other than normal hours to avoid having tenants safely transit through the construction site.

Cons Response: The phasing plan required for this project will be based on standard hours of operation M-F. Alternate means of access to building will be determined before work commences. If further considerations are required once work has begun, they will be addressed at that time.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.