Amend_2_-_Addl_Questions.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

28TH CONTRACTING SQUADRON (AFGSC)

ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA

19 January 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR MACC 4.0 OFFERORS

FROM: 28 CONS/LGCB

SUBJECT: Amendment 2, Additional Questions and Clarifications

1. This Amendment is the result of additional questions received after Amendment 1 distribution. The questions with answers and clarifications are listed as follows.

Question 1: Re: Q & A #8 from Amendment 1: The question and answer allude to a requirement to provide submittals for the steel bar joists and steel decking. This is not the requirement as described in paragraph 16 of the Sample Project GIPR. Paragraph 16 references the requirement for a Submittal Schedule (AF Form 66) with specific submittals “included” (in the schedule), as a minimum. The double asterisks following “A. Concrete mix design”, “B. Masonry units and mortar mix”, “E. Unit heaters and baseboard heaters”, and “F. Electrical panel” then further indicate the submittal items for which “submittal packages” are required as part of the sample project portion of the proposal. Based on this, can the original GIPR requirements be re-instated and clarification provided that the “submittals” identified in paragraph 16 (items “A” through “F”) are the minimums expected to be listed on the Submittal Schedule (AF Form 66) as stated and that only items “A”, “B”, “E”, and “F” require “submittal packages”? The current answer to this question appears to contradict the requirements as defined in paragraph 16.

Answer 1: The GIPR has been revised to reflect the following change. GIPR item #16 C. Bar Joists ** and GIPR item #16 D. Roof Decking **.

Question 2: Re: Paragraph 15 in Revised GIPR dated 13 Jan ’16: This paragraph was revised to require the Sample Project specifications to be provided “…in Unified Facilities Construction Standards (UFCS)” format in lieu of Master Spec short form as previously indicated. Are we correct in assuming that the requested format is actually Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) as stated in paragraph 5.b. of the General Provisions? Also, since the UFGS is not a specification format typically used by many design professionals, and given the short timeframe for proposal preparation, can the more familiar Master Spec or SpecLink be allowed for preparation of the Sample Project only? Our team has already prepared some specification sections based on the Master Spec format initially required by the RFP and switching at this point would result in re-accomplishment of that effort.

Answer 2: For the purposes of evaluating the Sample Project, the use of Master Spec is allowed. However, after the MACC 4.0 awards have been completed and the contract is in effect, UFGS will only be utilized.

Question 3: Clarification regarding Past Performance consent letter, L-1.16.3.1. B.

Answer 3: The consent letter, referenced in the question 3 statement above, should be submitted with your proposal if Past Performance information is submitted from significant subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner for evaluation. The intent of this requirement is to allow the Government the opportunity for further investigation of any adverse or negative information which may be communicated from Past Performance Questionnaires received from the offeror’s selected list of evaluators. Although evaluation/questionnaires received which are adverse are somewhat rare, a release from the significant subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner is necessary in order for the Government to address any adverse information directly with the offeror.

2. Any questions may be referred to me at MACC.FOURPOINTOH@us.af.mil or via phone at 605-385-1734.

Deter…Assure…Strike!

image1.png