Attch 20 Question Answers Cont.docx

Solicitation No.: FA4800-11-R-0002 Attachment 20

AMENDMENT 0004

MACC

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

Continuation

219. Do you want past performance information sheets and questionnaires on individual task orders under an IDIQ contract or on the IDIQ contracts as a whole? Also, are we correctly figuring that you want the questionnaires back by September 8?

A. Individually

220. Amendment 2, Question 65 states that this contract is open Nationwide to all small businesses. Please confirm that the restriction on only 8(a) firms serviced the Richmond office has also been lifted, and this contract is open to both Small Businesses and 8(a) firms nationwide.

A. No. This is ”not” restricted to the Richmond office, this is open to 8(a)s Nationwide.

221. Please confirm our understanding that PPIS (and associated PPQ) are still limited to up to 6 for the prime three per individual JV partner or team member, but is unlimited overall dependent upon the number of such firms. (thus, a team of only two firms can submit up to 12 (6 for the JV or team together, and 3 per firm individually) whereas a team of three firms can submit up to 15 projects (again, 6 for the JV or team, and 3 per firm), and so on.)

A. Yes

222. Will you please provide two business days after posted responses to these and any other RFI to allow for follow-up to any issues raised as a result of the Government’s response?

A. Will take into consideration

223. Attachment 7, AF Form 3054 contains a column for “Means Reference.” Is this intentional? Do you really want a means reference number for each aspect of work?

· If a means reference number is required for each aspect of work are we supposed to fill in the rest of AF Form 3054 with cost information corresponding with the Means item referenced?

· What level of detail is required in the estimate breakdown required on AF Form 3054? Are we to account for every fitting, hydrant, piece of pipe, cubic yard of fill, etc., or are we to only provide a CSI divisional breakdown of work?

A. The particular AF Form 3054 is an excel spreadsheet that I modified to add the Means Reference Number column. It was strictly a “tool” for me to know where I got the line on the 3054 if needed for negotiations or changes to the cost estimate. It is simply a helpful bit of information when revisiting an older estimate.

224. On the Past Performance Sheet (Attachment 01B), Section I (on page 3) states “For each of the applicable subfactors under the Technical factors in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor, if you are to perform the same effort on the proposed contract.” Please clarify the location of the referenced “subfactors” under the Technical factors in Section M as they are not clearly labeled as subfactors within Section M.

A. There are no subfactors. On the PPIS (attachment 01B) Page 3, paragraph I. – illustrate how your experience on this program applies to the Seed Project.

225. Amendment 2, page 9 of 16, G. Volume 3 Price Proposal (1) states an Executive Summary of no more than 3 pages shall be provided. Paragraph (1) continues to state that the Executive Summary Section is not included in the Volume 3 page limitation. G.1.c. states “Page Limitation: Unlimited.”

Question: Is there a page limitation on Volume 3 and if so what is it?

A. Unlimited

226. Amendment 2, Attachment 20, page 6, A #43 states the Executive Summary is to be included in Volume 1. See also RFI #1 above.

Question: Is the Executive Summary in Volume 1 or Volume 3?

A. Executive Summary is to go in Volume 3

227. Amendment 2, Attachment 20, page 6, A #43, also page 10 A #68, states the AF Form 3052 is to be included in Volume 3. Does the AF Form 3052 satisfy the requirement for a Schedule of Values? If yes, Amendment 2, page 7 of 16, E.3.b. states a Schedule of Values must be included in Volume 1. Which volume is the schedule of values to be presented in?

A. the AF 3052 is to go in Volume 3 – Price Proposals. The Schedule of Values go in Volume 1 - Technical

228. Amendment 2, page 9 of 16, 2.a Proposed Price. Question: Are Attachment #07 Construction Cost Breakdown and Seed Project Schedule in separate tabs or included in tab of SF1442?

A. These should be Tab out in Volume 3

229. Amendment 2, page 7 of 16, E.3.b. “Include a filled out Attachment 08, AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule and a Schedule of values for the project.” No format is dictated. Question: Is Attachment 7, Form AF 3052 to be used to meet this requirement? If yes, is it again submitted in Volume 3 (see page 9 of 16, G.2.a)?

A. No

230. Amendment 2, page 10 of 16, (3) Banking Reference, Attachment #02 and (4) Bonding, Attachment #03. Question: Are both documents are to be returned directly to the contracting officer and not submitted in Volume 3?

A. Should be a part of Volume 3.

231. Amendment 2, page 7 of 16, Attachment 8, AF Form 3064 and Attachment 7, AF Form 3052, are to be included in Volume 1 Technical. Question: Are they included in the “20 pages for all else” page count?

A. No

232. Amendment 2, page 6 of 16, Paragraph 11 states “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007, MS Excel 2007, MS-Project 2007, and MS-Power Point 2007 as applicable.” Question: Is pdf an acceptable format?

A. YES

233. Amendment 2, page 6 of 16, Paragraph 15 states “Each volume shall contain a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.” Question: The design drawings presented with the technical proposal will contain a glossary of terms particular to these drawings. Do these abbreviations and acronyms need to be repeated in the glossary for the technical volume?

A. NO

234. Please clarify if AF 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown, is to be located in Volume 1 - Technical or Volume 3 - Price.

· Please clarify: Is the Executive Summary to be located in Volume 1 - Technical or Volume 3 - Price?

· Please confirm: Each volume is to have one electronic copy (CD).

· Please clarify: Are 8(a) firms required to submit 8(a) verification or is this only required if we are submitting a proposal as a Joint Venture or Mentor/Protégé?

· Please confirm: the requirements for 90% design include drawings and specifications.

A. Volume 3 – Price Proposal

235. Amendment 0002; page 7, E. Volume 1 – Technical, par 3.a states “The contractor shall provide a complete 90% construction design which ensures the successful completion of the seed project.” We have evaluated this requirement and estimate that the proposal would be burdened with an additional COST of design effort to advance the 35% design to the 90% level. Since it is your intention to award 6 MACC contracts, five of the proposing MACC contractors would incur similar proposal costs. So, there could be an unreimbursed cost to the contracting community of $250,000. Could you replace this amendment 0002 design requirement with a requirement for narrative description of the design approach for advancing the 35% design to the final stage?

A. Refer to Amendment 0004

236. While we understand the government needs to be able to effectively evaluate the design process and skill of their design-build bidders, the magnitude and cost of the directive in Amendment #1 that each team must advance the original RFP bridging documents to 90% before submitting a proposal is a huge impact on the design teams, asking the consultant community to invest a great amount of time and money in a highly competitive solicitation.

A. Refer to Amendment 0004

237. We therefore request the government: immediately retract the 90% design requirement (before design resources are expended needlessly) instate a simple 10-page design narrative, supplemented with standard SF330 design project examples showcasing the design-build team’s ability to advance an RFP to a successful project OR, rebuild the RFP as a two-step process by which you short list to 6 teams based on quals, then ask the six to advance the design to 90%

· We believe this approach: adequately protects the government’s interests minimizes the consultant community’s proposal risk keeps more horses in the race sends a signal that the government understands the realities of the current design build market, especially in harsh economic times.

In reference to Sol FA4800-11-R-0002, it states that 90% work-plan is to be turned in on Sept. 15, 2011 with our proposal. This gives less than a month to do a proper site investigation, meet with base personnel, provide auto cad drawings and a write-up. The writ-up alone could exceed 500 pages. This seems to be an unreasonable amount of time not to mention the cost burden on the contractor bidding this RFP. The design alone could exceed $40,000.00 and if expedited may far exceed this estimate. This is quite a substantial cost for a small business to bear and not be guaranteed any chance recovering these costs. The total allotted time for this project is 365 days. Can part of that time be used for design for the winning bidder? The 20 pages dedicated in the technical write can be used for evaluation purposes for the RFP.

A. Refer to Amendment 0004

238. Page 6 of 16 of Amendment 0002 states, “12. Pricing Information: All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Work-hour estimates and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale.” Please confirm that we are to provide a Schedule of Values in Volume 1 – TECHNICAL. Please confirm that Attachment 7, AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown, should be located only in Volume 3 – PRICE.

A. Yes

239. Amendment 0002 to the solicitation, box 3 notes effective date as 29-Jul-2011. Box 16C notes 13-Aug-2011. For acknowledgement of amendment 0002 on the SF1442, what date should be used?

A. The date in Block 3

240. Amendment 002, E. Volume 1 – Technical and Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability. Both factors now requires the offeror to submit a 90% design with its technical submission. This will place a strain on small businesses and their A/E firm to prepare a 90% design for a proposal. Additionally, the source selection committee must now evaluate all submitted designs and compare each design for the best value to the Government. We believe this will increase the review time required for this solicitation. The Corps of Engineers and Navy have recognized this cost factor for the offeror and its staff on its MAC type solicitations and have provided the 35% design drawings and narrative as base line to evaluate responses.

· We request removal of the 90% design requirement and revert back to the use of the 35% drawings provided with the solicitation.

· Problem/Information Requested:

· Will all the bidding contractors be required to furnish a Topographical survey along with their 90% drawings? We find that this is a high cost to seven (7) Design Teams that will not be awarded this project.

· Will the Government provide a Topographical Survey for this project?

A. A topographical survey is not required. The special conditions Section 01 11 00 provided is one of the boilerplate specifications included in each project. It is to be edited by the designer to be applicable to the particular project. In the case of this project, the digital site plan has already been provided by the government.

241. Amendment 0002 recent Q&A #3 released included the following statement “Small businesses cannot form joint ventures with large businesses and retain their small business status”

· Federal Regulation 13CFR124.520 allows for an SBA approved mentor and protégé to joint venture as a small business for any government procurement:

· “A mentor and protégé may joint venture as a small business for any government procurement, including procurements with a dollar value less than half the size standard corresponding to the assigned NAICS code and 8(a) sole source contracts, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the procurement and, for purposes of 8(a) sole source requirements, the protégé has not reached the dollar limit set forth in Sec. 124.519.”

Question is will offers submitted for this procurement be accepted from SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures that meet the above criteria?

A. Yes

242. The Building Number Table in the drawings and the Building list described in the answer to Question 111 do not match. The drawing Table lists Buildings 324, 327, 349 and 361 which are not included in the Question 111 answer. The answer to Question 111 lists Buildings 330, 331, 342, 362 and 367 which are not included in the drawing Table. Which is correct (it is understood that Amendment 0002 added Buildings 376, 380 and 381 to the drawing Table)?

A. The list that is contained in the original statement of work is the list provided to the A&E to prepare the 35% design. Since then, many buildings have been connected and some were discovered not yet connected. The list on drawing sheet 2 failed to incorporate three facilities. When I prepared the answer to the question (number 111), I began with the list in the SoW. That was a mistake.

To the list of buildings on the second sheet of the drawing, add facilities 376 (sheet8), 380 (sheet 8) and 381 (sheet 8) and it is correct.

243. Please provide Mechanical Room Layout Plans and foundation drawings for the Buildings that will involve saw cutting the floor to install new fire supply service lines. Please confirm that the locations requiring new fire service lines now includes; Buildings 325, 333, 337, 338, 339, 349, 351 and 366.

A. Plans will be provided.

Fire service connections are to be made to 325, 333, 355 and 378. Facility 351 is not in the project. The remainder of the buildings you list will have a single service line.

244. Will exterior wall penetration in lieu of excavating under the building foundation and saw cutting of the existing mechanical room slabs be acceptable for installation of new fire service lines?

A. We prefer that the lines remain below grade; however, if they cannot remain below grade, then we will consider – on a case by case basis – bringing the new water lines up above grade before reaching the existing footing and run them exposed through the exterior wall. Any exposed water lines must be insulated. For the purpose of preparing your proposal assume that this will be allowed.

245. The latest addendum seems to be requiring that the design team submit 90% construction documents. This is inappropriate for the following reasons:

· The drawings as shown as 35% bridging documents do not give complete survey information and therefore would require all DB teams to survey all locations prior to the proposal date so the 90% drawings would be correct. 90% drawings cannot be provided without the complete survey.

· Information provided by Langley AFB does not negate statements in number I because it is not complete.

· The 90% drawing requirement is an undue burden on the design team. The government is forcing the design teams to provide services at no charge to a value far and above the intent of the Design Build process as practiced by all other DOD agencies today.

· The cost of services being required for the RFP response for this project based on the attendance at the preconstruction conference would be equal to 40 firms giving $50,000 of service each equaling approximately $2,000,000.

· For the reasons outlined above, we are requesting the RFP requirements be reestablished as follows: a) detailed experience by the design team of similar projects matching the seed project and bridging documents and b) a bid price that is based on the bridging documents and the detailed requirements of the RFP.

A. Refer to Amendment 0004

246. Sheet 1 of 35% plans states that vertical datum is NAVD 88. Elevations in the CAD files provided are all around 99 and 100. The elevations do not seem to be NAVD 88. Please confirm what is the correct datum and if the elevations in the CAD files are to be used.

A. The CAD and PDF files of the project site have been provided; they are in accordance with requirements stated in the special conditions. Topographic survey is not required for the proposal for this project.

247. Are profiles required for the 90% design to be submitted with the proposal? If so, for what sizes of pipes (we would not generally profile water service lines less than 6 inches)?

Please issue a revised schedule for design with consideration for the 90% design being submitted with the bid proposal.

A. Profiles will not be required for this submittal – they will be required for as-built drawings following project completion.

The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design.

248. The answer to question 38 states that site plan data will be made available. The 35% plans have been provide in CAD, however the extent of the site data as described has not been provided yet. When and how will this data be provided?

A. I am not sure what “extent of the site data described” has not been provided or identified.

249. Please provide us with drawings of all buildings that require work inside the building.

A. Will be posted with Amendment 0004

250. The answer to question 56 states that the government representative agrees to extend the 90% design period more than 30 days, because 30 days is “a bit short”. The 90% design is now to be submitted with the bid and we have been given 30 days to prepare it. We still believe that 30 days is too short and request an extension.

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design.

251. The answer to question 66.c. states that a cost estimate is expected as a part of the 90% design. We believe that the contractor’s bid will be the cost estimate and a separate cost estimate from the designer is not required. Please confirm.

A. This is correct – the bid will be the cost proposal.

252. The answer to question 116 states that a soils report does not exist. We would normally have a soils report prepared for projects such as the seed project, however there is not enough time to conduct soil borings and prepare a soils report to include in the 90% design. Should we assume that soil borings will not be included in the design (or the cost) of this project?

A. This is correct – soil borings will not be a part of this project.

253. Do you anticipate that all interested teams should conduct separate site visits to obtain information necessary to complete 90% design, or will a group visit be scheduled?

A. Teams may visit the facilities involved on their own. Please provide sufficient notice to the CO to allow scheduling with the facility managers.

254. The answer to question 182 states that all hydrants requiring removal are denoted on drawing sheet 2. Dots and X’s on a 200 scale drawing do not indicate the hydrants with enough specificity to develop 90% design. Please provide more specific identification of the hydrants.

A. The locations indicated on the drawings should be sufficient to direct the designer to the location of the hydrant. The hydrants to be removes should be identified by a ring around the main nozzle indicating that that hydrant has been removed from service

255. The answer to question 199 states that guidance on placement of PIV in the line alongside building 355 will be provided as soon as possible. Please provide.

A. For the connection of the existing 8” fire service line to the 8” water line between facilities 351 and 355, a PIV is not required.

256. The answer to question 213 states that the designer will need to obtain elevations in the field. Is it your expectation that all teams should conduct their own topographic survey to prepare the 90% design for the proposal that is due September 15?

A. This question and answer do not refer to topographic surveys – they refer to the finished floor elevations of the mechanical rooms as compared with the corresponding adjacent outside elevations.

267. Are all bid options to be included in the 90% design to be submitted with the proposal?

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design. Refer to Amendment 0004.

268. Shop drawings are typically reduced for a design/build project. The specifications on 35% drawing sheet 11 indicate shop drawings shall be submitted for each item as required by Owner. What shop drawings are required by Owner?

A. For the purpose of the proposal, no shop drawings will be required.

269. The answer to Question 88 indicates that the Designer is to complete shaded areas of Special Conditions; based on what criteria?

A. For a “normal” project, the designer edits the special conditions section to apply to the specific project. In the case of this proposal, the solicitation is being modified and submission of the special conditions section will not be required.

270. Does requirement to submit a 90% design comply with procurement regulations?

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design. Refer to Amendment 0004

271. The response to question 56 indicated that 30 days, as outlined in Attachment 17, is too short for any firm except the firm that completed the 35% design.

For a design firm to complete the 90% design, the following minimum tasks must be completed in an effort to complete due diligence in support of ultimately providing a certified design:

1. Estimate and report to our construction partners, the level of design effort required for the 90% design.

1. Complete design kick-off with the owner to review project requirements and identify any deviations identified since the 35% design was completed.

1. Verify the accuracy of the 35% design and incorporate review comments from 35% design.

1. Complete a physical walk down for the scope of work represented in the 35% design. Identify if there have been any changes at the site or the facilities since the 35% design was completed in April 2010 that may have an effect on the scope of work which the team should plan on addressing in design and construction.

1. Confirm location of tie points in facility mechanical equipment rooms to determine if any modifications are required to mechanical equipment spaces.

1. Review available survey data to determine if there are any conflicts that need to be addressed prior to construction.

The tasks outlined above represent tasks that must be completed before proceeding with design activities.

In our experience gaining access to the site and facilities to perform this due diligence can be difficult unless proper contract authorization is provided. Since these design activities are being required in advance of an awarded contract, we have the following questions:

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design. Refer to Amendment 0004

272. Given that 30 days is allotted for the completion of the 90% design and the fact that the Government reviewer has indicated that this time is too short and can be extended, will an extension of time be granted so that the design teams can properly estimate the level of effort required prior to starting design activities in support of the proposal?

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design.

273. If the design team started actual design on 15 August after receiving Amendment 0002, a 30 day design cycle would have 90% design completed by 14 September. The proposal is due on 15 September. This is not enough time for the construction teams to revise price proposals to accurately reflect design content. Will an extension of time be granted to facilitate appropriate coordination between the design and construction teams?

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design. Refer to Amendment 0004

274. Will appropriate authorization be provided for all interested design teams such that all interested parties will have fair and equitable time to access the site and facilities to complete the required data gathering process to support design due diligence?

A. It will be provided; the contractor must submit, to the CO, a request with full names, gender, dates of birth, company affiliation information at least three business days prior to the desired visit. Base access and access to the applicable facilities will be provided. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design

275. Will the government provide the 35% review comments for incorporation into the 90% design?

A. All 35 percent review comments have been incorporated into the existing 35 percent package.

276. Will the government provide the same access to COR and user as would normally occur for a 90% design after award?

A. Yes. However, the solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design

277. Will the Contracting Officer consider waiving the requirement for a 90% design package to be submitted with the proposal and allow interested constructors to provide a price proposal based upon the 35% design package provided with the solicitation?

A. The solicitation is to be modified to delete the requirement for a full 90 percent design.

278. Question #111 brought up a discrepancy between the number of buildings that are contained in the RFP. The answer provided a list of buildings that are in the scope of work. The list contains buildings that we do not have plans for. Will the plans and utility test pits be provided for the following missing buildings?

1. 330

1. 331

1. 362

1. 367 A. The list that is contained in the original statement of work is the list provided to the A&E to prepare the 35% design. Since then, many buildings have been connected and some were discovered not yet connected. The list on drawing sheet 2 failed to incorporate three facilities. When I prepared the answer to the question (number 111), I began with the list in the SoW. That was a mistake.

To the list of buildings on the second sheet of the drawing, add facilities 376 (sheet8), 380 (sheet 8) and 381 (sheet 8) and it is correct. The four buildings you cite are not a part of the project.

279. On drawing 3 of 11, A 3/4” service is show going to building 327. Is building 327 in the scope of work? The list of buildings given in the answer of question #111 does not indicate this building as part of the scope of work.

A. Yes, facility 327 is a part of the project. The answer to question 1 (above) applies.

280. On drawing 4 of 11, the drawing indicates that building 324 is to have work performed under the contract. Is this building in the scope of work? The list of buildings given in the answer of question #111 does not indicate this building as part of the scope of work.

A. Yes, building 324 is a part of the project. The answer to question 1 (above) applies.

281. On drawing 5 of 11, the drawing indicates that building 349 is to have work performed under the contract. Is this building in the scope of work? The list of buildings given in the answer of question #111 does not indicate this building as part of the scope of work.

A. Yes, building 349 is a part of the project. The answer to question 1 (above) applies.

282. Did not see any mention about water meters. Are meters going to be required? If so does the Base have a specific type of meter requirement?

A. Water meters are not required in this project.

283. Questions 121 and 122 are asking for addition information on the Buildings mechanical rooms and foundations and the answer stated the information will be made available. When should we expect the information on the foundations and the mechanical rooms?

A. Drawing are be incorporated in Amendment 0004