QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1-339.docx

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

SOLICITATION NO.: FA4800-11-R-0002

MACC

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

1. Section L, F. Volume 2, Past Performance, Paragraph 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. Are Past Performance Questionnaires applicable to the Seed Project only A. No, the Past Performance Questionnaires are for contracts you have/had with the government, city, or state.

2. Referencing the seed project to “Repair Water Distribution System”, there are two options shown as indicated:

- Option 1 – install separate 2”copper water service for Bldg 325. (See 03-LAFB-WATERLINE-REPAIR-SHEET-3.pdf Building 325)

· Option 2 – Extend 8” PVC water main from Bldg 333 to Building 339 approximately 145 LF. (See 04-LAFB-WATERLINE-REPAIR SHEET-4.dpf, Building 333)

· However, in the file “RFP Design Build SoW 06-4088”, there is no place to indicate pricing for these two options. Will we receive a new bid schedule to include these options?

A. A revised Bid Schedule will be incorporated by Addendum.

3. Page 1 of 63 and page 50 of 63 of the RFP state the pre-proposal conference/seed project discussion-site visit will be on July 14. Page 1 of Attachment 17 says the site visit/pre-proposal meeting is on July 13. Please confirm the correct date. Also, please confirm that the agenda of the meeting is to both discuss the RFP proposal requirements and the seed project. We want to be certain the right people from our company attend. Also, will there be an actual seed project site visit for the entire group?

A. The site visit will include looking at a few of the buildings on the seed project and ride around Langley and Ft Eustis.

· Due to the broad nature of work on this MACC, the significant possibility of having to perform multiple task orders simultaneously, and the potential size of task orders (up to $15 million), small businesses may want or need to team with large businesses. Small businesses cannot form joint ventures with large businesses and retain their small business status.

· Factor 3 Past Performance, paragraph c, on page 61 of 63, says: “Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” Yet, FAR Subpart 9.6 – Contractor Team Arrangements, states the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements (including prime-sub teaming arrangements) provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer. Furthermore, the FAR clause states contractor team arrangements may be desirable from both a Government and industry standpoint in order to enable the companies involved to complement each other’s unique capabilities, and offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery.

· The second sentence of paragraph c cited above prejudices those small businesses who want or need to team with large businesses as subcontractor teaming partners in order to be competitive, effective and/or to meet the bonding requirements of large task orders. Request the Contracting Officer allow past performance of BOTH the small business prime contractor-proposer AND subcontractor teaming partners if the arrangement is identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer.

A. Section M. Paragraph5.c. has been reworded to allow for team partners or subcontractor past performance to be considered.

4. Referencing the file “Attachment 03 Bonding information Request docx”, question 6 asks for bonding limits for individual projects and in the aggregate. Can you please provide the minimum bonding levels required to be eligible for this contract?

A. Bonding information should reflect the Minimum/Maximum as stated on page 7 of the solicitation.

5. Attachment #15 General Provisions for MACC appears to be for a different project.

A. Attachment #15 General Provision is the standard format for all future MACC projects.

6. Page 1 of the Seed Project says 365 days to complete construction and Page 5 says 208 days. Which is correct?

A. The Performance Period will be 365 calendar days.

7.Attachment #8, Schedule, was not downloadable.

A. Attachment 8 will be reissued in the first Amendment to the Solicitation.

8. Will we be given CAD files for the URS drawings that were included with the RFP?

A. Both CAD and .pfd files of the URS drawings will be provided with the Amendment.

9. There appears to be a discrepancy between the number of buildings and which buildings will have their water services modified. The table (New Water Service) on Page 2 of 11 of the contract drawings and the Buildings on the drawings appear to conflict. For example, buildings #376, 380 & 381 are shown on sheet 8 of 11 but are not listed in the “New Water Service” table on sheet 2 of 11.

A. This is correct. Facilities 376, 380 and 381 are to be added to the table indicating which drawing sheet each building is shown. This was purely an oversight in that the work identified as being associated with building 378 also affects buildings 376, 380 and 381.

10. RFP page 61, Factor 3= Past performance, Item d – Ratings; States ---multi-disciplined construction work on multiple projects (such as SABER or MACC). On the basis of the contract vehicle under which construction projects were performed, will a proposal reflecting multiple, multi-disciplined projects, (involving multiple trades on a single project such as new vertical construction project that involves MEP, Structural, Civil, etc) performed on an individual contract basis be rated less favorably than equal project performed under Task Order, IDIQ, type contract?

A. No, it will not be rated less favorably.

11. The first PPIS reference of the RFP states “Page limitation: Four (4) pages per Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), unlimited for all else” (F,1,c, page 54) but the second reference says “Each PPIS shall not exceed 8 pages” (F.5.b., page 56). Please clarify.

A. Paragraph C will be change to read eight (8) pages. This page will be revised with Amendment.

12. Based on the clauses outline in 52.219-18 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns; 52.219-18 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) concerns. Is this an 8(a) Competitive Set-Aside?

A. It is our intent for this to be a Total Small Business Set Aside to include 8(a)s.

13. Is the prime contractor required to submit 35% drawing from its Design Team member on the seed project? Or are we to use the drawing attached to be solicitation which are marked 35%?

A. The solicitation is being changed requiring 90% design in lue of 35%.

14. Please clarify-Should PPIS forms be included in the technical proposal package for our Design Team Member?

A. Only if the Design Team is a part of your teaming arrangement.

15. Apparent line spacing format conflict on page 52 of 63, para. 10.a…please clarify if single-space or 1.5 line spacing is required… These settings are separate and cannot be both.

A. This is changed to read single-space with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs.

16. Vol 2 – Past Performance …clarify if entire Vol 2 is required to be submitted 7 calendar days before bid due date as stated in para. 1 on page 53 of 63 or whether just the PPQs are required to be submitted NLT 7/27/11 as stated in para. 5.a. on page 54 A. Just your relevant/recent past performance questionnaires should be sent out in order for them to be filled out and sent to 633 CONS seven (7) calendar days before the solicitation closing date.

17. Please clarify if a Bid Bond is required for the seed project. The SF 1442 states that one is not required.

A. No, Bid Bonds are not required.

18. Clarify what you mean by “each joint venture partner” in para 5.b. on page 54. Attachment 06 depicts Designation Codes of three (3) distinctly different allowable types of relationships (i.e. Joint Ventures, Prime/Sub, and M-Ps)… Will a JV entities, P/S teams, and M-P arrangements be evaluated as equivalent relationships? If not, please explain how they will be differentiated.

A. A joint venture is when two or more businesses enter a temporary partnership. This partnering is usually associated with a specific contract or product that it is mutually beneficial to both businesses. Approved through Small Business Administration. Yes for 8(a) contractors

· Also, for M-P relationship to be valid for this proposal and for inclusion on Attachment 06, will the M-P firms have to have a formally approved M-P agreement with a Federal agency?

A. Yes, there must be a legal agreement included. For 8(a) contractors this should be documented through the Small Business Administration.

19. Can the Prime offeror submit the experience of its teaming subcontractors or will only the experience of formal JV partners be considered? The RFP language and forms indicate teaming partner experience is acceptable (See Attachment 6, identifying teaming subcontractor) but conflicts this direction when referring to specific PPIS of JV (up to three projects) See RFP pg 61 Factor 3, Past Performance, item c. “JV partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” Please clarify.

A. Yes, Factor 3 has been reworded.

20. Are the Past Performance projects submitted by the Offeror to be relevant in characteristics similar to that of the Seed Project (Repair water Distribution System) or relevant to the overall MACC description in general construction as described in Item 10. Page 1 of SF 1442?

A. Past Performance is to be relevant to the overall MACC description in general as described in Item 10 of the SF 1442.

21. Volume 2 – Past Performance, Item 6 Specific Content – Offerors shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort the relate. Is this narrative specific to the seed project or the overall MACC management methodology. Should the "specific content" included as a part of each Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) or as a separate section in Volume 2 - Past Performance A. This narrative is to be for all your relevant current and past performance and how it relates to the MACC methodology, and should be a separate section in Volume 2.

22. Reference the SF 1442- What do we fill in the blank lines for pages 3, 4, 5 ,6 & 7?

A. No, this will be left blank. Your pricing is to be entered on the Bid Schedule of Attachment 17, page 3 of Langley Seed Project RFP.

- Does the SEED project price go in the line on page 3?

A. It goes on page 3 of Attachment 17 seed project.

- If so, what goes in the lines for the option years on pages 4 thru 7?

A. Nothing. This is for Government Use.

23 Page 56 of the RFP- Technical Package- it looks like we need to include the following three items:

a. 2 page tech approach for design and construction

b. AF 3064

c. AF 3052 A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, The section has been revised. Page 53 of the RFP, VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL, in addition to the items listed above you have 20 pages to provide your methodology for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors.

24-As the seed project is only at 35% design, are we required to hire a design firm to bring it to full 100% design or do we price/build off of the 35% drawings? Please clarify.

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002. Contractor are to provide a 90% design to include drawings. If this project become funded the one of awardees will take the 90% to 100%.

25 The page limits say “unlimited for 35% design”. What is this referring to if we are limited to a 2 page summary for this section? Please clarify. The RFP seems confusing as it states that there are unlimited pages for this section then proceeds to provide limitations.

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL. Has been revised, requiring a 90% design package is unlimited. Refer to Question 23 above.

26. What does the “20 pages for all else” refer to? The AF Forms 3064 and 3052? Please clarify.

A. Refer to page 53, para. E., 2. …provide as specific as possible the actual methodology you would us for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. The methodology/ how you’ll do the work entailed in the seed project.

27. Section E on page 53, item # 3 states “as a minimum the proposed approach shall describe all of the following essential components: Tech approach, AF 2036 and AF 3052”. What else are we allowed to provide. Is this what the “20 pages for all else” is for?

A. Yes, this is what is to be included in the 20 pages. I believe you meant AF 3064 instead of AF 2036

28. 20 pages for the technical approach does not seem like enough to adequately convey a thorough approach to the project. Can it be expanded to perhaps a few more pages?

A. No. Twenty pages should be adequate.

29 Are there going to be design/build task orders? If so do we need to include our design teams qualifications somewhere in our proposal or is this something that will be handled on an individual task order basis? Please clarify.

A. Yes, The contract will have Design/Bid/Build projects. Only if the Design Team is a part of your Teaming arrangement.

30. Item K on Attachment 01B of the subject solicitation indicates that we are to “Describe the nature, or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also estimate the percentage of the proposed effort to be performed by the entity, and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor, or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship)”.

A. This will be the name in paragraph A.

- What percentage of the work with this company perform on the Seed Project;

A. What percent was the performed by your company and what percent was performed by subcontractors.

- What will this company be performing as? Prime; Subcontractor; Or a corporate division related to the Prime (define the relationship).

A. Just as stated.

31. Attachment 01B – Is the proposed effort referring to the Seed project of the entire MACC contract? Keep in mind that the Seed project is the only project that we know the nature of the work for at this time and if we were providing information as it pertains to the entire MACC contract, the information that we provide would end up being only a wild guess as we have no idea what the scope of future task orders may entail.

A. Yes, this pertains to the seed project. Paragraphs A-H and J are to refer to a contract you’re currently working or that has been completed. Blocks I & K how this project relates to this project.

32. Please clarify-Should PPIS forms be included in the technical proposal package for our Design Team Member? We are beginning to assemble our proposal package and after review of the RFP; we noticed that the requirement for past performance information regarding the design team member was excluded. If this is not a requirement; will submission of this information be excluded in the proposal review process?

A. Only if the Design Team is a part of your teaming arrangement.

33. Are Past Performance questionnaires applicable to the Seed Project only?

A. Attachment 01A is Past/Present Performance for all past and current projects. Attch 01B is for projects as it pertains to the seed project.

34. Can pictures be taken to document the site while we’re there?

A. Yes, Pictures are permitted as long as you are not taking pictures of the flightline.

35. On page 49 of the solicitation it states bidders are requested to submit questions no later than close of business 15 days prior to the RFP closing date. If questions are due 15 working days prior to the RFP closing date, that date is tomorrow, July 12th. Is this correct? The pre-bid/ pre-proposal conference is being conducted July 14th, can we still submit questions that arise during that visit since it will be after the July 12th deadline?

A. In accordance with 5352.215-9001 Notice of Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference

- paragraph (a) the meeting is on 14 July 2011 at 10:00a.m.

- paragraph (b) is the date to have the list of attendees coming to the Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference/site visit - 12 July 2011, so I have some time to compile the list for the Visitor Center.

- Paragraph (c) Questions are due 15 days prior to the RFP closing date of 2 August 2011 which will be 18 July 2011, unless otherwise changed.

36. The solicitation requires that Attachment 04, Consent Letter be included in the Past Performance Volume. Is Attachment 05, Client Authorization Letter also required to be included in the Past Performance Volume?

A. Yes. Attachment 05 is required to be a part of the Past Performance Volume.

37. Attachment 01B, PPIS, Item K – Does the “proposed effort” referred to in the first sentence refer to the specific project submitted for past performance or future task orders issued through the MACC? If the answer is the specific project submitted for past performance then should not “to be performed “ be changed to that was performed? Same question relating to the second sentence, is to government requesting information for the specific project submitted for past performance or for future task orders issued through the MACC?

A. Refer to Question/Answer 30.

38. Will there be site plan records made available for each of the buildings scheduled to receive new water service connections before the bids are due or to the successful offeror after the award of the seed project?

A. Site plan data covering the entire project area will be made available. The data will be provided in both .dwg and .mdb formats. The data will include all data available through our GeoBase office – all layers will be included. If drawings of the facilities included in the project (including floor plans) are needed, they will need to be specifically requested.

39. Is there any additional survey data available for the project area? No topographic data is shown on the 35% bridging documents. Since there is limited survey data, can the design drawings be submitted for approval in phases in order to obtain the necessary survey data and utility designations and test holes completed as the design commences.

A. Site plan data covering the entire project area will be made available. The data will be provided in both .dwg and .mdb formats. The data will include all data available through our GeoBase office – all layers will be included.

40. Please refer to the Past Performance factor in Section M, Evaluation Criteria for definitions of what is considered recent work and what is considered relevant work.” - Can you tell me where I can locate the “Section M” referred to?

A. Page 61, para 5.a.(1). describes recent, …the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (29 Jun 2011); and 5.d. Ratings: the chart describes relevancy.

41. Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidder – paragraph F.5.b calls for Past Performance Packets on 3 to 6 projects from the prime contractor. It also asks for up to 3 projects from Joint Venture partners, if applicable. Design firms are typically sub-contractors to the prime contractor and not JV partners, yet no mention is made of a requirement for design firm projects or qualifications. Is there a requirement for design firm projects or quals, and if so, what is that requirement? If there is no requirement, will a general contractor be penalized if he includes design firm Past Performance Packets in the proposal (as a part of his 3 to 6 projects)?

A. This paragraph is being changed to include Teaming partners. Only if the Design Team is a part of your teaming arrangement will be allowed to submit Past Performance packets.

42. Can AutoCAD (.dwg format) drawings of the 35% plans included in the solicitation be made available for proposal preparation purposes?

A. Both CAD and .PFD files of the URS drawings will be provided to each prospective bidder who desires them.

43. Should AF Form 3052 be included in Volume I, Technical Proposal? Typically, technical and price proposals are kept separate until the Source Selection Authority makes his/her final selection, so that they may be evaluated independently. Additionally, and for the same reason, should the Executive Summary be included in Volume III, Price Proposal?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, No – The AF Form 3052 is to be included in Volume 3. No, The Executive Summary is to be included in Volume 1.

44. The scope described in the Scope of Work document (Attachment 17) does not match the Drawings supplied with the Solicitation. The scope in the Scope of Work is not biddable but the drawings have most of the information that we would need to form a bid. Which is the correct representation of the scope?

A. In this case, the scope of work is a very general document since the information needed to continue the design and execute the project is contained in the drawings. The drawings are representative of the scope.

45. Section 4.2 mentions drawings are needed for mechanical, electrical and civil. I understand the need for mechanical and civil but what electrical scope is involved in this water line scope?

A. This is a general statement. Any electrical work required should be depicted on separate electrical drawings.

46. On the Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 01B) the instructions in block I say "For each of the applicable sub factors 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." However, Section M has no sub factors listed. Please provide this information for reference.

A. Block I will be removed. Addendum 01 will replace this page.

47. The solicitation states that the pre-proposal conference is scheduled for 14 July 2011 10 AM. However the RFP SOW for MUHJ 06-4088 states the Site Visit Pre-Proposal Meeting is 13 July 2011 10:00 AM. Are these two separate meetings? If not, please confirm the correct date for the pre-proposal conference/site visit meeting.

A. Pre-Proposal Conference was held on 14 July 2011 at 1000a.m.

48. Reference Attachment 17, paragraph 3.0, page 9. Paragraph states "Existing utilities are depicted on the plans to the extent identified by Miss Utility and by LAFB staff. However, no representations are made as to the accuracy of this information." Please confirm that the discovery or disruption of any utility not depicted on the plans, or any other unknown or unforeseen condition, will constitute a condition to be resolved pursuant to FAR 52.236-2 -Differing Site Conditions.

A. Yes. However, the US Government purchased the property that is Langley AFB in 1916. In the ensuing years, countless objects have been placed underground – most with no records or documents available. Encountering an unmarked underground utility (active or abandoned), railroads, foundations, even underground storage tanks are, unfortunately, not “of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inhering in work of the character provided for in the contract.”

49. Reference, Attachment 17 and RFP, DFARS 252.236-7006, Cost Limitation - Since there are no statutory cost items identified on the schedule, are we correct to assume none exist?

A. Correct there are no Statutory Cost Limitations on this project.

50. The Bid Schedule on page 3 of the RFP lists 2 base bid CLIN items plus the aggregate total amount. However, on sheets 3 of 11 and 4 of 11 there are two clearly defined Bid Options described. There is also a reference to a third bid option on page 8 of Attachment 17 of the RFP for “115’ of 8” PVC main line”. Please confirm if the Bid Options are to be included as part of a revised Bid Schedule?

A. Revised Bid Schedule will be incorporated by Addendum 0002 to add the options.

51. What are the allowable hours for interrupting water service? After normal business hours only?

A. This will have to be coordinated with the Project Inspector who will make the proper notifications

52. It appears that Sect 5., Factor 3 – Past Performance may contain the data referred to as Section M???? - - If that is true, please verify if Very Relevant the $2 million is per each individual task order inside the SABER/MACC or does it apply to the total of all the task orders under that contract?

A. Per “each $2M” Task Order.

53. Attachment #15 General Provisions for MACC appears to be for a different project.

A. Attachment 15 is the standard format that will be used for future projects.

54. Per your instruction at the pre-bid meeting, I’m submitting the following RFI

Please clarify the page limitation for the Past Performance Information Sheet.

A. Paragraph C will be change to read eight (8) pages. This page will be revised with Amendment.

55. During the pre-construct conference on 7/14 you stated that of the 6 contracts awarded, 3 would be set aside for 8(a) contractors and 3 remaining for small business. Will any of the remaining 3 be set aside for SDVOSBs?

A. No. We’ll not be able to Set-Aside for SDVOSB but will be evaluated just the same.

56. Confirm that the design period to 90% is 30 days. This is not feasible to provide topographic surveying and design for the proposed 25 sites in that time period.

A. I will agree to extend this – for the A&E who was already up to speed and had already designed the first 35%, it is more than enough time – for a team with no previous information, it might be a bit short.

57. Provide guidance on actual deliverables so as topographic survey, plan and profile sheet, specification preparation etc.

A. This is a design-build effort with the 90% drawing provided as part of the statement of work. Provide the drawings and documents (unless specifically required) that will clearly indicate to the government reviewer what you intend to do.

58. What is the availability of accurate reference information and utility record drawings?

A. All available information is being made available – this will consist of the URS design drawings (.dwg and .pdf) as well as site plans of the area

59. Do you anticipate the services of a utility location firm will be required?

A. Underground utilities will be marked to be best extent possible through the AF Form 103 process. This includes notification of Miss Utility.

60. In reference to Attachment 01B PPIS, item I.- Item I requests information on how the submitted past performance relates to “the applicable sub-factors under the Technical factors in Section M”. Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability does not seem to apply to information requested by Item I. Factor 2 – Price does not seem to apply to information requested by Item I. Factor 3 – Past Performance does not seem to apply to information requested by Item I, unless the government is seeking information relating submitted past performance with respect to 3(1) Recency Assessment and 3(2) Relevancy Assessment. Is this what information should be addressed in Item I? If not please further define what information should be contained in Item I.

A. Refer to Question 46

61. Attachment 01B PPIS, item J.- Please clarify if the key individuals should include Personnel employed by the offeror and/or subcontractors and design team members that participated in the evaluated program and will support the proposed effort.

A. That is correct.

62. Solicitation Section L, page 55, G – Volume 3 – Price Proposal, Item 2a requires submission of Project Bid Schedules. The format for submission of this requirement is not included in the solicitation attachments. Is this a standard Air Force form? If the Project Bid Schedules is not a standard form then what is the format for this requirement.

A. The Bid Schedule is page 3 of the RFP, Attachment 17

63. Page 52, paragraph 11 states that electronic files should be submitted and provides for the format. Would PDF files also be an allowable format to ensure that data does not change based on computer specifications and software?

A. Yes, pdf files are acceptable

64. Page 54, paragraph 5b states that data on no more than six recent contracts should be submitted as part of our Past Performance Packet. However, the last sentence of that paragraph states that there is no limit on the number of PPIS forms allowed. Could the Government clarify?

A. There is no limit for Joint Venture or Teaming Partners. If you are a Prime and not Teaming you’re limited to six.

65. Our understanding is that task orders under this contract could reach $15 million with a total program value of $250 million. In order to allow for appropriate competition, participation , encourage the most cost competitive and advantageous offers for this contract, which includes locations outside of the Hampton Roads area and the state of Virginia, would the Government please consider opening the competition up to all 8(a) firms with a bona fide office in Virginia, rather than just those serviced by the Richmond SBA regional office? This would allow additional firms in Virginia to participate and would give the Government potentially more choices of qualified 8(a) firms from the state of Virginia in executing this contract.

A. This is not restricted to Richmond region, it is open Nationwide to all Small Businesses.

66. Instructions to Offerors Section L, paragraph E Volume 1 -Technical, page 53 of the RFP, l.c. Page Limitation: "Unlimited for 35% design as described below, 20 pages for all else." 3. Execution and Completeness of the Seed Projects: "As a minimum, the proposed approach shall describe all of the following essential components;" Technical approach for design and construction: "A not to exceed two (2) page complete overview of the beginning to end project approach."

(a) Is the Offeror to limit the technical approach to 2 pages or is there a 20 page limit?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002. You have 20 pages to explain your technical approach.

(b) Is the 2 page limit to be a summary in addition to the 20 page technical approach?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, is included in the 20 pages.

(c) What Technical Proposal requirements are there for the Design? Is it the intent that we provide drawings above and beyond those already provided in the RFP?

A. This is a design-build effort with the 35% drawing provided as part of the statement of work. Provide the drawings and documents (unless specifically required) that will clearly indicate to the government reviewer what you intend to do. Insofar as the technical proposal, I would expect 90% drawings, full specifications, cost estimate, etc.

67. We need clarification of the duration of the Client's review period for submittals. In the Seed Project SOW:

a. Section 2.2 (page 5) states a 10 day review period (approximate).

A. This 10 days for the Government to review the 90% design submittal, provide comments/corrections or accept as is; and then 10 days to review the 100% design submittal, provide comments/corrections or accept as is.

b. Sub-Section 1.24.8 (page 31) states a 14 day review period.

A. This is the standard for the Government Engineer/Inspector for the review, approve/disapprove or request additional information of all Material Submittals.

68. Section E.3 of the RFP states “Quality Control: Contractor will submit a filled out Attachment #07, AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown, for the sample project.” We are wondering if the government would like a copy of Form 3052 within the technical proposal or if we are misunderstanding the quality control reference to form 3052?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002. The AF Form 3052 is to be in Volume 3 – Price Proposal s

69. On Page 55 of 63, Vol 3, paragraph 2.b. (2), it says that the “Offeror shall complete and submit any applicable clause requiring information to be filled in.” Can you list the Contract Clauses that are to be included here, so that no one inadvertently overlooks a clause and is disqualified?

A. Section I – there are no clauses, Section K, Clauses 52.204-8, and 252.247-7022

70. On page 53 of the Solicitation, Section F.1, Volume 2 – Past Performance is requested to be submitted (7) days prior to the closing date of the solicitation, but also states the offeror will not be disqualified if this is not done. Is there a penalty associated with not submitting this Volume (7) days early?

A. No, there is no penalty, submitting early gives the evaluation team time to orginaze the packages with the PPQs that have come in.

71. Also regarding the early submittal of Volume 2. On page 53. Section F.2.b, it states one electronic copy is requested, however, on the same page, the solicitation states that “Separate CDs are not required for each volume”. If Volume 2 is to be submitted separately, would you prefer a separate CD with that Volume, or should the electronic copy be held and submitted with Volumes 1 and 3?

A. Each Volume is to have a one electronic copy.

72. On Page 54 of the solicitation, it discusses the Past Performance Questionnaires. In the past, it has been common practice to submit the cover sheet of the submitted Past Performance Questionnaire with the Past Performance section of the proposal, however, this is not requested. Please confirm that the cover sheet of the PPQ is not required in the submittal of this proposal.

A. Yes, it is not required however, it would be appreciated.

73. On page 54 of the solicitation, the first sentence states that the PPIS is limited to 4 pages, however, under section 5.b it states that “Each PPIS shall not exceed 8 pages”. Please clarify the page limitation for the PPIS’s.

A. Refer to Question 11.

74. On page 54, section 6 details “specific content”. Please clarify if this is a separate section apart from the PPIS’s or if this is to be incorporated on each PPIS individually.

A. Refer to Question 21.

75. On Page 5 of the Seed Project under 90% Design, it calls for Full technical specifications. On smaller projects, will the specifications be allowed to be put on the drawings as opposed to a full blown specification section?

A. No.

76. On page 53 of 63 in the solicitation, under Volume 1 – Technical, under 1. C. it appears to say that a 35% Design is required. Is a 35% design required in Volume 1?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, NO. 90% are to be submitted.

77. We are currently on a MACC as part of a Joint Venture. Can we use projects on our JV for past performance even though we are bidding this as a sole corporation?

A. Yes, As long as they meet Recent and Relevancy.

78. The RFP is requiring that the design effort for the water line improvements be completed in 30 days. This is extremely impractical because of the wide number of locations, existing utilities that must be found, surveying to be done, and the profiles and plans to be prepared. Can a portion of the sites, 25% to 40%, be completed in the thirty-day time frame to allow for the construction to begin and the balance follow on a timeline that keeps ahead of the construction?

A. No.

79. In Section F, Evaluation, on Page 61 of 63, it is stated: “Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” Does this mean that proposals from firms who have entered into a teaming arrangement will not be considered for award?

A. No. This is being changed with Amendment.

80. Page 52 of 63 – “Pages shall be single-spaced with 1.5 line spacing.” Please clarify the desired spacing. It does not appear that we can select both single-spaced and 1.5 line spacing in Microsoft Word.

A. This line is being changed with Amendment.”… with 1.5 line spacing between paragraphs”

81. Page 53 of 63 – “Separate CDs are not required for each volume.” Will separate CDs be acceptable? If a single CD is desired, where shall we place the CD to ensure that it does not become lost or separated from our proposal?

A. Refer to Question 71.

82. Page 54 of 63 – “The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a Consent Letter… executed by each joint venture partner… authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.” Shall members of a teaming arrangement also provide the Consent and Client Authorization Letter?

A. Yes.

83. Page 54 of 63 – “Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by 633 CONS/LGCB not later than 27 July 2011.” Please confirm the July 27 deadline for Past Performance Questionnaires.

A. It would be appreciated, however with extending the proposal due day PPQs will adjust accordingly per Section L. Paragraph F.1. ….at least seven (7) calendar days prior to solicitation closing date.

84. Page 54 of 63 – “…offerors shall include information, if applicable, on up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort.” Shall members of a teaming arrangement also provide this information?

A. Yes.

85. Page 55 of 63 – “Offerors shall include a "roadmap" describing any/all such changes in their organization.” If this is not applicable, shall we state it as so?

A. Yes, ….the offer shall include a “roadmap” describing any/all such changes in their organization”

86. Page 55 of 63 – “Complete Form SF 1442 as applicable and sign and date. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under a separate cover sheet.” Since two hard copies are required, is it acceptable to label one binder as Original and one as Copy? Will this fulfill the requirement of marking the original 1442 “under a separate cover sheet?”

A. Yes

87. Page 55 of 63 – “Complete and submit this section in addition to completing On-Line Representations and Certifications and Application (ORCA).” Shall offerors submit a copy of ORCA with their proposals?

A. Yes

88. For the Seed Project, the specifications are not job specific. An example would be section 01 11 00 Para.1.2 “Note To Specifier…”, Section 01 11 00 para. 1.3 Scope of Work (a general list of items…) this continues through the next 80 pages.

A. The specification is generic as a Design Build you will be required to complete the shaded area to the specific project.

89. Section 10 11 00 para. 1.5 Phasing of Work, Phasing is not job specific and not specified.

A. Refer to question 88.

90. Section 01 11 00 para. 1.7.1 Items Salvaged for the Government – no items listed, but NONE not noted either.

A. Refer to question 88.

91. RFP page 1 – Construction duration is listed at 365 days, but the SOW on page 5 states we have 30 days for 90% design, 10 cal days for review, 7 days for 100% design and 208 days for construction which totals 265 days total. Which total is correct?

A. The duration of the construction will be 365 calendar day; the design will be 30 calendar days to design up to 90% design, and 7 calendar days to take the design to 100%. The Government will have 10 calendar days to review each segment of the design.

92. RFP Instructions to Offerors – Para E.3.c. Are there Quality Control requirements? This is titled Quality Control but concerns the AF form 3052 “Construction cost Estimate Breakdown”.

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, this has been revised.

93. RFP Instructions to Offerors - E.1.c. The page counts and limitations though out the RFP are confusing. Please provide a matrix with the total counts and limits.

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, limited to 20 pages.

94. FAR 52.236-1 has been included in the incorporated by reference listing, but no percentage has been listed. Is the current percentage known? If available, can it be provided?

A. The clause has been change to a Full Text Clause. The percentage is 15%

95. On page 53 of 60 of the solicitation, it states that separate CDs are not required for each volume. However, on the previous page at paragraph 11, it states that we are to indicate on each CD-ROM volume number and title. In paragraph 12 on that page, it says that pricing information shall be addressed only in the price proposal volume. If all three volumes are included in one CD-ROM, that puts pricing with the technical write-up. Please clarify.

A. Refer to question 71.

96. Reference page 53 of 60, paragraphs E.1, 2, and 3.

a. At E.1.c, there are unlimited pages for the 35% design and 20 pages for all else. Paragraph E.2 does not seem to require us to provide information, but simply says to provide information as requested in paragraph E.3. Is any information required specifically per paragraph E.2?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002,

b. What information should we provide for the “Unlimited” pages for the 35% design?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002

c. We believe two pages is not sufficient to describe our complete approach for the seed project. Could this be revised for more pages?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002

d. Paragraph E.3.c is titled “Quality Control”, but the required form is the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown. We believe this is incorrect as it places pricing information in the technical write-up. This is also listed as an evaluation factor in Section M. Please clarify.

A. SEE AMDMENT 0002, both L and M have been revised.

e. There is a paragraph E.3.c, but there are no subparagraphs a. and b. Are we missing any information?

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002

97. On page 55 of 63, at paragraph 2.a, it references a “Construction Cost Breakdown” and “Seed Project Bid Schedules”. Attachment 7 contains only a “Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown”. We believe you want attachment 7, which contains the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown”, and attachment 17, which contains the Bid Schedule. Is this correct?

A. Yes that is correct.

98. We believe the bridging documents provided by the Air Force for the seed project have already been developed beyond the 35% design stage and are adequate for pricing. Please confirm the technical proposal requirements are described in E. Volume 1 – Technical, paragraph 3 and that no specific design deliverables are required for the seed project.

A. SEE AMENDMENT 0002, 90% Design with Drawings and Specifications will be required

99. Tab “E”, Volume 1 – Technical, paragraph 3, item “c”, Quality Control: appears to be an error as it requires a cost estimate breakdown for quality control. Please confirm that this requirement should be deleted as it is redundant to G. Volume 3 – Price Proposal paragraph 2.a.

A. Refer to question 92.

100. Section 1 – Contract Clauses, page 26 of 63, clause 52.219-18, Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns (Jun 2003) and Alternate I (APR 2005) are incorporated in full text. Is this procurement set aside for small business or 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Businesses certified by the SBA? It was stated by Mr. Costlow at the pre-proposal conference that this procurement was set aside for Small Business with 50% of awards set aside for 8(a) firms. Also reference the Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, A. Program Structure and Objective. Please confirm award intentions.

A. This is a Total Small Business Set Aside to include 8(a)s. Note the amendment changes Section M paragraph H.2. stating that 50% of the awards will be set aside for 8(a)s.

101. Under E. Volume 1 – Technical paragraph 3, Planning and Scheduling: requires the proposer to complete an AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule. In the past it has been the practice of Air Force contract administrators to limit the CPS to one page, is that limitation in effect for this submission?

A. One page is sufficient.

102. In addition to the signup sheet form the pre-proposal conference, can you provide a list of registered proposers?

A. The Pre-Performance/Site Visit Sign sheet will be posted with Amendment. There is no list of registered proposer at this time.

103. pg 53 sec D…”Separate CDs are not required for each volume” Yet Sections E, F, and G state “One (1) electronic copy for each volume”. Question: Please clarify, should all three volumes be on One (1) CD or should each Volume be on its own CD?

A. Refer to question 71.

104. pg 54 sec 5(a)… Past Performance Questionnaires must be received by 633 CONS/LGCB not later than 27 JULY 2011. Question: Please confirm if this date is still the deadline for the Contracting Officer to received the completed and evaluated Past Performance Questionnaires.

A. Refer Section L.F.1. …at least 7 calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date.

105. pg 54 sec 4… Consent and Client Authorization Letter: “The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a Consent Letter (Attachment #04 of the Past Performance Packet), executed by each joint venture partner (if applicable)”. Question: Does this include Teaming Partners as well, even if there is no Joint Venture?

A. Yes, this is to include Teaming Partners

106. Pgs 3-8…Contain Section B, there is no mention in Section L “Instructions to Offerors” of inclusion of Section B in the proposal submission. Question: Given that this solicitation is Task Order driven, please clarify if Section B is to be completed and included in the proposal submission, and if so, how would pricing be determined given the CLIN item descriptions posted in Section B of the RFP?

A. Refer to Question 22. Nothing is to go in pages 3 -8; these pages are for Government Use.

107. pg 56 sec 5… “SBA approved status in the 8(a) program is a prerequisite for award” and “No award will be made to an entity who has not been approved by SBA in their 8(a) program.” Question: Given the above statements, would you please confirm this is a Total Small Business Set-Aside?

A. Refer to Question 100.

108. Is Attachment #4 required if the prime contractor bidding is participating with a subcontractor or a teaming partner?

A. Yes.

109. What are the full time staffing requirements for the seed project?

A. This is what you should be telling us.

110. Please clarify design and construction durations, the SOW says we have 37 calendar days total for design and 365 for construction after NTP, does this mean we have total contract duration of 365 calendar days?

A. The construction period of performance is 365 calendar days after issuance of the Notice to Proceed..

111. Page 7 of the SOW says that 23 buildings are still connected to main, the CLIN states 25 facilities, please clarify?

A. In reality, there are 27 facilities that will be connected to the water distribution system. The facilities are: 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 337, 338, 339, 340, 342, 351, 355, 362, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 378, 380 and 381. The number of facilities grew during the project development as additional facilities were discovered not to have been connected to the newer water distribution system.

112. Can new lines go in the same location as old lines? If so how long can service be down?

A. The new water lines can be routed parallel to the existing lines. If the intent of the question is to remove the old pipe and replace it with new pipe, we may consider that request on a case-by-case basis. The allowable duration and time (night / weekend / other) of water outages will depend upon the function of the individual building – and would be considered on a case-by-case basis. For the purpose of the technical proposal, assume any anticipated outage greater than two hours would have to be performed during non-work hours.

113. Are there any excavated soils to be reused or replaced?

A. We intend that all excavated soils should be reused in the same location. In the event unusable soil is encountered due to any contamination issues, specifications section 01 12 00 (attachment 11 to the solicitation package) will apply; this would be regarded as an unforeseen site condition. Unusable soil for pipe bedding (due to rock, gravel, etc) will not be considered an unforeseen site condition.

114. Can we use native soil as backfill?

A. Yes.

115. Are there any requirements for use of select stone backfill?

A. No.

116. Can the Government provide a Soils Report?

A. One does not exist.

117. Are there any haul off materials? If so are any non-useable or hazardous?

A. We are unaware of any haul-off materials.

118. What are the testing requirements for haul in materials?

A. They are defined in 1.10 of section 01 12 00 and 1.10 of section 01 12 00.

119. Page 35 of the SOW indicates both hydro seeding and sodding, what is the Government’s preference?

A. Hydro seeding is preferred for this area of the base.

120. Do we have to do a pre survey or only final as-built survey?

A. Unsure what “survey” you ask about.

121. Can we obtain Government as-built drawings for the mechanical rooms mentioned on page 8 of the SOW?

A. Yes, all drawings that we have will be made available.

122. Can the Government provide additional information on the foundation of the building? Will we have to penetrate the foundation wall or go under the footings?

A. All drawings we have will be made available. Pipe penetration into facilities will need to be underground, beneath the frost line to prevent freezing.

123. Will bac-t samples be required prior to tie-in to the existing? If so, to what extent? Domestic lines only? Or Domestic and fire?

A. Bacterial testing will be required for each potable (domestic) water service after connection to the facilities.

124. What is the location of borings? Is open cut acceptable? What locations is open cut not acceptable?

A. We believe it may be possible to accomplish all the work without boring; the contractor shall install and maintain proper bridging or decking to maintain access to all streets and buildings. Where providing water service to facilities 366 and 368, maintain at least one lane of Hickory Boulevard and maintain access to the parking lot behind facility 366. Any work that may change normal traffic flow patterns must be coordinated with the Contracting Officer at least fourteen days in advance.

125. Are there any commissioning requirements?

A. No.

126. Is this a LEED project? If so, what level and requirements?

A. No.

127. Please refer to page 12; what is considered minimum disruption to users in which…