MACC_Q&As.pdf

Sol# FA480118R1004 19 September 2018

TECHNICAL

1. Please consider a 25% or 30% construction design similar to other RFQ's for Design Build/A&E services as a 65% construction design is a large resource and financial burden to place on the vendor for a bid that is non-reimbursable.

- In order to evaluate the demonstration project for technical acceptability, it is imperative that offerors demonstrate the capability to design at the 65% level. A 35% design will not allow the government technical evaluators enough information to make the determination of the contractor's capabilities.

2. Page 57 of Solicitation rev 3 - Subfactor 1.4: Staffing Plan lists minimum qualifications of team to be technically acceptable, with requirement of (1) Architect with five (5) years’ experience qualified as a P.E.? Please confirm.

- The Architect qualifications is a Registered Architect (RA) instead of Professional Engineer (PE) and 5 years of experience.

3. QA personnel – are we required to use an independent firm for QA or may these personnel be a member of our Design team? Please advise.

- No requirement for independent firm for Quality Assurance (QA).

4. On page 2 of the Demonstration Project SOW, Note (a) says costs are not required, only use quantities. Is this correct?

- That statement is in error. Please disregard Note (a) in its entirety.

5. As it could have a significant impact in regard to scheduling, shall DDESB approval be required for the sample project?

- No, DDESB approval is not required.

6. Please provide clarification for the desired level of completion of the specifications for the 65% Proposal submission.

- See section M, sub-factor 2 and the requirements as specified on the demonstration project drawings to be provided (pages 6 and 7 of 9)

7. Can the superintendents or project managers also be the on-site safety managers?

- Yes

8. Reference- DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, dated November 2017, (attachment # 17, page 9 of 9.

Question (1): Shall the Four-Strand Barbed Wire Fence, A/C Training Mock-Up and what appears to be facility # 99999, as depicted in the sketch, be included in the contractor’s proposal?

- No, only facility depicted on page 8 of 9 is to be included in contractor’s proposal.

9. Reference- DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, dated November 2017, (attachment # 17), section 1.

STATEMENT OF WORK:, which states in bold lettering “MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AS

NESCESSARY!”

Questions (2): Where a conflict exists within a TO SOW, in regard to material specified within that SOW, is it the government’s preference that the contractor propose the most stringent, as in more expensive material, or the material that would be of lower cost to the contractor, as well as the government? Shall the answer to this question be considered typical and consistent, throughout the life of the contract?

- Demonstration project proposal should be prepared in accordance with the TO SOW and Holloman Design standards, UFC (Unified Facilities Criteria).

10. Section L does not mention requirement for letters from A/E, equipment supplier, material supplier and independent testing lab. Section M states that this should be included. In which SubFactor should these be included? If in SubFactor 1, are these letters excluded from the page count?

- Remove "the proposal must demonstrate an established relationship with a design (A-E) firm, a construction equipment supplier, a construction material supplier and an independent testing lab for construction materials" from section M Factory 2 (c) (i) (1).

11. Section M-4, Factor 2, c.i.2. says we will be evaluated on our “Capability to perform using a design/build approach. This may be demonstrated by describing a design/build construction project that you successfully performed as prime contractor within the last 3 years.” However, Section L doesn’t ask for this. Plus, it seems this would fall under Volume 3 since it’s asking for examples of our design/build past experience. Please advise.

- See amendment #007, remove section M-4, Factor 2 (c) (i) (2)

Proposal

1. Since this site visit is for the demonstration project, can you provide any information prior to the site visit as to the scope of the project (SOW/PWS/SOO) so we can anticipate questions?

- Please see Attachment #17 for Demonstration Project Statement of Work

2. L.5. Factor 1 – Price, item 2. c) ii – Asks for “Authorized Offeror Personnel, which should include the name, title, and telephone number(s) of the company/division point(s) of contact regarding decisions made with respect to proposal and who can obligate the company contractually”, among other things. Isn’t this the same information we would include on SF1442? Please advise.

- Block 14 of the 1442 is the company’s SAM information. L5, Factor 1 is asking for individuals who are authorized to obligate the company contractually (ex: President, Vice President…etc).

3. Also, L.4 – Offers, item 2. We’re asked for “A list of the Offeror’s primary Points of Contact shall be submitted as part of the Technical proposal.” This seems to be the same sort of information that’s being asked under L.5. Factor 1. Are we to include this same/similar information that’s included on SF1442 in both Volumes? Please advise.

- See amendment #007

4. L.7. Factor 3: Past Performance, item 2a) ii c) – Early Proposal Information. Offeror is requested to submit the past performance volume with past performance information for each relevant/recent contract at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to solicitation closing date.

Should we email this early proposal information to CO, or how should we send? Please advise.

- Early proposal information is not mandatory. Offerors should email “early proposal” information to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Administrator.

5. L-6 Factor 2: Technical, item 3. Sub Factor 1 a. Bank Reference and b. Bonding. Both items under Sub Factor 1 ask Offerors to complete the “Financial Information Request” and under b.

the “Bonding Information Request” are these forms we should use to complete and send to applicable recipients, if these are forms they were not included in Solicitation. Will these be provided by 49CONS? Please advise.

- See amendment 007, Attachments #20 and #21 for required forms.

6. L-6 Factor 2: Technical, Sub Factor 2 c. Cost Estimating. Attachment #15 AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown is included in Volume 1, Pricing Proposal. Do we also include a copy in this (Technical) Volume 2?

- Attachment #15 shall only be used for Volume 1 Pricing.

7. L-7. Factor 3: Past Performance: 2 a) i. indicates “Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in the PPIS (See Attachment s).” However, there is no PPIS Attachment. Is this a form that 49CONS will provide? Or do we simply provide information in accordance with the Past Performance factor as defined in Section M, Evaluation Criteria where a “Past Performance Packet” is mentioned?

- See amendment 004, Attachment #18 Past Performance Sheet

8. Is the Proposal Adequacy Checklist required with our proposal submission? If so, which volume should it be included in and will it count against the page number limitation?

- Yes, the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required and one checklist covers all the volumes. No, it does not count towards your page number limitation.

9. Will an exception, in accordance and as allowed by FAR 52.215-20 (a), as incorporated by full text in section L of the RFP, be permitted in particular by providing subcontractor pricing and narrative descriptions of pricing in lieu of providing table 15-2 as referenced in 52.215-20 that does not appear to be set up for competitive construction pricing. As stated in the RFP, adequate competition is anticipated and as such per FAR 15.402(2)(i), Pricing Policy, which states that no additional data will be required from offeror if price based on adequate price competition. Please advise whether Table 15-2 is required or if subcontractor proposals by themselves will be acceptable.

- See amendment 7 for removal of Clause 52.215-20.

10. Section L, Clause 52.215-1 (f)(4) states, “If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.” What criteria will the Contracting Officer use to make this determination?

- The establishment of a competitive range by the Contracting Officer is requirement and price dependent. No set criteria will be established.

11. Section L-6, Sub-Factor 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) allude to a Financial Information Request form and a Bonding Information Request form. Will these forms be provided in an amendment?

- Yes, please see Attachment #20 Financial Information Request and Attachment #21 Bonding Information Request

12. Amendment #1 changed the offeror copies required from 0 to 1, which if read in context on the SF 1442 would be an original and 1 copy. Please confirm we are to submit only an electronic version of each volume and an original SF 1442.

- Submit each volume and the original SF 1442 and all corresponding amendments (see block 19 of SF 1442).

13. Factor 1 Price 2bi Section A – Solicitation /Contract Form SF1442 mentions an “original copy” to be clearly marked. As this is an electronic submittal please consider removing this language.

- The instructions as specified in Factor 1 Price 2 (b)(i) will remain the same.

14. Please clarify the language in Factor 3: Past Performance 2aii regarding the number of PPI forms required for submittal for a joint venture. Item ii states “submit information on at least three (3) but no more than six (6) contracts considered most RELEVANT in demonstrating performance abilities on the proposed effort. Also, 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.” Please confirm that a joint venture could submit up to 12 contracts (the required 3 to 6, plus 3 from each joint venture member?)

- Section L7, 2(a)(ii) Language is clear on PPIs that needs to be submitted, no clarification is needed.

15. Factor 3 Past Performance 2b references a “Consent Letter.” Please provide.

- Please see Attachment #19, “Client Authorization Letter”

16. Past Performance Questionnaires will not be used in this solicitation.

- Questionnaires will not be used.

17. The only form provided for Past Performance Requirement portion of this solicitation is the one in the Attachment to this email and is to be filled out by Offeror.

- Yes, use Attachment #18.

18. In regards to the past performance requirements, please clarify if there is a specific magnitude per project and if the past performance volume needs to be submitted by this Friday?

If so, please clarify if the proposal can be submitted electronically or if we need to mail in a hard copy as well.

- There is no specific magnitude per RELEVANT projects for the past performance requirement. The Past performance volume is due on 21 Sep 2018 (proposal due date); however, early turn-in of past performance is allowable but not mandatory. Per the solicitation, proposal must be submitted electronically.

19. Please provide a copy of the Commanders letter that was read at the bid walk.

- Please see attachment 22 La Luz Gate Hours of Operation

20. Proposal Validity Period - Block 13 D of the solicitation cover states that “Offers providing less than 240 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.”

In section L-2 of the General Instructions, number 5 states, “Proposal validity period:

Prospective Offerors will price their proposals in such a way as to allow the Government a minimum of 120 calendar days from the proposal due date in which to make a contract award.

The Offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid until this date.”

Question- Does the Government require that the proposal validity period (acceptance period) be for 240 days after the date offers are due or 120 calendar days from the proposal due date?

- The proposal validity period is 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.

21. If the Government does not require completion of DD Form 1354, will the Government please provide instruction regarding our use of Attachments 12 & 13?

- The DD 1354 is completed post award, upon project completion and government acceptance.

22. Does the Government require a full paper proposal (original) in one envelope AND a complete proposal in CD format?

- Per Section L4 of the solicitation, “The offer/proposal and other information shall be submitted in electronic copy (standard CD) format.”

23. When is the last day for questions?

- Per Section L2 of the solicitation, all questions were due on 6 Sept 2018.

24. In order to allow sufficient time to complete a 65% construction design, would you please consider a week extension?

- The RFP was extended to 12 October 2018.