Atc_35_Contracting_Questions.pdf

Information provided via answers to these questions in this amendment shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitations and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless specifically amended in the solicitation. Any disparity between the answers to the questions and the changes to the terms of the solicitation and specifications of the solicitation will go in favor of the actual solicitation, not answers to questions. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgement and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.

1. Attachment 11 page 1 indicates “cost shall not exceed the congressional minor construction statutory cost limit”. Is that cost limit for the new addition $2,000,000 and the renovation portion $750,000? If not, please provide the limit. Are the management costs of the Air Force to be included in that limit? If so, what are the management costs?

The Statutory Cost Limit for new construction is limited to $750K. Please include all cost that would be deemed necessary to complete sample project. There are no Air Force management cost associated with sample project.

2. Please clarify what your maximum total dollar budget is for the sample project included within the SOW for the proposal?

The Statutory Cost Limit for new construction is limited to $750K. Please include all cost that would be deemed necessary to complete sample project. There are no Air Force management cost associated with sample project.

3. Can you please explain how the pricing is going to be evaluated for award? The Basis for Contract Award listed in Section M of the Solicitation specifies Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), whereas the Sample Project Statement of Work specifies “The Contractor shall design and construct the maximum square footage for the addition but cost shall not exceed the Congressional minor construction statutory cost limit.” These two requirements appear to be contradictory as one prioritizes the lowest price and the other requests maximum space up to the statutory limits (i.e. increase the square footage until the statutory limit is reached).

The award criteria is = LPTA = lowest cost per sq. ft. ($SF), for the new construction portion within statutory dollar limitation is $750K.

4. The RFP requires design submittals at 35%, 65% and 100%. The Minimum Submittal Requirements for 100% Drawings include as-built and field modifications, etc. Please clarify how this requirement should be met and presented in our proposal.

Review sample project SOW and noted specificatons for design submittal requirements.

5. What is the programmed space for the seed project? Specifics: Reference-Attachment 11; page 1 of 46 Defines spaces but does not provide required or programmed square footages that the Government/End User will need Attachment 11 also indicates that Contractor “…shall design and construct the maximum square footage for the addition…” but doesn’t define the maximum square footage to design to.

See attached revised SOW dated 29 Aug.

6. What is the Government CCL or maximum for the project? Reference Attachment 11 indicates Contractor to design to maximum square footage but “….shall not exceed the Congressional minor construction statutory cost limit.

The Statutory Cost Limit for new construction is limited to $750K. Please include all cost that would be deemed necessary to complete sample project. There are no Air Force management cost associated with sample project.

(b) Per the MACC provisions 35% design requirements states to provide “a list showing sections to be incorporated in the specifications”. 65% design requirements states to provide “the complete text of the specifications”. Sample 11 does not indicate what level of specifications are required – it simply states to provide specifications. Can the Government please clarify whether fully edited specifications are required for a sample project that is not to be awarded as noted in the response to question # 20, amendment 03?

The SOW for the Sample Projects lists the submittal requirements.

7. Please see below the following concerns shared by the design team in regards to this RFP and the 100 % design requirements as this is an indication that there may be several teams that will chose not to complete due to cost of preparation of a proposal.

This purpose of this email is to articulate our team’s concerns regarding “sealing” documents as “100%” as required by the Shaw AFB MACC RFP.

7. Design professionals affix a stamp and our signature to each sheet of drawings and the cover of the specs – this is “sealing”. Per our State regulations, this “seal” is only to be used for documents “prepared for bidding, procurement, permitting or for construction”. Our rules further state: “Documents considered incomplete by the architect may be released for interim review without the architect's seal or signature affixed, but shall be dated, bear the architect's name and be conspicuously marked to indicate the documents are for interim review and not intended for bidding, procurement, permit, or construction purposes.” Rules governing the practice of engineering are similar.

The “100%” documents requested by Shaw AFB will not be sufficiently complete to meet the regulation due to the following:

· Lack of current topographic and structural surveys (building, above and below ground utilities, drainage structures, pavements, other underground structures, etc.)

· Lack of field verified existing conditions (structural, geotechnical, environmental)

· Lack of information regarding current electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems in regards to potential extensions, capacities or volumes.

· Lack of government verification/concurrence throughout a typical design process with regards to space use, size, material, quality, configuration and operation of all site and building components.

Thus, we are violating our professional regulations if we submit these documents as “sealed”.

Likewise, we all would be violating the terms of our professional liability policies and would expose our firms to greater risk.

Many assumptions will be made in absence of the above information. The results of each competing team may be radically different in scope, quality and costs. As price is a factor, team’s incentives are to minimize costs through reduction in quantity and quality of work. This approach cannot produce a result which is truly professional – only one which is inexpensive.

And further, the extent of effort required to produce documents to 95 or 100% will likely be in excess of $50,000 for each team and over 500 hours each.

No seal design submittals will be required with proposals. See amendment # 5 removing the requirement for sealed documents

8. Can design at 35% not provide all proper evaluation of the team to determine sufficient experience to make adequate selections.

At this time, the Government has chosen to continue evaluation at 35%, 65% and 100%.

9. (a) Since CCASS and other past performance evaluation form are allowed, can the ten page limitation for part III past performance information be changed to exclude PPQ information?

Many of the PPQ forms are more than one page and contractors will not be able to provide you all the data you have requested within the 10 page limit.

The determination has been made, and follow-on amendment will reflect, that surveys provided will not count toward the 10 page limitation.

(b) A portion of existing building that is to become a connecting hallway (approximately 400 square feet) contains currently used spaces. Are these spaces to remain or be demolished? If they are demolished should they be accommodated elsewhere in the existing building or new building?

See attached revised SOW dated 29 Aug.

(c) It appears from site observations and Government provided drawings that finished ceiling in the chapel proper are neither accessible from above nor removable from below. Are exposed sprinkler pipes acceptable in the chapel proper? If sprinkler pipes are to be concealed what type and shape of new ceiling is to be provided in the chapel proper to conceal sprinkler piping?

(d) How will the renovation cost be evaluated in the selection process? What is the maximum dollar limit for this renovation cost? Is the maximum amount to be approached in similar fashion to the new construction Congressional dollar limit portion of project?

The discloser of magnitude (FOR SAMPLE PROJECT ONLY) is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

(e) During pre-bid meeting, a stipend was mentioned for A/E firms for the significant effort required to complete 3 design submittals. Can this stipend amount be formalized on the next amendment? What are the criteria for obtaining a stipend? (ACT Inc)

No stipend will be provided for proposal submittal. The up to six (6) contract awardee(s) will receive the stated contract minimum amount.

10. (a) Can you please confirm that a 35% , 65% and 100% submittal package is to be submitted as part of the Part II Technical Acceptability package on the proposal submission date of October 3rd 2013?

See revised SOW dated 29 Aug.

(b) If we are to submit a 100% design package would the Government consider extending the proposal due date as this is not only a costly effort, but timely too, and approximately 45 days from today isn’t much time for this type of undertaking and effort to be prepared?

The proposal due date is extended to 15 Nov 2013.

(c) Will a cutoff date be established for question and answers as this could impact the design progression? Due to ongoing and unanswered questions?

Yes, see amendment # 4 which established 15 Sept as the final date for questions.

11. -Would the government consider postponing the bid and award of this MACC to a date when there is a definitive, funded, seed project?

No

12. If no to above, would the government consider short-listing prospective 8(a) contractors on any combination of the following, prior to the implementation of the current evaluation criteria:

-Bonding Capacity -Past performance at Shaw AFB -Percentage of work self performed -Past performance evaluations -Completed projects of similar size and scope to the type of work you expect in the

MACC

No

13. During the Pre Bid Meeting the Contracting Officer addresses the MACC Evaluation Criteria, stating, in part those firms would be evaluated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE dependent on noted factors and presented past performance. All Bidders were further told that if the contractor had no past performance they would still be rated as “acceptable” due to regulatory requirements for this method of evaluation. This criteria is not stated in the Solicitation or Amendments provided by the government. What is the incentive for the experienced federal/military contractor to take a risk and provide any past performance if they are automatically to be deemed acceptable like the contractor who has absolutely no experience in this type of design/build construction, and how will contracting evaluate a contractor’s capability without his/her past performance? This is an incredibly unfair and unrealistic means of evaluation. We understand this is FAR requirement but is there an alternative approach to review that can allow for equalizing the review of the candidates?

IAW Section M, Evaluation Factors, TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

This is an evaluation factor that has been reviewed and passed reviews as fair and reasonable and will remain in this solicitation.

14. Due to the delays caused and confusion at the 8/20/2013 site visit the contractor requests that the current October 3 bid date be extended by a minimum of 30 days if the 35%, 65% and 100% design and estimate criteria is going to be required in the Volume II Technical Proposal.

The proposal due date is hereby extended to 15 Nov 2013. See summary of changes in amendment 5

15. In the Government’s Questions and Answers dated 8/16/2013 the following question was asked:

“3. Part 2 is required two weeks before the bid date, but this is the most costly and time consuming part of the bid. Can it be delayed until September 9th?”

RESPONSE ‐ At this time, there is no plan to extend or delay the submission of Part

2. The Government requested Part 2 first, because it is the most time consuming part of the evaluation process.Question 22 asks, “22. Page 52 of 67 within the solicitation indicates that “Part II – Technical Proposal” is due 15 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. This would fall on Sunday 25 August 2013. Would you please give consideration to having the Technical Proposal due at the same time as the cost proposal, or extend the due date of the Technical Proposal to allow for more time between the site visit and the due date for a complete design package to be completed.” RESPONSES‐ See amendment 1 ‐ extending the proposal due date to 3 October 2013 and removing the prior submission of Part II documents.

Which is correct? Will the Volume II proposal still be needed 15 days earlier or will all packages be submitted at the same time?

See amendment 1 extending the proposal due date to 3 October 2013 and removing the prior submission of Part II documents

16. Is a Bid Bond going to be required on the “Sample Project” since it is intended for “evaluation purposes only”?

Yes bid bonds will be required IAW FAR 28.101.

17. Does the Factor III, 10 page limit apply to PPQ’s, CCASS, AACASS and other past performance information to be included in the proposal?

The determination has been made, and follow-on amendment will reflect, that surveys provided will not count toward the 10 page limitation.

18. Please confirm that a contractor may you Past Performance Questionnaire’s from previous projects even though they may not be on the Solicitation Attachment 10 form. 11. Previous question 37 asks: Page 53 of 67, Section L, C.3. – The submittal requirement is stated as original and three (3) copies. (Actually, the three (3) copy requirement is throughout Section L.)

However, on the SF 1442, Block 13. A. the requirement for the submittal is original and two (2) copies. Which is Correct? RESPONSE ‐ The SF1442, BLOCK 13.A. will be change to reflect three (3) copies. Please confirm that the government is expecting to receive (1) ORIGINIAL AND (3) COPIES of ALL

Section L Proposal Documents.

The determination has been made, and follow-on amendment will reflect, that surveys provided will not count toward the 10 page limitation.

Yes see amendment #5 correcting SF1442 required number of copies

19. Due to the lost time as a result of the concerns over the seed project submittal process as requirements, will the government extend the project bid date? We request a minimum of 2 weeks if the process is amended, removing the 35%, 65% and 100% submittal requirement. If the full submittal requirement is maintained, a minimum of a 30 day extension will be required.

The proposal due date is extended to 15 Nov 2013.

20. A second site visit is needed to further investigate the requirements for the fire suppression system. How should we make arrangements to have access to the site?

An additional site visit has been requested a scheduled for 10 Sept 2013 at 1:30 PM EST.

21. In order to comply with the requirement for 100% design, additional time is needed.

We will need an additional 8 weeks so we are requesting the Proposal due date be extended from October 3rd to December 3rd.

The proposal due date is extended to 15 Nov 2013.

22. Since this project will not be awarded and the evaluation of offers is based only on the square foot price of the new construction, is there any point in pricing the renovation work?

Eliminating this work from the sample project would help hold down the costs that will be incurred by the contractors and their designers.

At this time, there is no requirement to remove that renovation work. This project may be awarded at a later date.

23. In calculating the square foot price of the new building, should we include general conditions? Site work? Profit and overhead? Cost of bonds? Cost of permits? Design costs?

How you propose pricing will be part of the evaluation process.

24. Please provide the determination made by the Contracting Officer under 10 USC § 2305a in order to issue this acquisition of the design and construction of a public building as a Single Phase Design Build selection process, when this acquisition meets all the key tests that require this solicitation to be issued as a Two Phase selection process under the referenced law as indicated by the excerpt of that law below:

10 USC § 2305a - Design-build selection procedures

(a) Authorization. — Unless the traditional acquisition approach of design-bid-build established under chapter 11 of title 40 is used or another acquisition procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an agency shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized in this section for entering into a contract for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work when a determination is made under subsection (b) that the procedures are appropriate for use.

(b) Criteria for Use.— A contracting officer shall make a determination whether two-phase selection procedures are appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work when the contracting officer anticipates that three or more offers will be received for such contract, design work must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or cost proposal for such contract, the offeror will incur a substantial amount of expense in preparing the offer...

The sample project is being used for evaluation purposed only. In the future, the Government may elect to use this same procedure for task orders utilizing FAR 36.104 and 10 U.S.C. 2862,

(a) Authority to Use. — The Secretary concerned may use one-step turn-key selection procedures for the purpose of entering into contracts for the construction of authorized military construction projects. (b) Definition.— In this section, the term “one-step turn-key selection procedures” means procedures used for the selection of a contractor on the basis of price and other evaluation criteria to perform, in accordance with the provisions of a firm fixed-price contract, both the design and construction of a facility using performance specifications supplied by the Secretary concerned.

25. RFI response #40 states that the “…the rest will be cleared up after the 35%, 65%, & 100% determination is made.” Is the Government considering not requiring some or all of these submittals as part of this RFP response?

At this time, the requirement still stands at 35%, 65% and 100%,

26. The MACC Solicitation has requested that the 35%, 65% and 100% drawings and specifications be provided. We would like to request a stipend that better reflects the requested amount of overhead cost incurred to meet the requirements of the RFP.

Stipends are not authorized. The minimum requirement will be met at award.

Information provided via answers to these questions in this amendment shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitations and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless specifically amended in the solicitation. Any disparity between the answers to the questions and the changes to the terms of the solicitation and specifications of the solicitation will go in favor of the actual solicitation, not answers to questions. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgement and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.