MACC Questions and Answers 2_Clarified.pdf

MACC Questions and Answers II

(CLARIFIED)

FA4814-08-R-0019

9 Apr 2009

Below is clarification for various questions from MACC Questions and answers II dated 25 March 09.

7. Q: Since we are a small business do we have to abide by the 2.9% minority and 6.9% for female participation? It states for each trade, but if we meet the goal with 1 trade, will that suffice for overall project goal? And will privation by a disabled veteran group will that meet any of the goals?

A: Offerors shall comply with FAR 52.222-23 as outlined in the solicitation.

Clarification: The contractor is required to make a determination regarding his requirements for compliance. Contractor is referred to US Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs for guidance, website is http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/TAguides/sbguide.htm or they can contact the Orlando office at (407)648 6181 or Orlando District Office, US Dept. of Labor, ESA - OFCCP, Enterprise Bldg., Suite 100, 1001 Executive Center Drive, Orlando, FL 32803.

Note: Clause FAR 52.222-23 has been revised to reflect the most current information.

(See Amendment 0004)

10. Q: Regarding small business participation, since we are a small business, are all of our subcontractors required to be small business or can we use any subcontractors?

A: Offerors shall comply with FAR 52.219-8 as outlined in the solicitation.

Clarification: Small Business can subcontract with any size business, however the prime-contractor must perform 15% of the requirement in accordance with FAR 52.219-14.

11. Q: In reviewing the RFP, we have come across conflicting information regarding the anticipated magnitude of the task orders subsequent to the seed project. Paragraph 1.2 of Section H states that "Task Orders will range from $2,000.00 to $ 5,000,000.00 with most Task Orders falling in the range below $200,000". Paragraph 2.3.3 of Section L instructs us to provide relevant past performance information on projects "similar in size scope and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $500,000.00 and $5,000,000.00.....". We understand the anticipated dollar value of the seed project but would like to know the anticipated value for the subsequent projects. There can be a substantial difference in a $200,000 project versus a $5,000,000 project. Can you clarify the anticipated project size to help us evaluate the solicitation?

A: The Seed project magnitude is as stated, between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00. The anticipated future project size is as stated. Subsequent Task Orders will range from $2,000.00 to $5,000,000.00.

Clarification: The anticipated value for subsequent task orders is as stated. However, most task orders will fall in the $200K and below range. Therefore the definition of a “relevant project” has been revised to having a project value between $200,000.00 and $5,000,000.00

24. Q: Section H, 1.20, Page 21 of 77 of the original solicitation says that "Task Orders will range from $2,000 to $5,000,000, with most Task Orders falling in the range below $200,000."

However, under Relevant Contracts in Section L, 2.3.3, Page 7 of 10 of Amendment 2, it says "Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $500,000 and $5,000,000." Which range do we use to highlight our past performance?

A: The intent of this requirement is to provide past performance that is relevant in terms of size.

It is correct that subsequent task orders will range from $2,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 with most falling in the range below $200,000.00. However, in evaluating past performance, it is most beneficial to evaluate projects that fall in the higher end of the task order range. Thus, referenced projects should be valued between $500,000.00 and $5,000,000.00.

Clarification: The definition of a relevant project has been revised. Therefore, referenced projects should be valued between $200,000.00 and $5,000,000.00. (See Question 11, Amendment 0004)

Note: Due to this change, offerors are allowed to revise, update, or replace already submitted past performance information, up to the past performance cutoff date, 16 Apr 09.

27. Q: Please clarify how MacDill evaluates teaming partners that have a formal Air Force/Department of Defense Mentor Protégé Programs (MPP). Does MacDill view a formal Air Force MPP agreements as a “joint venture”? In this regard, how would MacDill evaluate a Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire for two firms who worked on the same project that have a formal Air Force Mentor Protégé agreement in place? Since you ask for at least 3 PPQ’s from each teaming partner would the one PPQ count as one project for both firms or do we need to specify which firm it applies to as part of the 3 project/PPQ requirement?

A: If the project was completed as a joint venture, it can be submitted as such. (Submit one project for both companies) Per the instructions in Section L. 2.3.3, Submit data for 3 to 5 relevant contracts for each entity the government wants to consider. For projects previously completed as a joint venture, the joint venture is considered a single entity.

Clarification: The type of contractual arrangement used, such as a Joint Venture, Air Force Mentor Protégé agreement or various teaming arrangements is determined by the offerors and is viewed as presented in the proposal. The intent here is to be able to discern the past performance for all key members of the arrangement. The use of a single project, to demonstrate past performance for all members of the arrangement, is most appropriate for projects that were awarded to a joint venture and that joint venture is an offeror for this solicitation. Otherwise, if past performance cannot be identified for each key member submitted on a single project, then individual past performance should be submitted.

29. Can a subcontractor team-up with more than one prime?

A: That depends on the contractual arrangement. If two contractors were to formally “team-up” to create a joint venture type of association, then the government would have a direct relationship with all companies in the arrangement. Only one contract will be awarded to the companies in that type of arrangement. Conversely, in a prime-contractor/sub-contractor arrangement, the government doesn’t have a direct relationship with the subcontractor. Therefore it is decided by the prime-contractor as to whom they choose to do business with.

Clarification: To avoid confusion, the implication is not to require any existing teaming arrangement to become a joint venture. The offerors decide their arrangements. The intent here is only single entities are awarded a contracts. A prime-contractor can use consultants or sub-contractors, but they will not have a direct contract with the government. In terms of a prime-contractor/sub-contractor arrangement, the selection of subcontractors is an important business decision for the prime. It is decided by the prime-contractor as to whom they choose to do business with. The primes in this case, should consider how using the same subcontractor (as the other prime contractors) will affect each of their abilities to perform, should that sub-contactor’s services become high in demand.

32. Q: Volume 1 Mission Statement: What is the due date and time for submittal for this item?

A: Volume I is due 23 Apr 2009 at 12:00 PM Local Time

Clarification: Volume I is Mission Capability

42. Q: There is a discrepancy in the number of days allowed for the return of the Past Performance Questionnaires provided in Attachment 5: Performance Questionnaire Letter and the Solicitation, Section L, Factor 2 Section 2.3.6. Attachment 5 states: “We ask that you complete and return via fax no later than 10 working days from date of receipt. Section L, Factor 2, Section 2.3.6:

“Evaluators shall send questionnaires directly to the Government no later than 7 calendar days after receipt of the questionnaire.”

A: See Question 26

Note: The due date for Volume II past performance has been extended to 16 Apr 09 (See Amendment 0003)

Clarification: Evaluators are requested to send questionnaires directly to the Government no later than 7 calendar days after receipt of the questionnaire. (See Amendment 0004)

52. Q: The SOW states to remove the second floor windows but there is no direction provided in the SOW on their replacement. Are?

A. The new windows to match the existing configuration.

Clarification: Reference the revised SOW under scope.

54. Q:

1. The USAF sketches appear to be leaning towards accessible toilets. Do the toilets need to be accessible for the disabled?

FIRST FLOOR

Toilet (Bathroom) No. 1

2. The proposed layout of the room places the plumbing on the opposite wall from the existing plumbing. is this correct?

3. Are all the existing plumbing and fixtures to be removed?

4. There is space left over near the exterior wail. What is the function of this space?

Toilet (Bathroom) No. 2

5. The USAF sketch indicates a small hallway down the side of the new toilet to access the space adjacent to the exterior wall. This ends up being only about 18" wide. How are we to resolve this?

6. Is the existing closet behind the sink to be closed off?

7. Do the existing water heater and enclosing walls remain?

8. Does the existing door from the Kitchen area remain?

S E C O N D F L O O R

Toilet (Bathroom) No. 3

9. The USAF sketch indicates a small hallway down the side of the new toilet to access the space adjacent to the exterior wall. This ends up being only about 8" wide. How are we to resolve this?

Toilet (Bathroom) No. 4

10. Do the existing water heater and enclosing walls remain?

11. The layout results in one larger toilet stall. Is this correct? Should the extra space be used to add another sink? Could the extra space be used for the janitor sink?

A:

1. Each bathroom needs to be ADA compliant.

2. You have the option to place the plumbing on the wall with the existing plumbing. See questions 30, 31 and 49.

3. Yes, all existing plumbing and fixtures are to be removed.

4. The entire space is available. See question 30.

5. The entire space is available. See questions 30, 31, and 49.

6. The existing closet is to not be closed off. You may choose to convert it into a storage room with mop sink.

7. One 50 gallon water heater needs to be in place on the first floor to service the kitchen area.

It does not have to be in its present location. You have the option to address this in your design.

8. No, the existing door from the kitchen area does not remain.

9. The entire space is available. See questions 30, 31, and 49.

10. One 50 gallon water needs to be in place on the second floor to service the four bathrooms in this project.

11. Please see question 30. The extra space could be used for the mop sink.

Clarification:

7. At least one water heater needs to be in place to service the kitchen area and rest rooms as required in SOW. It does not have to be in its present location. Your design can be innovative.

10. At least one water heater needs to be in place to service the kitchen area and rest rooms as required in SOW. It does not have to be in its present location. Your design can be innovative.

11. Reference Q&A II answer 30. The space can be changed but the government is looking for innovative solutions that meet the requirements of the revised SOW.

55. Q: Section "L", Paragraphs 1.11 and 1.12, state that one (1) original, three (3) copies, and one (1) electronic copy are required to be submitted for Volume I – Mission Capability. Per Paragraph 2.2.2 of this same section, the design proposal for the seed project is part of Volume I. Therefore, based on the information provided in Section "L" we interpret that we are required to submit one (1) original, three (3) copies, and one (1) electronic copy of our design documents for the seed project.

Further, we interpret Section "L", Paragraph 1.12 as requiring (1) original, three

(3) copies, and one (1) electronic copy of Volume III - Price and Contract Forms which would include AF Form 3052 Cost Estimate.

Attachment 21 – Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.0, Submittal Quantities, appears to contradict the direction in Section "L" in that it requires for the 65% design the following: one

(1) copy of full size drawings eight (8) copies of half size drawings eight (8) copies of design analysis and specifications eight (8) copies of AF Form 3052 Cost Estimate

Please clarify the conflict above by providing the required number of copies for the design documents of the seed project and the AF Form 3052 Cost Estimate

A: Provide Drawings and AF Form 3052 Cost Estimate as instructed in Attachment 21 – Seed Project Statement of Work, paragraph 4.0.

Clarification: The submittals required by the Seed Project Statement of Work, paragraph 4.0, only applies to the company awarded the Seed Project. For the purpose of responding to this solicitation, submit copies as instructed in L, one (1) original, three (3) copies, and one (1) electronic copy of the design documents and AF Form 3052 Cost Estimate for the seed project.