MACC Questions and Answers 2.pdf

MACC Questions and Answers II

FA4814-08-R-0019

25 Mar 2009

1. Q: Do you have the drawings from the solicitation that show the layout in .dwg files that we could use for our design? These are located in seed project appendices?

A: Yes, The .dwg files have been posted.

2. Q: Regarding drawings, when doing the design should do them in Autocad or Microstation? It mentioned Autocad files and GIS files so we wanted to clarify what you want us to use as well as for as builts?

A: AutoCad 2000 or more current. Stated in the MacDill General Design Guidelines provided in Appendix 1.

3. Q: Partnering Relationship – we have several consultants that will be working together on this project. Do we need to include all of these or just the majors? And do you need this prior to proposal submission?

A: Refer to Question 13 from Questions and Answers I

4. Q: Regarding the CSI, are you using the 16 old CSI format or the new format with 48 sections?

A: The CSI format containing 48 sections. (See Amendment 0003)

5. Q: Please verify that the asbestos abatement is for the bathroom areas only and not the entire hangar?

A: All areas affected or related/required in the construction project are to be abated. Areas in the Hangar that are not part of the construction are not part of the project.

6. Q: NFPA requirements – in the SOW it states in Scope section B for testing of existing alarm – is the existing system meeting NFPA requirements? Will equipment that is installed only in the work areas be able to meet the NFPA requirements? We want to avoid installing new equipment and then the existing equipment not be up to the NFPA requirements and have to address updating the whole system.?

A: The existing system does not meet NFPA requirements. The bathrooms in the contract will be required to meet NFPA and ADA requirements per UFC 3-600-01, Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities. A connection to the existing alarm panel will be required.

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.

8. Q: When filling out the forms, are we required to submit completed pages of the Solicitation for pages 13,14 and 45-55?

A: Refer to Section L Paragraph 2.4.4 for the required contract forms to be submitted in Volume

III.

9. Q: Regarding the Factor 2 – Past Performance. On page 58 it limits past performance to 30 pages. However, under Factor 2 section 2.3.2 – it is asking for itself and any proposed division, major sub, consultant or partner. Then it says to submit 3-5 past performance information sheets.

We have about 9 difference consultants – are they saying to select the 3-5 projects we feel are best out of all the partners?

A: Reference Question 13 on Questions and Answers I

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.

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.

12. Q: The Seed Project includes a requirement for “Concept Design (65%)”. It’s clear from other information in the Seed Project that you mean 65%. However, the General Design Guidelines describe a Conceptual Design as a 15% design and an Intermediate Design as a 65% design. The Task Order Issuance Procedures explain that a “Concept” design will be the standard for this type of project. Elsewhere in the Task Order Issuance Procedure it explains that “a Task Order may contain additional …provisions” which could mean a greater level of design. Before we develop a 65% design I would like to confirm that it is your intent that we provide a 65% design with the Seed Project.

A: The Seed Project requirement is for a 65% Design. The correct reference is “Intermediate Design.” See Amendment 0003 for clarification on the correction.

13. Q: Under the Statement of Work for the seed project, specifically paragraph 1.0.B (page 2 of 8) states that “Price proposal shall consist of the completing the Government Price Schedule (AF Form 3052) and the Seed Project Bid Schedule (Attachment 24)”. Due to past experience with work on base, completing the Seed Project Bid Schedule poses no difficulties, but completing a detailed CSI 16 – Division AF Form 3052 at bid time sometimes does create difficulties due to last minute proposals being submitted. Is it possible to have a 48 hour window after the proposal submittal date to submit the AF 3052 to the Government?

A: No

14. Q: In the Statement of Work, Section 2.0(A)(1), the Project Description states, “The plumbing infrastructure supporting the bathrooms is suspect to deterioration and corroded.” From the information provided, the first floor restrooms were renovated in 1997, which included removing the existing slab and installing new sanitary piping. Please advise as to what extent the plumbing piping/infrastructure will need to be replaced in the areas to undergo renovation.

A: Per the SOW, the government believes the piping in these areas has deteriorated and requires replacement. The extents of the project should include all piping related to the project and five feet outside the building foot print.

15. Q: Appendix 6 Existing DWG Files for Hangar 2 is missing the following drawings: C-1, C-2, B1.3, M-5, M-7, N-1, E-3, and E-8. Please provide these drawings if they are available.

A: The files have been posted on www.fbo.gov

16. Q: The asbestos surveys date back to 1996. The three rooms available for viewing at the site visit (1st floor bath, 2nd floor bath and 2nd floor storage) all appear to have been renovated within the past 10 years. Relatively new looking ceramic tile, carpet, drywall and acoustical ceiling systems. The 1st floor “office/storage” room that is to be converted to a bathroom was unavailable for viewing to determine the potential for ACM in this area. Is there a more recent report available and/or can someone update the current one provided in the RFP.

A: An updated survey has been accomplished and will be posted to www.fbo.gov. Photographs of the areas have been posted as well. (See Amendment 0003)

17. Q: Can we use SpecsIntact? If not what would be the preferred written specification acceptable for this project?

A: Specintact is not acceptable. Refer to answer on question 4.

18. Q: The answer to Question 14, MACC Questions and Answers I, March 18, 2009, removed the pricing information from Mission Capability Subfactor 2. However, that was only offered in the original question to serve as one example of our lack of clarity as to the intent of Lines 15 thru 19 of Paragraph 2.3.3. Can any further explanation be given to clarify the requirement that we “link” or “categorize” past performance information to the evaluation subfactors?

A: The intent is to link the contractor’s past performance with the capability to successfully perform the requirements as outlined in this solicitation. The Mission Capability Evaluation Factor is broken down into 4 Subfactors. Contractors are to demonstrate how the 4 subfactors correlate to all past performance submitted. The projects the contractor submits as past performance, could demonstrate anywhere from one to all four subfactors. Explain how those projects meet the Mission Capability Subfactors.

Note: Section L Paragraph 2.2.2.3 was deleted with Amendment 0002, however, after further consideration; it has been reinserted to give the Contracting Officer the ability to evaluate Mission Capability Subfator 2, Completeness of the Seed Project. (See Amendment 0003) Past performance relates to subfactor 2.2.2.3, by signifying the ability to complete the required documents (AF 3052), not the prices included in the AF 3052. Therefore, the factor evaluated doesn't relate to price and can be linked to previous work performed.

19. Q: Amendment No. 2 added the requirement to submit income statements and balance sheets for the past five years, but it did not answer the original issue as addressed in Question 15, MACC Questions and Answers I, March 18, 2009, which requested clarification as to what information is required in Paragraph 2.4.3 by the statement “Offerors shall submit a financial capability letter from their financial institution”.

A: The financial capability letter as outlined in Section L 2.4.3, outlines the offeror’s financial capability to cover phase-in, unexpected and or emergency situations and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of progress payments.

20. Q: The answer to Question 18, MACC Questions and Answers I, March 18, 2009, states that AF Form 3052 will be required on “all subsequent task orders.” This requirement is going to be extremely cumbersome and expensive to the selected contractors, especially in view of the fact that the task orders are going to be typically competed among them. This will be even more difficult considering that, as described in Paragraph 1.18 – Task Order Issuance Procedures, many of the task orders may only provide a conceptual design where detailed estimates and itemized pricing are much more difficult to produce. We would suggest consideration be given to require that AF Form 3052 only be provided (post-bid) by the successful offeror of each task order.

A: The requirement for an AF Form 3052, will be determined on an individual basis, for subsequent task orders.

21. Q: The answer to Question 19, MACC Questions and Answers I, March 18, 2009, deleted the reference to “acquisition phase”, but did not address the original question regarding Item “J”. We are unable to complete our Past Performance Information Sheets due to the fact that Item “J” of this form requires us to address the “proposed effort to be performed.” However, as we attempted to point out in the original question, this requirement is highly confusing in that it is part of a form that specifically relates to projects that have been previously completed, i.e. “past performance”, while it asks us to describe efforts that we would be performing in the future, i.e. “to be performed”.

A: The intent of Item J is to describe the portion of work the business entity reported will provide on this contract. The “proposed effort” is this solicitation for which you are submitting a proposal. Also, define how this business entity is related to the prime.

22. Q: Attachment 21, Statement of Work, Section 2.0 Scope, paragraph H.2 Asbestos Abatement Plan states that the contractor shall have an asbestos abatement design performed. Is this to be done after award?

A: The SOW does not state when the asbestos abatement design must be preformed. Your cost estimate must include all Asbestos and lead abatement required for project completion. Also, refer to answer on question 16.

23. Q: In reference to the MACC submittal, I just wanted to confirm that in Volume II (due April 9), we do not need an Executive Summary but rather just a Summary Page. The way I understand it, the Executive Summary is due with Volume I. Is that correct?

A: The Executive summary is due with Volume I.

Note: the Executive Summary is not part of the Volume I page limitation.

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.

25. Q: Attachment 10 - General MACC Provisions, Section 01300 - General Design Requirements, Pages 4 through 22, beginning just below 11. Preliminary (35%) Design and continuing until the end of the section, the heading numbers are off by one – are we missing a section?

A: You are correct the sequence is incorrect but all sections are included.

26. Q: Section L, 2.3.6, Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire, Amendment 2, says "Due date for Past Performance Volume II is 9 Apr 2009 Close of Business 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time". Please confirm that the evaluated questionnaires do not have to be to MacDill by 9 April but can be supplied to MacDill within 7 days of this date as referenced in the solicitation (due 7 days after submittal to the client).

A: Complete Volume II is due 16 Apr 2009 Close of Business 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

Note: The due date for volume II has been extended (See Amendment 0003) However; the due date for submission of the rest of the proposal has not changed.

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.

28. Q: With regards to the seed project, how far back do we need to demolish/remove the plumbing?

A: Refer to answer on question 14.

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.

30. Q: A question regarding the design requirements. In the proposed layouts, diagramed in Appendix 4, a hall way is depicted leading to a back room. Considering the width and proposed use of the space, this hallway is causing a bit of confusion as the area to the rear of the restroom is not titled nor is the overall space large enough to accommodate a hall as well as proper toilet room access. Is this space a requirement? Secondly: Considering there exists a step to the walkway on the first floor, are ADA requirements applicable? If so, the proposed layout does not accommodate an accessible stall. Thirdly: Are the fixture counts for this project accurate to satisfy the IBC Plumbing Code or is this even an issue considering the Male/Female ratio in the Military?

A: The project is required to meet ADA requirements for the areas that are part of the construction.

The Air Force is looking for the following fixture count if possible:

Men’s restroom: 2 lavatories, 2 toilets, 2 urinals, and one shower.

Women’s restroom: 2 lavatories, 3 toilets, and one shower.

The hallway and space are not required.

31. Q: Item 2.0 Scope, Paragraph A.1 (Project Description ) line 4 referenced to installation of two new bathrooms in addition to repair of two existing bathrooms. What are the locations of these bathrooms, size of bathrooms/number of plumbing fixtures required?

A: The locations of the rooms are indicated on the plans and were viewed at the site visit.

Reference the posted construction drawings for dimensions.

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

33. Q: Was the site visit mandatory?

A: No

34. Q: Are there any minutes that were generated with the site visit?

A: Yes, the minutes will be posted to www.fbo.gov

35. Q: Can we set up a meeting to visit the site?

A: No additional site visits will be scheduled.

36. Q: Is there any paper work due before Volume II 4/9/09?

A: No. See question 25 for Volume II due date change.

37. Q: Is there any paperwork I can study regarding previous contractor, monetary value of previous work, and previous scope of work to compare this new proposed contract?

A: This is the first MACC solicitation for MacDill AFB.

38. Q: I am setting up the sheets for the restroom renovation (Hangar 2), and wanted to find out where I could find a copy of the AMC Standard border and title sheet block available in AutoCadd format from the Engineering Technical Support Section.

A: We will post the title block on www.fbo.gov

39. Q: According to my understanding of 2.0 Specific Proposal Instruction, 2.3 Factor 2 Past Performance Volume II, pp. 7 – 9, the Volume II page limitation is 30 pages. Paragraph 2.3.2 Past Performance Information Sheets indicates we are to complete the Past Performance Information sheets that are in Attachment 9, Section J. Attachment 9 does not include a Section J. It does include a 2-page Attachment 1, which I assume is the correct format that we are to complete for each project. We have a team involving 3 companies and plan to use as many as 5 projects each, which the instructions allow. However, that means with the 2-page Information sheets for 3 companies with 5 projects each, our response is already at the 30-page limit. Do you intend to apply the 30-page limit just to portion of the submittals for Paragraph 2.3.2 Past Performance Information? Or, does the page limit apply to the entire Volume II?

The instructions also request a Summary regarding the roles of our team companies (2.3.1), Relevant Contracts (2.3.3), which are limited to 3 pages per contract per company, Organizations’ Histories (2.3.5), and Subcontractor Consent Forms (2.3.7), which will each be a page Is it possible to have the page limits redistributed by section and by number of team members, or to have the total volume page limit increased?

A: The page limitation is 30 pages. It is correct that the contractor is allowed 3 to 5 project for each company involved in the arrangement. However, the intent is to highlight the most relevant projects and it is up to the offeror to decide how many projects to submit for each company and stay within the 30 page limit.

Note: the requirement for relevant projects is not additional projects. All projects submitted should be relevant. The intent of Section L 2.3.3 it to define “relevant”

Note: See Question 27 regarding submitting projects as a joint venture.

40. Q: Will we be submitting the full solicitation back (all 77 pages) with all certification blanks filled in? Or may we handle this by a current update in ORCA?

A: Refer to Section K , DFAR 252.204 -7007

41. Q: As a result of our review of the documentation, we are requesting an opportunity to visit the site to perform a field investigation in order to develop 65% construction documents.

A: No additional site visits will be scheduled.

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)

43. Q: Please clarify if the 3-5 Past Performance Information Sheets described in section 2.3.2 are the same as the 3-5 Past Performance information sheets detailed in section 2.3.3.

A: Yes it is referencing the same sheets. The total is 3-5 projects for each entity.

44. Q: Attachment 1: Past Performance Information sheets in Attachment 9 are not 12 point font. Is it acceptable to submit completed sheets in the same font as they are provided?

A: Yes

45. Q: I am looking for clarification regarding Attachment I-Past Performance Information sheets and related Attachments 2 and 3. I am assuming attachment 2 and 3 would only be submitted with projects we worked on with the sub-consultants we are naming specifically on our team for the MACC project-is this a correct assumption?

46. Q: Do we include Attachment 2 and 3 behind Attachment 1 in our submittal and are they included in our overall page count and therefore numbered?

A: Yes to both questions

47. Q: I cannot find a bid bond form. Section H paragraph 1.23 indicates that a bid bond in the amount of 20% is required for the Seed Project. However I cannot find a bond form or reference to where to download the form in the RFQ package. It is not listed in Section L or M. Would you direct me to the source where I can download the correct form?

A: The correct form is SF Form 24

48. Q: We would like to hand deliver our Volume II on April 9th and Volumes I & III on April 23rd.

As we don’t have access to MacDill AFB is this possible?

A: Yes, see section L paragraph 1.1.1 for proposal submission instructions. This paragraph was added with Amendment 0003.

49. Q: Are the sketches provided in the RFP illustrating the floor plans of the new bathroom layouts to be interpreted literally or can they be manipulated to take advantage of the existing plumbing systems and plumbing chase.

A: The sketches provided can definitely be manipulated they were only schematic. Also, see answer to questions 30 and 31.

50. Q: What are the future plans for the storage/office space that is being cut into to provide room for the new bathroom areas?

A. The government will vacate the areas prior to construction start.

51. Q:Will the contractor be allowed to work on both the first and second floor concurrently and if so are there any requirements for the contractor to provide temporary toilet facilities while these areas are under construction.

A. The four rooms (restroom areas both floors) will be turned over to the contractor for the project duration. 2- Portalets will need to be provided for building occupants during the construction and toilets for construction workers will also need to be provided.

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.

53. Q: Page 45 of 120 of the SOW (Appendices 1-7) shows a floor plan for the new 1st floor men's restroom (Bathroom #1); however, the plan does not fill the entire room, and only shows three fixtures. We believe this plan is incorrect. We further suggest that, if this plan is incorrect, that the correct plan would be identical to sheet 48 of 120 which is Bathroom 4, the second floor men’s room. In this case, we further suggest that the two women’s restrooms be placed one over the other, and the same with the men’s restrooms. This contradicts the provided drawings, but we are searching for some design leeway in this request.

A. See answer to questions 30, 31, and 49.

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.

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.

56. Q: Appendix 5 Proposed Layout of Bathrooms describes the requirement for a "New Storage Room with Mop Sink". It is our interpretation that what the RFP is requesting is a Janitor's Closet, providing a floor sink and storage space. It is also our opinion that there is inadequate space in all toilet rooms to include a Janitor's Closet. Based on limited space, we question the need for 4 Janitors Closets or sinks.

Is it acceptable to include a Janitor's Room (or a sink only) on the first and second floors separate and behind the 2 Female bathrooms where there is a storage space already available.

A: One janitor's closet with mop sink per floor is adequate. See

Questions 30, 31, and 49.

57. Q: Please advise;

1) Shower in women's restroom.

a) Do you want this on the 1st floor, in new bathroom #2?

b) Since it appears shower appurtances are not identified in the AF 3052 Plumbing heading, do you want all costs associated with shower (wall,tile,pan,pipe,etc.) carried as stand alone in line16 Architectural on the AF3052?

A: Please see questions 30, 31, and 49.

Note: Offerors are to use the supplied AF Form 3052, but can add additional line items, if needed to complete the price proposal.

58. Q: PAST PERFORMANCEs, section 2.3.3 Relevant Contracts: Can we provide past performance submittals for projects that may exceed $5,000,000 in value.