Attachment 0001AA - Questions and Answers.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

27TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS CONTRACTING SQUADRON (AFSOC)

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE NEW MEXICO

THE BUSINESS OF WAR

26 March 2024

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Questions and Answers to Solicitation No. FA485524R0004, Multiple Award Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) for Construction Services.

1. Below are the responses to questions received for the subject solicitation. The responses to the questions and the answers provided do not qualify as a change to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, which remain unchanged. Should an answer qualify to change the terms and conditions of the solicitation, an amendment to the solicitation will be issued.

2. Questions and Answers

a. Question 1: Solicitation, Section L. Please confirm no pricing information to be submitted at this time.

Answer 1: Correct. No pricing is required to be submitted at this time. See Amendment 0001, Section L, paragraph 1.2.

b. Question 2: Solicitation, Section L, Pages 44 – 47. Please advise if the information under L.5 information to be Submitted can be submitted in one document. The solicitation indicates each item needs to be submitted as a separate file.

Answer 2: Yes. Each item listed in Section L.5 needs to be an individual file.

c. Question 3: Solicitation, Section B, Page 4. What is the overall magnitude of the

Multiple Award Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) for Construction Services.

Answer 3: The magnitude of construction for the overall five (5) year ordering period of the BOA is more than $10,000,000. Each Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR) issued under the BOA will contain the magnitude of construction for each individual proposal request.

d. Question 4: Attachment 01, Section 3.1.2.1, Page 4. Please confirm the on-site response times for Active and Non-Active Orders.

Answer 4: The response time listed under Attachment 01, Section 3.1.2.1, Page 4 is the response time for the Contract/Program Manager to respond by telephone or email. On-site response times will be determined for each individual order issued under the BOA during the Pre-Construction meeting.

e. Question 5: e-1, Technical Capability. Is there a font or page limit requirements for this section. If a page limit is required, please exclude graphic displays.

Answer 5: There is no font or page limit requirement for this section.

f. Question 6: e-3, Corporate Organizational Structure. Is there a font or page limit requirements for this section? If a page limit is required, please exclude all organizational charts, resumes, and graphic displays.

Answer 6: There is no font or page limit requirement for this section.

g. Question 7: e.1.1, Team Identification/Self-Performance. This section requires that an offeror that cannot self-perform specific construction tasks should clearly identify its subcontractors, by company and supported functional area(s).

Typically, each specific division is competitively bid once a task order is issued, ie, mechanical, electrical, structural, fire protection, etc. This provides the most competitive pricing to the government for a project. Specific trades are typically not names with the exception of a design teaming partner. Will the government remove this requirement to name the specific subcontractors, with the exception of the Designer of Record (DOR).

Answer 7: This section has been amended. Please see Amendment 0001, Section L, paragraph 2.1.1.

h. Question 8: 4) Start-Up Approach. Please verify that there is no number 3 within this section 1) Team Identification/Self-Performance, 2) Resource/Order Management 4) Start-up Approach.

Answer 8: Correct. There is no number three within this section and this will be amended to correct the error in the numbering sequence in this section.

i. Question 9: 1) Team Identification/Self Performance. This section states, that “If an Offeror is citing the core competencies and previous experience of a parent or affiliate company as part of the identification of its own core competencies and previous experience, the Offeror shall explain how the resources of the parent company will be utilized in performance of the proposed effort.” If the offeror was part of an SBA approved Mentor Protégé Joint Venture and is utilizing the experience of this Joint Venture (Affiliate Company) but is proposing itself as a Prime for this BOA, can the government confirm that as long as the offeror demonstrates that they had meaningful involvement in the Joint Venture project, that this is acceptable.

Answer 9: Yes. As long as the offeror can demonstrate meaningful involvement in the project it is acceptable.

j. Question 10: e.4.2. Are projects required to be completed within the last 3 years from the release of the solicitation date or can they be ongoing?

Answer 10: The project can be ongoing as long as it was started within three (3) years from the release of the solicitation.

k. Question 11: e.4.b.ii. Complexity – Can the government please provide additional information on what is meant by two or more simultaneous efforts being performed within the same functional area?

Answer 11: This section has been revised. Please see Amendment 0001, Section L.6, paragraph 2.3.2.

l. Question 12: Section L.5. Information to be submitted references “Required File Names” for the SF-1442, JV, Bonding, Experience Matrix and Technical Capability Statement. Are these files to be submitted as separate attachments and not combined in an Adobe Portfolio?

Answer 12: See answer to Question 2 above.

m. Question 13: Solicitation, L.5.1.3.1.2.c. Can the Gov’t provide a copy of the bi-weekly report format so we can assess what information the Gov’t will require?

Answer 13: This section has been revised. Please see Section L, paragraph 2.1.2.3.

n. Question 14: Section C.2. Subsection 1: Set-Asides, Paragraph 1. This sections states the Government intends to award at least 12 BOAs divided between HUBZone, WOSB, 8(a), and SDVOSB. Is it the intent of the Government to distribute work evenly amongst these four types of businesses?

Answer 14: This section has been amended. Please see Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

o. Question 15: Section L.5. Please confirm whether Offerors are to submit individual files and not one volume with individual tabs.

Answer 15: See answer to Question 2 above.

p. Question 16: Please confirm there are no page limits beyond the character limitations for the Experience Matrix attachment.

Answer 16: There are no page limits beyond the character limitations for the Experience Matrix attachment.

q. Question 17: Per paragraphs e.2 and 4, the minimum single bonding amount recommended is $4M and the minimum recommended aggregate bonding amount is $25M. Our current bonding capacity is $1M and $2M aggregate. Given that the amounts specified on the solicitation are recommended, I would like to seek clarity on whether strict adherence to the $4M single and $25M aggregate is necessary for our Company to be considered for this BOA.

Answer 17: This section has been revised. Please see Amendment 0001 to this solicitation, Section L, paragraph 2.1.3.1. Additionally, please visit https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/surety-bonds for information regarding the SBA’s Surety Bond Program.

r. Question 18: Section L.5.e.4. Experience/Past Performance Matrix. May offerors use contracts for past performance references which are ongoing contracts, or must they be complete?

Answer 18: Please see answer to Question10 above.

s. Question 19: Section L.5.1 General Documents. Please confirm that the submission is required to be formatted in six separate files.

Answer 19: Please see answer to Question 2 above.

t. Question 20: Section L.5.e.4.2 Experience/Past Performance Matrix. The RFP states “at least one (1) of the references submitted must have been performed by the Offeror.” However, The federal Government has submitted in its National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (TITLE VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters, Subtitle F—Small Business Matters, SEC. 865. Consideration of the Past Performance of Affiliate Companies of Small Business Concerns: Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall amend section 215.305 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (or any successor regulation) to require that when small business concerns bid on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past performance information of affiliate companies of the small business concerns.

In light of this ruling which will be in effect during the evaluation and award of this contract, please confirm that sister company past performance is allowable for all five references and will be rated with the same consideration as offeror references.

Answer 20: Please see Section L.1, paragraph 4 of Amendment 0001.

Experience/Past Performance shall be submitted IAW Section L.6 of Amendment 0001 and will be evaluated IAW Section M.4 of Amendment 0001. If the Offeror is relying upon a reference from an affiliate company, the Offeror must explain how the resources of the affiliate company will be utilized in performance of this proposed effort (see Section L.6, paragraph 2.4 of Amendment 0001).

u. Question 21: Section L.5.e.4.2.b.ii. Experience/Past Performance Matrix. The RFP states that past performance references must be similar in complexity. Please clarify what “simultaneous efforts being performed within the same function area” means. Is this referring to different trades performed, separate contracts being performed concurrently, or some other factor?

Answer 21: This section has been revised. Please see Amendment 0001, Section L.6, paragraph 2.3.2.

v. Question 22: SF 1442 Box 13.a. Page 1. Given the complexity of the requirements of this solicitation, please grant offerors a 14-day extension to properly onboard teaming members and articulate all requirements.

Answer 22: The due date has been extended. Please see Amendment 0001 for the revised due date and time.

w. Question 23: Statement of Work 3.1.2.2 Quality Control Manager. “QCM should have a minimum of an Associate’s degree in any field of construction or an Associate’s degree in an administrative discipline.” Is it acceptable to substitute years of experience for an Associate’s degree?

Answer 23: The QCM “should” have an Associate’s degree as described;

however, the QCM shall have the experience specified in this section.

x. Question 24: Do you have a preferred file name convention for the cover page?

(L.4.1.a).

Answer 24: No; however, Offeror’s are encouraged to follow the naming convention for other submission files. For example, the cover page could be named “OfferorsName_CoverPage”.

y. Question 25: What is the maximum file size you can accept in your email?

Answer 25: 15MB; however, Offerors are encouraged to read Section L.3 of Amendment 0001 regarding Proposal Submittal Instructions.

z. Question 26: Section 13.5 Contract Schedule (Attachment 01 – Statement of Work, page 13 of 17)“All order schedules will reserve, as a minimum, the final 10% of an Order for post construction/pre‐final inspection items such as as‐built drawings, training, O&M manuals, etc.” We ask that you consider no more than 5% for post construction items of a contract. For fixed price contracts that are selected under LPTA criteria, overhead and profit may equate to 10%. If the government withholds 10% of the contract value, contractors will be paying for its costs throughout project execution without earning overhead costs and profit until the end of the project. This is not a healthy business model.

Answer 26: No changes to this Section will be made at this time.

aa. Question 27: Section 3.1.2.1 Contract/Program Manager (Attachment 01 – Statement of Work, page 5 of 17). The government expects the Contract Program manager, amongst other responsibilities, “shall attend all status meetings, site visits and pre‐final/final inspections.” This may not always be feasible. Please consider deleting this clause.

Answer 27: The Contract/Program Manager can designate an alternate to act on their behalf. The Government understands the feasibility; however, all responsibilities, to include on-site or virtual attendance, will be clearly delineated at a pre-construction conference.

bb. Question 28: Attachment -2 – CAFB General Specifications Section 1.6.1.2 Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) (page 94 of 216). “The SSHO may also serve as the Quality Control Manager or as the Superintendent.” Does this mean that Task Orders, unless specified otherwise, will include a Site Superintendent and a Quality Control Manager only? Either of these persons can act as the SSHO?

Answer 28: Each Task Order will determine which individuals will be required.

Either of these individuals can serve as the SSHO. Please see the Duties of the SSHO in Attachment 02 – CAFB General Specifications, Section 01 35 26, Paragraph 1.6.4.1.

cc. Question 29: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] Section L.5.1.e.i requires a Technical Capability narrative to be provided. There is no page limitation provided for this document. Is there a page count on this document or does a page count not apply?

Answer 29: There is no font or page limit requirements for this section.

dd. Question 30: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] Section L.5.1.e.1.1 states, “An offeror that cannot self-perform specific construction tasks should clearly identify its subcontractors, by company and supported functional area.” Since we are not bidding on a seed project with a defined scope of work are their specific trades that should be identified in this section?

Answer 30: This section has been amended. Please see Amendment 0001, Section L.5, paragraph 2.

ee. Question 31: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] If Page Limitations are enforced for the Technical Capability Statement we advise that Resumes for individuals identified in Section L.5.e.3.2.a not be included in Page Limitations. Will this be acceptable?

Answer 31: There are no font or page limit requirements for resumes.

ff. Question 32: [Solicitation; page 46 of 51] Section L.5.e.4 references the Past Performance Matrix and references projects to be provided on Attachment 7.

E.4.2 states, “Offerors shall identify no more than five (5) recent and relevant projects performed within 3 years of release of this solicitation. It goes on in Section A to identify recent as, “Under which performance, delivery, or correction action has occurred within three (3) years of the release of this solicitation.” This does not identify whether a project must be complete or could be in progress. As this is a Small Business set aside and limited to three (3) years we suggest permitting projects that are at least 25% complete to be permitted to be used.

Please clarify the level of completeness to be considered recent.

Answer 32: Please see the answer to Question 10 above.

gg. Question 33: [Solicitation; page 51 of 51] Section M.2 Item 6.i Experience/Past Performance states, “At least one (1) of the BOA references submitted must have been performed by offeror…” Is this implying that an Offeror can submit another firm’s experience?

Answer 33: Please see section L.6, paragraph 2.4 of and Section M.4, paragraph

3.1.4 of Amendment 0001.

hh. Question 34: [Attachment 01; page 5 of 17] Statement of Work Section 3.1.2.1 indicates that the Contract Program Manager shall be available to meet the CO at CAFB Building 600 during standard business hours within 1 hour on active orders and 24 hours on non-active orders. As a Contract Program Manager would typically be a corporate function that is not onsite every day we suggest this be revised to state that this person should be available to meet via phone or teleconference within these time frames as opposed to onsite. Will the Government accept this suggested availability in lieu of what is indicated?

Answer 34: Please see the answer to Question 27 above.

ii. Question 35: [Attachment 01; page 5 of 17] Statement of Work Section 3.1.2.2 seems to infer that the Quality Control Manager can be one individual that oversees all projects assigned to the firm and does not have to be a separate individual on each task order. Please confirm this is correct.

Answer 35: This is correct.

jj. Question 36: [Attachment 07] Experience Matrix is provided for submission of applicable projects for establishing Experience Past Performance. Please confirm that no Past Performance Questionnaires or CPARS are required to be submitted as this is not referenced.

Answer 36: Correct. Only the Experience Matrix is required for submission to establish past performance; however, please see Section M of Attachment 0001 for all evaluation criteria.

kk. Question 37: [Attachment 2.5] This is a USACE Mobile District design manual.

Is this project being executed by Mobile District or will Contractor’s be required to follow the requirements of the USACE Mobile District design manual?

Answer 37: Please be award that this is not a single project award. This solicitation is for the establishment of a Basic Ordering Agreement, under which separate Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPR) will be issued for individual projects. Please review Section C.1, paragraphs 1 and 2 for BOA Execution Rules and Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPR). Requirements for individual orders will be covered in each TOPR.

ll. Question 38: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] Section L.5.1.e.i requires a Technical

Capability narrative to be provided. There is no minimum font size indicated. Is there a minimum font size required?

Answer 38: There is no font or page limit requirements for this section.

mm. Question 39: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] Section L.5.1.e.i requires a

Technical Capability narrative to be provided. There is no minimum page size indicated. Is there a required page size?

Answer 39: There is no font, page limit, or page size requirements for this section.

nn. Question 40: [Solicitation; page 45 of 51] Section L.5.1.e.i requires a Technical

Capability narrative to be provided. There are no minimum margins indicated for each page. Are there minimum margins required?

Answer 40: There is no font, page limit, or minimum margin requirements for this section.

//END OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS//