FA486110RA200_NELLIS_MACC_RFI 6 to 17_11 AUG 10.docx

FA4861-10-R-A200; Nellis Multiple Award Construction Contract; Requests for Information

RFI 6

On page 83 of 85 of the solicitation, # 2 section D; can you please clarify the description for the Very Relevant projects.

Is the contractor to assume that the government is looking for Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on multiple projects (such as the SABER, MACC, IDIQ, ) with a combined value exceeding $2 million, and the contractor performed as the prime or individual projects exceeding $2 million, and the contractor performed as a prime.

Answer: As stated in RFP paragraph F.6.a performance confidence shall be assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance on individual projects, focusing on performance that is relevant to the MACC. In accordance with RFP paragraph F.6.c.(2) the Government will conduct a relevancy assessment to determine how closely the construction services performed under those contracts relate to the MACC. The description provided for Very Relevant performance as stated in paragraph F.6.d states the guidelines that shall be utilized to determine the kind of projects most relevant to the MACC. The contractor shall not assume any criteria other than what is explicitly stated in the RFP shall be utilized in making this determination.

RFI 7

On page 67 of the RFP under G. 1. c. the solicitation states the PPIS forms are limited to 4 pages, however number 5. b. on the same page states each PPIS shall not exceed 8 pages. Please clarify that 8 pages is the correct page limit for the PPIS forms.

Answer: Paragraph G.5.b is incorrect and paragraph G.1.c is correct. This change will officially be incorporated as an amendment to the solicitation.

RFI 8

Can the electronic version requested be provided by PDF’s

Answer: Electronic offers may also be submitted in format readable by Adobe Acrobat 7.0. This change will officially be incorporated as an amendment to the soliciation.

RFI 9

On page 71 0f 85 of the solicitation documents sub-paragraph A is missing is the acceptable or d o we need to included something else in our proposal?

Answer: There is no information contained in the missing sub-paragraph a. This shall be clarified officially in an amendment to the solicitation.

RFI 10

On Page 73 of 85 is state’s maximum of 4 pages per PPIS then in section 5.B it states maximum 8 pages per PPIS please confirm which is correct

Answer: Please reference answer to RFI # 7

RFI 11

Is the a limitation for the number of project to be provided in the Past Performance Section?

Answer: Please reference paragraph G.5.b in section L-101.

RFI 12

On Pager 72 of 85 Key note (3) is missing. Please provide if required.

Answer: There is no information contained in the missing Key note (3). This shall be clarified officially in an amendment to the solicitation.

RFI 13

I cannot find the referenced DCID 6/9 for SAPF & TS/ Vault requirements dated 27 Feb 09 either on FBO or the internet. The ones that keep coming up when I search are dated 2002. Can you provide the referenced document or a link? Thank you.

Answer: A forthcoming amendment to the solicitation shall replace the reference to DCID 6/9 with JAFAM 6/9. The appropriate reference shall be included with the project package in the referenced amendment.

RFI 14

Section L - Instructions to offerors – E. Factor 1 – Technical – Paragraph 3a (page 71 0f 85): requires submittal of a complete 35% construction design.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for award – 4. Factor 1-Technical Acceptability b. provides evaluation factors for a 35% design.

Section 01010 – Paragraph 1.3.2.6.2 states : “The Government will not be obligated to reimburse the contractor for work performed, items delivered, or any costs incurred, nor shall the contractor be obligated to perform, deliver, or otherwise incur costs except as authorized by duly executed TO’s.”

Section 01010 – Paragraph 1.3.3 states that the contractor will be required to provide a 10% design along with their bid.

Attachment 10 Bid schedule – Line item 0001 – allows 30 calendar days from notice to proceed to prepare the 35% design.

Upon consideration of the above, please note:

1. The RFP appears to be in conflict concerning the requirements for design document submittal with the bid.

2. Requiring the contractor to provide a complete 35% design with the proposal will require the design team to fully expend approximately 35% of the anticipated fee without a duly executed TO, while being fully at risk, with no guarantee that the project will be awarded to the design team. This is in conflict with the paragraph 01010 1.3.2.6.2, and is totally unfair and unreasonable.

3. To provide a complete 35% submittal would require enough time to fully examine existing conditions, take measurements, interview the Air Force project manager and related personnel, and fully coordinate the project.

4. Please confirm that the intent of the RFP is to require the Contractor to submit a 10% design with their proposal as stated in section 01010 Paragraph 1.3.3.

Answer: Answers to this RFI assume reference to 1.3.2.6.2 is actually meant to be a reference to 1.3.2.6.3

1. There is no conflict conerning the design document to be submitted with the bid. References in section 01010 1.3.3 describes the general procedures under which, except in rare cases, task orders for future projects shall be issued upon execution of the MACC contract(s). These have no bearing on the evaluation process for the award of the overall MACC contract(s).

2. Based on the answer provided in item 1, this is not in conflict with the MACC section 01010. Furthermore, no one is required to bid on the MACC and as no parties are obligated to bid the requirement of a 35% design is neither unfair nor unreasonable.

3. A 35% design is being required to help the Government evaluate firsthand an offeror’s technical capability to provide a quality design on future projects that meets the requirements defined in section 01010 utilizing limited information. If an offeror does not have all the information they believe is required, they may either request further information from the Government or , if it is reasonable to do so, may state assumptions upon which their design is based. Should the demonstration project be awarded there shall be additional time for site investigation and Government coordination provided prior to submission of a 100% design. The RFP shall be clarified to state this in the forthcoming amendment. All contractors were afforded the opportunity to examine existing conditions and take measurements during the preproposal conference when the site visit occurred.

4. The intent of the RFP is to provide exactly that which is stated in section L-101 – a 35% design.

RFI 15

1. In Evaluation Factor 3 Past Performance, under 5.b, the solicitation states that the requested number of PPIS forms for the Prime and Subcontractors are preferences, and not requirements.

2. In Evaluation Factor 3 Past Performance, under 6.c, the solicitation states that past performance of other teaming partners shall not be considered. We will be submitting our proposal under a Joint Venture of two construction firms with our architectural and engineering firms as subcontractors under the JV; are Past Performance Questionnaire responses from either our engineering or architectural subcontractors either necessary or desirable by the Air Force to demonstrate their capabilities?

Answer:

1. Paragraph G.5.b. is meant to read “PPIS forms for the Prime and each joint venture partner are preferences, and not requirements.” This shall be clarified in an upcoming amendment. Rationale as to why the number requested are not firm is already provided in the same paragraph.

2. Past performance for your engineering or architectural subcontractors are neither necessary nor desirable. The Government does not wish to base award of the MACC contract(s) on any informal arrangements that may only pretain to the demonstration project. Since joint ventures are formal teaming arrangements that would apply throughout the entirety of the MACC contract(s), these shall be considered.

RFI 16

1. In Section L, Factor 3 – Past Performance, it says only four (4) pages per PPIS are allowed. However, at the bottom of that same page, it says that “Each PPIS shall not exceed 8 pages.” Please clarify this discrepancy.

2. In Section L, Factor 3 – Past Performance, it says that three (3) to six (6) recent contracts are to be provided by the “prime contractor.” Then the “NOTE” in that same paragraph mentions the PPIS forms for the “prime and subcontractors.” Are all 3 to 6 contracts to be provided ONLY by the prime contractor? In Section M. Factor 3 – Past Performance, it says that the “Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.” Please clarify.

3. Are “reps and certs” required only from the prime contractor or from all teaming members?

Answer:

1. Please reference the response to RFIs # 7.

2. Please reference answer to RFI #15.

3. As stated in F.2.c. reps and certs shall only be provided by the actual Offeror (the prime contractor).

RFI 17

Pursuant to the above referenced project, I have a few quick questions relating to the RFP.

1) Under E. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL, 3. B. the RFP requests as a part of the Technical Response a completed form AF-3064, Contract Progress Schedule. Is this Contract Progress Schedule (Pre-Construction & Construction) to be based upon the “Seed” Project?

2) Under E. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL, 3. B. the RFP specifically requests that the responding offeror include a “filled-out” AF-3065, Contract Progress Report (presumably the percentage completion and billing form relating to Form AF-3064. Inasmuch as the project is not yet awarded, the %-completion Column would be zero across the board. Is this understanding of a “sample/example” of what you are requesting?

3) Would you like a regular construction schedule (Gantt Chart) for the Seed Project in addition to/or in lieu of form AF-3064 ?

Answer:

1. Progress Schedule is to be based on the demonstration project.

2. As requested in L-101 E.3.b. only the schedule of values must be filled out for the AF 3065. It is understood that everything is 0% complete.

3. No documentation other than that which is explicitly requried by the RFP shall be required nor is it desired. You are reminded that Technical acceptability is determined on a pass/fail basis and providing anything above and beyond the minimum requirements shall neither be looked upon favorably nor unfavorably.