Attachment_36_-_RFI_Responses.docx

FA4887-13-R-0005 Luke AFB MACC – RFI Responses – 12 July 2013 Attachment 35

1. On page 57 of 76, item 1. Instructions for Volume I, Technical Proposal it states "Offeror shall submit the technical proposal on a CD or DVD plus two (2) hard copies" On page 62 of 76 item h. it states "In order to foster a fair and balanced evaluation environment, the offeror shall submit a redacted copy of only its technical proposal". Is the redacted copy in addition to the required two (2) hard copies or should 1 of the required two (2) hard copies be the redacted copy?

RESPONSE: Please submit two regular copies, one redacted copy, and one CD copy.

2. Amendment #2 states "Relevant contracts also include indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction services with a total contract value of at least $4,000,000." The way this reads to me is that an offeror can utilize IDIQ type contracts they have been awarded even though they may not have completed any task orders under the IDIQ. For instance, an offeror is part of a MATOC pool consisting of 5 other contractors with an overall aggregate contract value of $95,000,000 can they can utilize this experience without even being awarded one task order under the MATOC, which would really not be relevant to demonstrate past performance? Or is the intent of the statement that task orders under the IDIQ which have been successfully completed by the offeror and when combined are over $4,000,000. Can you please clarify?

RESPONSE: Yes, being a part of an IDIQ over $4M is considered a relevant form of past performance, even if the offeror has yet to perform a task order under said IDIQ.

3. Amendment #2 states "Relevant contracts also include indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction services with a total contract value of at least $4,000,000." The way this reads to me is that an offeror can utilize IDIQ type contracts they have been awarded even though they may not have completed any task orders under the IDIQ. For instance, an offeror is part of a MATOC pool consisting of 5 other contractors with an overall aggregate contract value of $95,000,000 can they can utilize this experience without even being awarded one task order under the MATOC, which would really not be relevant to demonstrate past performance? Or is the intent of the statement that task orders under the IDIQ which have been successfully completed by the offeror and when combined are over $4,000,000. Can you please clarify?

RESPONSE: Yes, amendment 0002 states: Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on project(s) exceeding $4 million, and the contractor performed as prime. This includes stand alone contracts and individuals Task Orders to include IDIQs, MATOCs, and JOCs etc. You are correct; an award of a base contract will be accepted. Now, if the awardee is one of multiple awardees, then the single contract value stated on the awardees contract is what will have precedence.

4. During the site visit, there was a discussion on the acceptable way the Offerer is to show the engineers of record are registered in Arizona. Please confirm that a printout from the Arizona Board of Technical Registration's (the governing body for the state of Arizona) website is acceptable.

RESPONSE: An acceptable proof of registration will clearly and verifiably identify the individual and the registering entity. A copy of each individual’s physical registration is desirable, but if a printout from the AZ Board of Technical Registrations satisfies the aforementioned criteria, it will suffice.

5. Can we acknowledge all amendments on the SF1442 or do you want the SF30 filled out and signed for each amendment?

RESPONSE: Please acknowledge and sign each amendment separately.

6. Do resumes count towards the page count?

RESPONSE: Yes, please in include resumes in the page count.

7. Do we need to submit one Registration per A&E category listed or do we need to submit the registrations of all of our current personnel?

RESPONSE: Please submit one registration per A&E category.

8. Ref Paragraph 2.b.(2) Section K. Do you want the entire Section K filled out placed in the proposal or just a statement that we are registered on SAM?

RESPONSE: Please complete and submit all applicable portions of Section K, to include a verification that representations and certifications currently posted to SAM are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of the offer.

9. Ref Paragraph 2.b.(3) Section I. Do you want the entire Section I placed in the proposal with applicable paragraphs filled out or just those items where an entry is required?

RESPONSE: Please submit, at a minimum, the filled-in portions of Section I. You may submit the remaining portions, but it is not required.

10. Is the contracting agency expecting the JV / MP to be approved prior to bidding or only approved prior to award?

RESPONSE: Joint Venture (JV) relationships and Mentor/Protégé agreements require SBA approval prior to award.

11. Demonstration Project (Sub-Factor) states “The offeror shall provide a technical approach, on no more than 5 pages”. The submission requirements also state “Offerors shall also complete and return AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule (Attachment 9) as well as a Schedule of Values.” Please confirm the AF Form 3064 is NOT included in the 5 page limit for this section.

RESPONSE: 3064 is NOT included in the 5 page limit for this section.

12. Demonstration Project (Sub-Factor) states “The offeror shall provide a technical approach, on no more than 5 pages”. The submission requirements also state “Offerors shall also complete and return AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule (Attachment 9) as well as a Schedule of Values.” Please confirm that the schedule of values is NOT included in the 5 page limit for this section.

RESPONSE: Schedule of values is NOT included in the 5 page limit for this section.

13. Demonstration Project (Sub-Factor) states “The offeror shall provide a technical approach, on no more than 5 pages”. The submission requirements also state “Offerors shall also complete and return AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule (Attachment 9) as well as a Schedule of Values.” It is not typical for pricing information to be provided as part of a technical proposal. Please confirm we shall include the pricing information from the schedule of values in this section.

RESPONSE: If the document is labeled as Schedule of Values then it must be in Volume I.

14. How many hard copies of the redacted proposal shall we submit?

RESPONSE: One and it is only the Technical Volume.

15. Is the redacted proposal version to be provided on CD and/or DVD?

RESPONSE: I would recommend an electronic copy of all submitted documents be submitted.

16. Page 73, Mandatory Compliance Items, Section L, A.7 states “Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.” Please confirm where we shall submit this item (Price Proposal or Technical Proposal and where within the appropriate Volume).

RESPONSE: Since we did not state where, use your best judgment. Maybe even a separate document called RFP Exceptions.

17. Where/how shall we provide the redacted technical proposal? In a separate binder than the other three Volumes? Or as a Tab within the Technical Proposal?

RESPONSE: Within the Technical Volume I.

18. Please confirm that the government is only requesting a redacted version of Volume I, Technical Proposal and no other portion of our proposal (e.g. Volume III, Past Performance or Volume II Price).

RESPONSE: Correct.

19. The proposal submission requirements in regards to the redacted version states “the redacted copy will not include names or descriptions of employees or other individuals associated with the proposal.” Is the government requesting that we do NOT submit resume information with the redacted version?

RESPONSE: Submit Resumes but the redacted copy will be void of any personally identifiable information, to include corporate names, emblems, seals, or other insignia. Furthermore, the redacted copy will not include names or descriptions of employees or other individuals associated with the proposal.

20. What specific sections within Volume I is the government requested to be submitted as redacted? Demonstration Project (Sub-Factor), Management Plan (Sub-factor) only, while excluding the resumes and professional registrations of the designer personnel?

RESPONSE: All of Volume I.

21. Please confirm design-build, partial design-build and design-bid-build all forms of contracting are relevant types of contracts and thus may be submitted as relevant projects in the Past Performance volume.

RESPONSE: I would focus on all build types! But Luke mainly does Design-Build.

22. Volume III, Past Performance Information Factor, paragraph (b)(2) states that “If the offeror proposes a Joint Venture/teaming arrangement, the team as a whole is limited to five (5) of the most relevant contracts.” Please confirm that the Teaming Arrangement referenced includes our proposed design team (if there is a teaming agreement in place), and that their Past Performance can be submitted under this factor to qualify our team. If so, will their experience rated as highly as offeror/Joint Venture experience?

RESPONSE: Only if there is something to validate the arrangement will the Past Performance count. Yes equal value and this MACC is not design only. Please make sure your Past Performance is some build type.

23. If the offeror is submitting as an 8(a) Joint Venture, will the government please confirm how many projects shall be submitted from each member of the JV? (We have typically seen that at least one relevant project be submitted from each JV partner).

RESPONSE: The JV itself should try and submit as many of the five. But as long as the Past Performance projects are from one of the parties that make up the JV. All are equal. Technically all five could be from one member of the JV.

24. Past Performance submission requirements states that “Relevant contracts also include indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction services with a total contract value of $4,000,000.” Please confirm 1) The $4-M refers to the IDIQ value AND 2) IDIQ experience is considered relevant.

RESPONSE: Yes, Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on project(s) exceeding $4 million, and the contractor performed as prime. This includes stand alone contracts, individuals Task Orders and (IDIQs, MATOCs, JOCs, etc.)

25. The evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Past Performance defines “Very relevant” as “Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on stand alone or multiple project(s) (such as SABER, MATOCs or MACCs) exceeding $15 million, and the contractor performed as prime contractor. This is including IDIQ base contracts and individual task orders.”

RESPONSE: Yes, anything exceeding $15 million, and the contractor performed as prime contractor. This is including IDIQ base contracts and individual Task Orders or Stand Alone Contracts.

26. Please confirm our understanding of “very relevant” as IDIQs with contract capacity over $15-M can be submitted as relevant experience.

RESPONSE: We will evaluate the submitted five projects and will determine which Relevancy rating to assign to each.

27. The evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Past Performance defines “Very relevant” as “Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on stand alone or multiple project(s) (such as SABER, MATOCs or MACCs) exceeding $15 million, and the contractor performed as prime contractor. This is including IDIQ base contracts and individual task orders.” It also states “To be recent, a portion of the effort must have occurred within the past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the RFP. Current efforts not yet completed shall have had at least six (6) months of performance prior to the issue date of the RFP.” Please confirm that to meet the recency requirements, and to be considered very relevant, that as long as we have been the IDIQ holder as prime contractor for over 6 months, that we can submit the IDIQ experience as a very relevant project.

RESPONSE: Correct.

28. The evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Past Performance defines “Very relevant” as “Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on stand alone or multiple project(s) (such as SABER, MATOCs or MACCs) exceeding $15 million, and the contractor performed as prime contractor. This is including IDIQ base contracts and individual task orders.” If an 8(a) firm had five projects that met these criteria, they would likely not be a small business. Please confirm that we not every project we submit shall meet this criteria to receive the highest rating on this factor. For instance, if we submit one project that meets this criteria, along with 4 others that meet either the criteria of the “relevant” or “somewhat relevant” that we would still be rated as highly as firms who submit five projects meeting the “Very Relevant” criteria. Our concern is that 8(a) Joint Ventures relying solely on their large business partner will have an advantage by submitting the past performance of the large firm who does have five projects that meet the “very Relevant” criteria, even if we, as a small 8(a) firm have only one.

RESPONSE: If the Large Business is the minor owner of the JV with the 8(a) (major member) then yes, the Large may submit all five. Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé: Past performance regarding minor members (company without 8(a) certification) of the Joint Venture will be considered as equal to the major member (company with 8(a) certification) of those arrangements.

29. While reviewing Volume III past performance information pg 59 of 76, it states that the offeror is to turn in a (PPIRS) or a (PPQ). What we would like to know is if a CCASS evaluation will suffice as a past performance information? If so can the evaluation come from the contractor?

RESPONSE: You may submit CCASS, but CCASS will not be evaluated in lieu of the required PPQs. Thanks for asking.

30. Is there a page limitation on resumes?

RESPONSE: No, there is not a page limit on resumes.

31. Can we insert all SF 30’s, behind the SF 1442?

RESPONSE: Yes, SF 30’s can be submitted behind the SF 1442.

32. Can you provide $ ranges for stand-alone projects? – Pg. 6 on original RFP states that Task Orders will range from $2K - $19M. We want to clarify what $ ranges would be most relevant for stand-alone projects.

RESPONSE: The $2K - $19M range is the possible award of Task Orders for the Luke MACC. Based on the in depth evaluation, recent past performance will be rated as Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant as defined in Table 1. Relevancy of Performance.

33. Can our Teaming Agreement be excluded from the 24-page count?

RESPONSE: No, this page limit must include any applicable past performance information.

34. Regarding Vol. I Technical – You’ve stated a 30-Page Count for the Volume and then put a specific 5-page limit on B.1.a. – What about the other items? Is there any specific page limit on them?

B.1.a. - Technical Approach / 5-page limit B.1.b. - A&E Team Plan – Copies of Registrations / Is this included 30 page limit?

B.1.c. - Management Plan / Any page limit?

B.1.d. - Resumes of PM, QCM, SO, & Superintendent / Any page limit on resumes? (asked above in Question #3)

RESPONSE: Volume I, 30-page limit applies aggregately to all technical documentation required therein. If a specific page limit is not listed, that document may be of any length that does not cause the technical volume to exceed the specified 30-page limit. This does not include attachments (i.e. AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule).

35. Regarding Vol. III Past Performance – You’ve stated a 24-Page Count the Volume. Is there any specific page limit on each of the items?

B.3.a/b. - Performance Surveys/Listing who they were sent to B.3.b(1)(2) - 5 project/contracts write-up pages B.3.b.(3) - JV Agreement & listing of past & present relevant contracts / Is this included in Page limit? (asked in Question #7 above) B.3.b.(4) - Subcontractor Consent Letter RESPONSE: Likewise, the Past Performance 24-page limit applies aggregately to all past performance documentation required therein. If a specific page limit is not listed, that document may be of any length that does not cause the past performance volume to exceed the specified 24-page limit.

36. The chart states that you want “two (2) hard copies” for each volume. Please clarify – Do you want 1-Original & 2-Copies or 1-Original & 1-Copy?

RESPONSE: Please provide 1 original and 1 copy for a total of 2 printed documents, with the exception of the technical proposal, which requires 1 original, 1 copy, and 1 redacted copy for a total of 3 printed documents.

37. “Text will use 1.5 line spacing” – With having page limits, and font size restriction, we would like to know if we could request a 1.0 line spacing?

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, for clarity and to encourage contractors to submit concise and clear proposals, line spacing will remain at 1.5.

38. We do not have the 2007 version of MS Word – Can we submit our CD in a .pdf format?

RESPONSE: Yes, you may submit information contained on CD’s in .pdf format.

39. Are the names of the A&E’s that would be listed on the registration forms to be “Whited-out” as well?

RESPONSE: Not individual names, please remove all propriety or identifiable information associated with the proposal. This includes any company names.

40. At the site visit it was mentioned that the server room remodel would not extend into the adjacent classroom, which is contrary to the existing SOO and plans.

a. Will there be a new SOO issued?

b. Will the due date be extended with a new SOO to provide time to develop 35% drawings and an accurate estimate?

c. If no new SOO, can offeror’s bid off of the provided plans without any additional design as they are complete and ‘ready for construction’

RESPONSE: a.) Yes, a revision to the SOO is being processed to address this discrepancy and should be posted as an amendment to the RFP next week. b.) The government does not anticipate an extension to the proposal due date as a result of this amendment. c.) Offerors should develop their proposals based on the current version of the server room designs. However, this will not preclude any potential future changes from being made to the designs.

41. Will a HAZ-MAT report for the demonstration project work area be provided?

RESPONSE: The government will provide notice of any hazardous material located in or near the work area.

42. The site visit mentioned on the demonstration project that there would be ‘zero down time’ on the servers in the IT room to be remodeled. Understanding it is the contractor’s responsibility to protect the servers in place, who will be responsible for moving, any required disconnecting/reconnecting of data cabling required for construction?

RESPONSE: The contractor will be responsible for accomplishing all aspects of the project, to include the relocation of existing equipment.

43. At the site visit, it was mentioned that due to the size of the project that a separate SSHO, superintendent, and QC Manager would not be necessary (which is in contradiction to the RFP requirements); but combined roles were not defined. Will there be a clear direction on how to staff this project on an amended SOO? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: All management personnel positions must be filled by separate individuals.

44. How will task orders among the selected MACC contractors be competed? Will it be stated on the SOO if it is lowest price or best value? At the site visit it was mentioned that initially they would be based on lowest price, but then past performance would be considered after a number of TOs were completed. Please clarify as this is not defined in the RFP.

RESPONSE: Depending on the scope and complexity of the requirement, task orders will be evaluated on a “Best Value” basis, taking into account price, past performance, as well as any other significant evaluation factors. Please see FAR 15.101 for a more detailed description of evaluation methods.

45. Section M of the RFP on pg. 72 of 76, Step 1, Factor 1, Subfactor 3 – Management Plan. The rating scheme for this subfactor is ‘Outstanding to Marginal’, yet the overall rating is for Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability is stated as only Acceptable/Unacceptable in the RFP. What is the purpose of the ‘Outstanding to Marginal’ ranking of subfactor 3 – Management Plan? Will an offeror that ranks higher than others in subfactor 3 – Management Plan have an advantage going into Step 2, Factor 2 – Price of Demonstration Project? If so, that is inconsistent with the RFP Section M.C.1. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: The purpose of the “marginal to outstanding” rating method for the management plan is to rate these elements relatively to one another, rather than on a pass/fail basis. We are bound by case law in this regard. However, an overall “acceptable or unacceptable” rating will be assigned to the technical proposal. A “marginal” management plan may preclude an offer from being rated as technically acceptable. Acceptable offers will not be ranked among each other based on their management plan rating.

46. On pg. 72 of 76 of the RFP, Section M.C.1 states ‘the government will rank only the price proposals from lowest to highest….’, then in paragraph 2 states ‘if any of the first 5 lowest total evaluated price offeror’s are given a substantial confidence assessment rating, that will be considered the best value to the government and selected for award.’ It was stated at the site visit that the government wanted realistic and the best workable solutions for SOOs, where this RFP wording reads that the evaluation would be based upon meeting the minimal requirements and having lowest price vs. best value (i.e. higher upfront/initial construction costs that would provide a long term cost-savings to the government). Please clarify further how Step 2, Factor 2 – Price of Demonstration Project will be evaluated (i.e. will it be low price only regardless of design or will price relative to submitted 35% design be considered?).

RESPONSE: Keep in mind that we are distinguishing “Price” from the “Total Evaluated Price.” An offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be considered relatively to the TEPs of other offerors and ranked according to the evaluation techniques located in Section M. The TEP evaluation is not simply a selection of the 5 lowest priced offers. Rather, it takes into account all of the factors you have listed and then some, i.e. completeness, reasonableness, and realism. More details can be found in paragraphs B.3.a through B.3.d of Section M.

47. Attachment 18 references a link to the Government UFC requirements for Air Force Military Buildings. In this section describes the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) documents that provide planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and apply to all Military Departments. Listed in this section is UFC Criteria UFC 4-021-01 Design and O&M: Mass Notification Systems (MNS), with Change 1.

This requirement is not part of section 283123 16721 ‘Fire Alarm and Detection Systems’. This Mass Notification System is part of the Fire Alarm Life Safety System. Will this MNS emergency life safety system be incorporated into this building?

RESPONSE: No Fire Alarm in Demonstration Project.

48. Section 283123 16721, ‘Fire Alarm and Detection Systems’, paragraph 1.04-System Description, Item A, has a design requirement for a new fire alarm equipment that must be compatible with the existing system and central reporting command center. Since the Mass Notification Systems (MNS) is a requirement of Attachment 18, DOD Unified Facilities Criteria, and the Luke Base standard which is SimplexGrinnell, then Section 2.01, Acceptable Manufacturers, should list SimplexGrinnell only. This will assure the Base the desired standardization required for Base wide life safety systems and provide consistency to the operation of emergency communication by Fire Department authorities. Also this standardization will limit the amount of maintenance if other systems with different operational systems were to be provided.

RESPONSE: Please disregard the conflict. Each Task Order will have its own Statement of work and specifications.

49. Can you please tell me if a Bid Bond is required with our proposal? On Form 1442 it states "offer guarantee IS NOT required, does this mean no bid bonds required?

RESPONSE: A bid bond is not required.

50. Will the Government be providing the asbestos and lead based paint surveys under separate contract or should the contractor assume they will be required under the individual task order(s)?

RESPONSE: The government will provide any relevant hazardous material surveys.

51. In the event asbestos containing building materials or lead based paint are present will the Government be contracting for the abatement services separately or will the contractor be required to incorporate these costs into their task order proposal?

RESPONSE: The contractor will be responsible for the abatement of all hazardous materials such as these and should incorporate these costs if they are incurred.

52. Should the contractor assume the Government will remain the generator on any waste manifests and will sign accordingly?

RESPONSE: The government will sign any waste manifests.

We are planning on proposing on the MACC as a JV. We would like to know if you will admit attachment 26 for our companies individually. Our companies bank at separate financial institutions. Our JV does not have an extensive financial history together. We are trying to demonstrate our absolute capacity. Please advise.

RESPONSE: Yes, partners may submit separate Financial Information Requests.

53. During the site visit, there was a discussion on the acceptable way the Offerer is to show the engineers of record are registered in Arizona. Please confirm that a printout from the Arizona Board of Technical Registration's (the governing body for the state of Arizona) website is acceptable.

RESPONSE: An acceptable proof of registration will clearly and verifiably identify the individual and the registering entity. A copy of each individuals physical registration is desirable, but if a printout from the AZ Board of Technical Registrations satisfies the aforementioned criteria, it will suffice.

54. Page 59 of 76, items 6 ( Bank Reference) states the offeror shall complete the highlighted areas of the Financial Information Request (Attachment 26) provide it to their financial institution, with instruction to complete and provide it as a portion of the price proposal. However, the first page of Attachment 26 (cover letter) instructs the financial institution to return it directly to the contracting officer. Please clarify whether the government wants Attachment 26 submitted directly to them or is it to be returned to the offeror and submitted as part of the price proposal?

RESPONSE: Attachment 26 should be submitted by the Financial Institution.

55. Page 59 of 76, items 7 ( Bonding) states the offeror shall complete the highlighted areas of the Bonding Information Request (Attachment 27) provide it to their surety with instruction to complete and provide it as a portion of the price proposal. However, the first page of Attachment 27 (cover letter) instructs the surety to return it directly to the contracting officer. Please clarify whether the government wants Attachment 27 submitted directly to them or is it to be returned to the offeror and submitted as part of the price proposal?

RESPONSE: Attachment 27 should be submitted by the surety.

56. As discussed during the site pre-proposal meeting of 7/8/13 - Should the General Contractor bid this project in accordance with the issued drawings in the RFP from Stantec dated 2/27/09? If not - will the contractor receive NEW SOW/drawings?

RESPONSE: Bid this project in accordance with the issued drawings in the RFP from Stantec dated 2/27/09

57. Is the contractor to include a design fee for this project? If so will the design fee be required to be broken down into 35%, 65%, 100% design phases?

RESPONSE: Based on the above answer, no. But if you feel there is a design flaw, then any re-design fees associated with that flaw would apply.

58. Is there a HAZMAT report for this project and if so can the Government make this report accessible to all teams?

RESPONSE: Yes, it is attachment 35 on Amendment 0004

59. For this particular project will the contractor need a superintendent, QC, and safety officer on site full time? If so and given the size of this project, can the superintendent, QC and safety be the same person?

RESPONSE: Typically the Government likes to see a superintendent, QC, and safety officer on site full time. But this is something that you will have to decide for your own methodology of this project.

59. The transition from existing systems to new systems will require some down time. What is the maximum allotted down time the owner will allow?

RESPONSE: There will be no down time for the servers. Please accommodate for this in your schedule and price.

60. Will the servers need to be relocated and if so what is the new location?

RESPONSE: They will need to be moved but kept in the same construction area.

61. On page 58 of 76 2.b.(3) section K representations and certifications, Would you like us to submit to you our company’s SAM printout for proof of representations and certifications with the proposal?

RESPONSE: You are required to fill-in all portions of the RFP. You may submit a SAM printout in addition.

62. What will be the bonding requirement for the MACC contract?

RESPONSE: No specific requirement. But you must submit your current bonding on attachment 27.