Attachment_40_-_RFI_Responses_3.docx

FA4887-13-R-0005 Luke AFB MACC – RFI Responses – 23 July 2013 Attachment 40

1. Is the schedule a part of the page count or is it separate?

RESPONSE: Attachments 10 are included in page limit.

2. Attachment 24 has no reference to where it goes in the proposal so would it go in Vol. III?

RESPONSE: Attachments 24 shall go in Volume III.

3. Per Section L, Item B.3, Instructions for Volume III-Past Performance Information, Note b.2 states that "relevant contracts also include indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction services with a contract value of a least $ 4,000,000.00". Pursuant to 13 CFR 124.506, Chapter 1 (2011 Edition) IDIQ contracts that were awarded to 8(a) firms in 2011, within the the 3-year limitation of the date of this RFP, had a maximum threshold of $ 3,500,000.00 and the maximum threshold did not increase to $ 4,000,000.00 until 2012. Are IDIQ contracts with a maximum value of $ 3,500,000.00 and that are within the 3-year limitation of the date of this RFP acceptable to submit in Volume III-Past Performance Information?

RESPONSE: 13 CFR 124.506, Chapter 1 references competitive thresholds for 8(a). NOT 8(a) award threshholds. The $3.5M was the limit for a sole source 8(a) ward. The evaluation criteria will not be changed.

4. Per Section L, Item B.3, Instructions for Volume III-Past Performance Information, Note b.2 states that "relevant contracts calso include indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction services with a contract value of a least $ 4,000,000.00". Pursuant to 13 CFR 124.506, Chapter 1 (2011 Edition) IDIQ contracts that were awarded to 8(a) firms in 2011, within the the 3-year limitation of the date of this RFP, had a maximum threshold of $ 3,500,000.00 and the maximum threshold did not increase to $ 4,000,000.00 until 2012. Are IDIQ contracts with a maximum value of $ 3,500,000.00 and that are within the 3-year limitation of the date of this RFP acceptable to submit in Volume III-Past Performance Information?

RESPONSE: 13 CFR 124.506, Chapter 1 references competitive thresholds for 8(a). NOT 8(a) award threshholds. The evaluation criteria will not be changed.

5. Per Section 11 of the Solicitation, the project duration is 365 days from award. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: Yes. The contract has a base year is for 365 days. Plus four (4) one year options that are also 365 days each.

6. I am asking for clarification on the Solicitation Offer 1442 - Section B Supplies or Services and Prices :

Item No. 0001 – Base Contract Period Item No. 1001 – Option Year 1 Period Item No. 2001 – Option Year 2 Period Item No. 3001 – Option Year 3 Period Item No. 4001 – Option Year 4 Period

Each of these CLIN Pricing items is requesting a Net Amount be submitted yet the MACC clearly indicates that the task orders are awarded within a specific price range ($ 2,000 to $ 19,000,000). Is it your intent that we respond with one specific amount which we would hope to be awarded in each year or is it your intent that we simply respond with the specified range given in the Solicitation ?

RESPONSE: Please insert $19,000,000 in each of the CLINs. Proposals will not be evaluated on this number, as CLIN pricing is not part of the evaluation process.

7. Section 1.a (Volume I) of the solicitation asked for a schedule of values. Please clarify if this schedule of values is a generic schedule or completed using the values on Attachment 14 in Volume II.

RESPONSE: Offerors should NOT submit their schedule of values using the template found in Attachement 14. Attachment 14 should only be used to provide the price proposal.

8. Amendment # 5 page 3 of 11 lists Attachment # 37 “Revised SOO Demonstration Project” but page 2 of 11 still lists Attachment # 2 “SOO Demonstration Project” as an applicable contract attachment. This causes confusion as to which statement of work applies to the demonstration project. Is deleting the superseded attachment # 2 from the list of attachments is an option you could consider?

RESPONSE: Look for Amendment 0006 to delete Attachment 2.

9. Based on response to Amendment # 5 RFI response no. 13 please confirm that the demonstration project is fully designed and not a design-build project and therefore no design or CA services or fees should be included in our proposal. Please also confirm that CA services for the server room renovation is the responsibility of the USG’s design team.

RESPONSE: The demonstration project is fully designed and not a design-build project. There should be No added design fees. It is the responsibility if the contractor for all costs of the rack system.

10. There are no Fire Sprinkler drawings in the 100% design provided by Stantec. Please confirm no work is required to the Fire Sprinkler system in the demonstration project.

RESPONSE: Yes, there is no work to the Fire Sprinkler System.

11. Would you like to see the schedule of values in Volume I completed with the values for the Seed Project in Volume II? Or, is the schedule of values request to show a sample of our schedule of values? My concern is disclosing price in the technical proposal.

RESPONSE: We are not looking for a price breakdown in the schedule of values. Rather, we’d like to see a breakdown of categories and sub-categories with percentages. Prices included in this portion (or anywhere in Volume I) will not be evaluated. Only prices in Volume II will be evaluated.

12. Fed Biz Ops has 11 Amendments posted for the Luke MACC but there are only 5 actual SF 30’s. The additional Amendments posted on FBO are attachments. Do we only acknowledge the official SF30’s or do we also acknowledge each of the attachments that are labeled as Amendments on FBO and if so how do we acknowledge them. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Please only acknowledge those amendments with an associated SF30.

13. Please note that the following deliverables will not be included in your total page count:

· Attch 8: AF Form 66

· Attch 9: AF Form 3064

· Attch 10: AF Form 3065

· Attch 11: AF Form 3000

· Attch 21: Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter

· Attch22: Teaming List

· Attch 23: Release of Past Performance Information

· Attch 24: Past Performance Information Sheet

· Attch 25: Client Authorization Letter

· Attch26: Financial Information Request

· Attch 27: Bonding Information Request

· Attch 32: L&M Matrix (NOT a mandatory deliverable)

14. Instructions for Volume II – Price Proposal state “Offerors shall not address pricing information outside the Price Proposal. Work hour estimates and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes as appropriate for supporting rationale”. Instructions for Volume I – Technical Proposal states “Offerors shall also complete and return the AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule (attachment 9) as well a Schedule of Values.” In our experience, a Schedule of Values includes pricing information which according to the price proposal instructions shall NOT be included in other Volumes of the proposal. Please confirm the format, or expectations of the Schedule of Values within Volume I Technical. For instance, is the government requesting AF Form 3052 or AF Form 3065? These forms include material and labor, but not pricing information. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: We are not looking for a price breakdown in the schedule of values. Rather, we’d like to see a breakdown of categories and sub-categories with percentages. Prices included in this portion (or anywhere in Volume I) will not be evaluated. Only prices in Volume II will be evaluated. The schedule of values may be submitted in the format of your choosing.

15. Amendment 0005 made revisions to the Demonstration Project, specifically removing all design requirements and instructing Offerors to bid the 100% drawings and specifications provided by Stantec. However, the submission requirements for Volume I, Technical Proposal, Demonstration Project (Subfactor), still mention “design”. Specifically, it states, “The offeror shall provide a technical approach, on no more than five (5) pages, to accomplish the design-build demonstration project NUEX 11-8010, Renovate Server Room B1130. At a minimum, offerors shall provide a description of procedures, processes and methods for tracing the construction progress of the project and interface with the Government which addresses overall performance for both the design and construction phases from the Government provided design. The description will include, but not limited to, a discussion of the overall performance time for both the design and construction phases, composition of the design-build team by title (necessary management and engineering disciplines to complete the project), including any major subcontractors and their involvement throughout the process with particular attention to quality, timeliness, and cost control. Additionally, the evaluation criteria mentions design-build team, design phase, and the design-build approach. Question: Since this project does not include any design portions, will the Government revise this submission requirement (Section L) and evaluation criteria (Section M) to remove all request for information on “design phase”, “Design-Build Team”, and “Design-Build approach”?

RESPONSE: The demonstration project is fully designed and should not be considered a design-build effort. However, the MACC itself is configured to encompass all levels of multi-discipline construction, including design. As a result, we must evaluate your design-build team, but will not evaluate the design elements of your proposal on the demonstration project.

16. Our understanding from the Statement of Work revised in AM0005 is that the demonstration project is a bid-build project and NOT a design-build project. With that being the case, would the government please confirm that the drawings provided by Santec take precedence over the other parts of the RFP/Specification and we are to price the drawings provided, as typical in a bid-build project.

RESPONSE: That is correct. Please base your proposal for the demonstration project on the 100% Stantec drawings.

17. Our understanding from the Statement of Work revised in AM0005 is that the demonstration project is a bid-build project and NOT a design-build project. With that being the case, would the government please confirm that there is no design work or modifications to the drawings requested as part of our proposal – technical or pricing.

RESPONSE: This is also correct. See above response.

18. Will the Government consider allowing eight (8) pages for the Demonstration Project (Subfactor) so offerors can adequately describe in detail information the Government is requesting in this section?

RESPONSE: The 5 page limit will stand. However, please note that many deliverables associated with the technical approach will not be included in this 5 page limit.