Attachment 31 - RFI Log - 13Jan21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SABER Construction Services IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- FA488721R0003
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 55 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| REQUEST FOR INFORMATION LOG | ||||||||||||
| CONTRACT #: | SOLICITATION #: | Attachment 31 - Luke AFB Input 13 January 2021 | ||||||||||
| TBD | SABER FA488721R0003 | |||||||||||
| SUBMITTED BY CONTRACTOR | TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNMENT | |||||||||||
| RFI # | DATE | DOCUMENT | SHEET / PAGE / PARA | DISCIPLINE | QUESTION / ISSUE | RESPONSE DATE | RESPONSE | POC | CHANGE TO SOLICITATION REQUIRED (YES OR NO) | DOCUMENT REVISED | QUESTION SUBMITTED BY | |
| OFFICE SYM | NAME | |||||||||||
| 001 | 21-Dec-20 | Attachment 6 | Table M.4.2.2 | Relevancy | Do all four (4) example projects submitted have to be concurrent with each other or can the contractor show other projects being performed concurrently with other projects the contractor is performing.? | 1/13/21 | All four (4) example projects submitted do not have to be concurrent with each other. The offeror can demonstrate in the Present Past Performance Information (PPPI) - Attachment 10 how this effort was performed concurrently with other contracts/projects in paragraph G. Provide specific references, to include contract numbers, contract description, contract performance period, contract price etc. to demonstrate it is similar in scope and complexity and meets the relevancy definition in Section M, paragraph M.4.2.2. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Elicia Karras | |
| 002 | 21-Dec-20 | Attachment 6 | Table M.4.2.2 | Relevancy | Do all 4 projects submitted need to be performed at the same military or government facility or can they be performed on different military or government facilities? | 1/13/21 | The four (4) projects submitted do not need to be performed at the same military or government facility and can be performed on different military or government facilities. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Elicia Karras | |
| 003 | 22-Dec-20 | Solicitation Close Date | FBO Post | Solicitation | I’m requesting an Extension until Feb 10, 2021. With the Site Visit being on January 6th, and due date on January 18th there isn’t enough time to put the proposal together. With the Extension, we’ll be able to Finalize our Proposal. | 1/13/21 | Solicitation response date of 18 January 2021 changed to 29 January 2021, 2:00 PM MST. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | SF 1442, FBO Notice | Annette Anderson |
| 004 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment L Table L.2.1.1 Page Limits and Attachment 28 – Resume Template | Table L.2.1.1 | Solicitation | Is this part of the 2 page min. for each resume or is it separate? | 1/13/21 | The purpose of Attachment 28 - Resume Template is to fill in the 3 items and check all applicable boxes and attach to key personnel's resume. In addition to submission of Attachment 28 – Resume Template, Offerors shall submit a second page resume detailing the key personnel’s experience and how it meets the requirements of Attachment 28. The two page limit referenced in Attachment 5 – Section L – Instructions to Offerors includes a single page for submission of Attachment 28 – Resume Template and a single page for the Resume. Both documents must be submitted for the Project Manager, Project Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager, for a total of not to exceed 6 pages for Key Personnel Resumes. This information has been added to Attachment 28 - Resume Template, Revised 11 January 2021. This revision was made to clarify resume submission requirement. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 28 - Resume Template | Michele Engelbrecht |
| 005 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 28 – Resume Template | Table L.2.1.1 | Solicitation | Please confirm if this is correct. The purpose of this “template” is to fill in 3 items and check 2 boxes? | 1/13/21 | The purpose of Attachment 28 - Resume Template is to fill in the 3 items and check all applicable boxes and attach to key personnel's resume. In addition to submission of Attachment 28 – Resume Template, Offerors shall submit a second page resume detailing the key personnel’s experience and how it meets the requirements of Attachment 28. The two page limit referenced in Attachment 5 – Section L – Instructions to Offerors includes a single page for submission of Attachment 28 – Resume Template and a single page for the Resume. Both documents must be submitted for the Project Manager, Project Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager, for a total of not to exceed 6 pages for Key Personnel Resumes. This information has been added to Attachment 28 - Resume Template, Revised 11 January 2021. This revision was made to clarify resume submission requirement. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 28 - Resume Template | Michele Engelbrecht |
| 006 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 - Section L - Volume I and II | Paragraph L.2.1.1.b and Table L.2.1.1 | Solicitation | Are you allowed to have a Proposal Overview page? Or any Introduction pages outside of the page limits? | 1/13/21 | No, a proposal overview or introduction page is not required and should not be submitted. Therefore, offerors should only submit what is required in the Table L.2.1. and subsequent paragraphs for Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Further, Attachment 5 paragraph L.2.1.1. Page Limitations: … Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read/considered in the evaluation of the proposal. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 007 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 Section L | Paragraph L.4.2.2. | Solicitation | Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPPQs) states “PPPQ’s should cover a period of three (3) to five (5) years.” However, section M.4.2.1 defines recency as a period covering three (3) years. Could you be so kind and clarify if we can use past performance going back 3 or 5 years? | 1/13/21 | Reference Revised Attachment 5 Paragraph L.4.2.2. PPPQs should cover a period of three (3) years. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Marissa L. Hine |
| 008 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 - Section L | Paragraph L.4.2.1.b | Solicitation | Offerors will return completed information PPPI(s) (Attachment 10) via email directly to the Contracting Officers and Contract Specialist, listed in Section L, paragraph 1.2. Question, do we need to email the PPPI’s in a separate email AND also include them in our final submission? | 1/13/21 | No, Reference Revised Attachment 5 Paragraph L.4.2.1.b. Offerors will return completed information PPPI(s) (Attachment 10) with their overall final proposal submission NLT solicitation due date and time. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Marissa L. Hine |
| 009 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 - Section L | Paragraph L.2.1.6. | Solicitation | Does any information other than the name of the Offeror Firm (e.g., names of key personnel) need to be redacted from the sanitized copy of the Technical Volume? | 1/13/21 | As specified in paragraph L.2.1.6 of Attachment 5, Section L Instructions to Offerors, the sanitized copy includes the CAGE code but does not have any company names or markings. All other information, i.e. names of key personnel, should remain. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Marissa L. Hine | |
| 010 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 28 - Resume Template | Attachment 28 - Paragraph 3 | Solicitation | Attachment 28, number 3 under Project Superintendent states the exact same description as number 1 under Project Manager. Shouldn’t number 3 read as Table M.4.1.3 Project Superintendent “The CPS should have a minimum of 5 years previous experience as a project superintendent (exclusive of time employed as a tradesman or working foreman) for a general contracting firm overseeing one or more multi-discipline commercial construction projects. “ | 1/13/21 | Attachment 28 revised to correct paragraph 3 to "Superintendents should have a minimum of 5 years previous experience as a project superintendent (exclusive of time employed as a tradesman or working foreman) for a general contracting firm overseeing one or more multi-discipline commercial construction projects." | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 28 Resume Template | Marissa L. Hine |
| 011 | 29-Dec-20 | Solicitation | Section I FAR 52.209-11 and 52.219-28 | Solicitation Section I | Do we need to answer and submit sections 52.209-11 and 52.219-28 from the solicitation? If so, where should these pages be included? | 1/13/21 | In Section I, 52.209-11 should be filled in and returned with Volume IV - Contract Forms/Responsibility. 52.219-28 does not need to be completed and returned with the solicitation as it is a representation that is filled out in the future prior to exercising an option. Additionally, all other fill-ins and reps and certs must be filled in and submitted with the SF 1442 in Volume IV Contract Forms/Responsibility along with having the Offeror's online Representations and Certifications record current, accurate and complete within the System for Award Management (SAM). This information was revised in Attachment 5 Section L - Instructions to Offerors paragraph L.6.0.c. and in Attachment 6 Section M - Evaluation Criteria paragraph M.5.0. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L & Attachment 6 Section M | Marissa L. Hine |
| 012 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 1 - SABER SOW | Paragraph 2.9 | Solicitation | Which cost estimating software are you requiring? | 1/13/21 | Reference Attachment 1 - SABER SOW Paragraph 2.9 "… The “e4Clicks Professional Project Estimator” or “e4Clicks Premier Project Estimator" software in conjunction with the current year “RS MEANS Master Composite Bare Cost” Database is the preferred method for estimates, but is not mandatory for the contractor. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 013 | 29-Dec-20 | Solicitation Close Date | Solicitation | From the site visit date to the proposal due date, it is only 7 working days in between. Would you consider extending the due date? | 1/13/21 | Solicitation response date of 18 January 2021 changed to 29 January 2021, 2:00 PM MST. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | SF 1442, FBO Notice | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 014 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b | Solicitation | The Bolded sentence says we are to return completed PPPIs directly to CO. Please confirm if this was supposed to reference the PPQs. Isn’t the PPPIs to be included in the proposal and then it’s the PPQ’s that you want sent directly to the CO? Please clarify. | 1/13/21 | Reference RFI# 8. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Michele Engelbrecht |
| 015 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 Section L - Instructions | L.5.0.c. | Solicitation Section L and M | L.5.0.c – You are requesting after the SF 1442 “and all pages originally included in the RFP”. This is an email submission with size restrictions. Please clarify if you are wanting all 93 pages of the original posted solicitation to be included in Volume III? | 1/13/21 | Reference revised Paragraph L.5.0.c. deleted and moved to moved to L.6.0. Volume IV - Contract Forms/Responsibility. The revision at Paragraph L.6.0.c. specifies the contents of the SF 1442 that need to be submitted with Volume IV. Section M.5.0. was added to clarify submission of SF 1442. Offerors 93 pages solicitation is not required to be submitted but offerors can submit entire solicitation. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L & Attachment 6 Section M | Michele Engelbrecht |
| 016 | 29-Dec-20 | Attachment 5 Section L - Instructions | L.5.1. | Solicitation Section L | L.5.1. Please confirm that you want all 3 TAB pages submitted in proposal | 1/13/21 | Reference Revised Attachment 5 Paragraph L.5.1.a - d. Yes, all 3 TAB pages must be submitted. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Michele Engelbrecht |
| 017 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 SABER SOW | Paragraph 4.2 | SOW | We had a question in regards to Paragraph 4.2 of the Statement of Work. Question: The last sentence in Paragraph 4.2 of the Statement of Work requires 35% Design on each Task Order whether the Design requirement is written in each Task Order’s scope of work or not. Please clarify whether 35% Design will be required on all Task Orders or not? Please clarify that if Task Orders do not require 35% Design that contractor shop drawings will suffice? Please also clarify that if 35% Design requirements will be required on specific Task Orders, that this will be considered outside the parameters of the SABER program and that the scope of work for those specific Task Orders will include a written design requirement? Also, please clarify that if the 35% Design requirements will be required on specific Task Orders that this design will be required to be performed by professional engineers and licensed architects or if contractor shop drawings will be sufficient? Lastly, please clarify that if the specific Task Order will require 35% Design, that the contractor will be able to add RS Means Line Items in Division 1 to accurately be reimbursed for this? | 1/13/21 | 35% design drawings are not required on every Task Order (TO), only if specified in TO SOW. As-built drawings will be required for all TO's and will require following the AutoCAD specifications stated. If 35% designs are not required, shop drawings will suffice dependent on TO SOW; however final as-builts will still need to meet requirements in SOW for all TOs. 35% design requirements are not outside the scope of the SABER as it is stated in the SABER SOW. Specific requirements for design and construction will be specified in TO SOW to include whether or not designs are required by licensed Professional Engineers/Architects. Contractor will be allowed to use RS Means line items in Div 1 as part of TO proposal. | CE | Porter | No | Christian Diaz | |
| 018 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 Seed Project SOW | Paragraph 2.1 and 2.6 | Seed Project SOW | Please clarify the Seed Project SOW attachment #25. The North & South Drawings inclusive of 37 and 44 sheets, respectively, indicate quite a comprehensive SOW. The three-page SOW for the Seed Project attachment #25, dated 08/18/2020, indicates a complete scope in section 1. Overview, but in section 2. Description of Work, paragraph 2.1 indicates ‘… all necessary demolition, construction and testing to perform the work as listed in the description below.”, that work is defined in paragraph 2.6. Electrical involving lighting replacement only. Please clarify the Scope of Work for the Seed Project. | 1/13/21 | Seed project scope includes North & South side drawings and TO SOW. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 019 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 Seed Project SOW and Attachment 27 | Paragraph 4.3.1 | Seed Project SOW | Has the Form 66 been provided for the Seed Project as indicated in paragraph 4.3.1 of the Seed Project SOW attachment #25? The RFP contains only a Master AF Form 66 attachment #27 not a project specific AF 66 as indicated in the SOW. | 1/13/21 | Contractor shall submit completed AF Form 66 as part of proposal package included in Attachment 5 - Section L at paragraph L.3.2.2.c., which states "A Schedule of Materials reflecting all proposed materials shall be submitted on the AF Form 66 provided for the Seed project. AF Form 66 attachment is an example that Offerors can use to submit their schedule of materials.". | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 020 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 Seed Project SOW | Paragraph 4.3.2 | Seed Project SOW | Are we correct that the AF Form 3064 is required with our proposal and not as required by paragraph 4.3.2 in the Seed Project SOW attachment #25? | 1/13/21 | An AF Form 3064 required with proposal in accordance with Attachment 5 Section L, paragraph L.3.2.2.b. Offerors can use dummy dates to resemble or serve as the real dates as long as the schedule is based on the 150 calendar days included in paragraph 2.2. of the Seed Project SOW is used as the basis for the schedule. If the seed project is funded, the awardee will need to comply with paragraph 4.3.2. of the Seed Project SOW - Attachment 25 and provide a schedule with actual dates based on issuance of Notice to Proceed. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 021 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 Seed Project SOW and Attachment 13 | Seed Project SOW | We have not found the calendar day duration for the Government review time for Contractor Submittals in the Seed Project SOW attachment #25, SABER SOW (SSOW) attachment #1, or the Luke Master Specifications (LMS) attachment #13. As a project schedule is required for all projects, will the Government provide the maximum amount of time in calendar days for review of submittals required prior to purchasing and/or installing materials and systems on the projects? | 1/13/21 | Govt review time will be specified in TO SOW. For seed project, use 14 calendar day government review period for all submittals. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 022 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Page 43 | SOW | Please verify that in accordance with the LMS attachment #13, page 43 of 1865, 1.12 Testing that is required by the CO, after approval of the Testing Laboratory by the CO, page 49 of 1865 will be coordinated by the Contractor and included in cost estimate for the project. In the SSOW attachment #1, page 16 of 58, paragraph 9.2, indicates that testing is included in the coefficient. Due to the unknown amount of testing required on an annual basis, are we correct that the cost of testing services is not to be included in the Contractor’s Coefficient? | 1/13/21 | Costs associated with lab testing shall not be included in contractor's coefficient. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 023 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Page 16 and 22; paragraph 10.3.1.2 and paragraph 13.3 | SOW | In the SSOW attachment #1 page 16 of 58 it states that taxes are included in the contractor’s coefficient. However, in paragraph 10.3.1.2 on page 18 it states that Arizona state tax on materials is priced separately as shown in the numerical example in paragraph 13.3 on page 22 of 58. Which is correct? Please clarify the Government’s intent. | 1/13/21 | AZ State Tax on materials is only tax not to be included in coefficient as specified in the SABER SOW Attachment 1, paragraph 10.3.1.2. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 024 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Page 47 and 29; paragraph 10.3.1.2 and paragraph 13.4 | SOW | In the LMS attachment #13, page 47 of 1865, paragraph 1.10 Software states that the Contractor is to provide the Government with 2 copies of the scheduling network analysis software. This is not required in paragraph 16.1 of the SABER SOW (SSOW) attachment #1, page 29 of 58. Which is correct? If scheduling software is to be provided, how will the cost be covered, and will annual updates be required? | 1/13/21 | Contractor is not required to provide government with scheduling software under the SABER IDIQ. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 025 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Attachment 1 - Page 51. Attachment 13 Page 12 & 15 | SOW | There are significant differences regarding Contractor provided Superintendent and QC Personnel between the LMS attachment #13, Section 014500 Contractor Quality Control starting on page 51 of 1865 and the requirements set forth in the SSOW attachment #1, pages 12 & 15 of 58. In summary, LMS requires a Superintendent and QCM for each project on a full-time basis, the SSOW requires daily visits on each active project by the Superintendent and the QCM. Which is correct? | 1/13/21 | The SABER SOW Attachment 1, paragraph 5.2.1. requires "Superintendent shall be on-site at all times during work hours for each TO". In paragraph 5.2.2. of the SABER SOW, the QCM shall "visit each active project site daily to ensure full compliance with all safety requirements, and verify that the materials and workmanship are in accordance with approved construction drawings, shop drawings, material submittals and technical specifications." The government sees no conflict between QCM duties in LMS and SABER SOW. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 026 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Page 64 | SOW | The LMS attachment #13 on page 64 of 1865 requires an Administrative Field Office for each project, the SSOW attachment #1 states that it is the Contractor’s Option. Which is correct? | 1/13/21 | In accordance with paragraph 49.1 and 49.2. of the SABER SOW, there is no requirement for the contractor to establish and maintain a management office on-base. A physical trailer on site is the contractor's option; however, contractor shall provide latrine facilities for workers and have a designated area/location where contractor's management team will be located on site when not supervising construction duties. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 027 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Page 64 | SOW | The same holds true for a Contractor Storage area, which is correct? | 1/13/21 | If contractor storing materials on site it must follow Contractor Storage Area requirements in the SABER SOW - Attachment 1, paragraph 49.2. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 028 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 10.3.1.5 | SOW | Please clarify the Government’s intent regarding SSOW attachment #1, paragraph 10.3.1.5, page 18 of 58 regarding equipment rental. Using the example of the scissor lift, that is an allowable cost when needed for any contractor/subcontractor when necessary to perform their work? As another example, core-drills and concrete cutting equipment is normally rented when needed by contractors is this cost permitted? Are cranes and hoisting equipment costs permitted when necessary to accomplish the work? Will the Government consider identifying which equipment is to be permits for project cost recovery in a typical project estimate? | 1/13/21 | Equipment that is customary to the trade will not be allowable equipment rental costs. Specialized equipment for the TO will be considered for an allowable cost. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 029 | 4-Jan-21 | Solicitation | Are rental costs permitted for asbestos abatement equipment such as air movers and specialty equipment necessary for the removal of ACM? Also is cost recovery of one-time use PPE permitted when considering ACM and Lead removal projects? | 1/13/21 | Rental costs for ACM removal are not required to be included in contractor coefficient. Yes, one-time use PPE is permitted in the line items of the estimate, depending on the project requirements. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |||
| 030 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 4.2 | SOW | In the SSOW attachment #1, page 8 of 58 paragraph 4.2, “Purchase cost of AutoCAD software may be included in the Contractor’s coefficient.” What exactly is the requirement and is the intent to require the contractor to include this cost in the coefficient regardless of the number of versions issued during the contract term? | 1/13/21 | All TO's require as-built drawings to be performed in AutoCAD as specified. Contractor shall not include costs for AutoCAD as separate line items. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 031 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 14.1.3 | SOW | The SSOW attachment #1, paragraph 14.1.3 on page 23 of 58, describes incidental design required during the TOPR proposal process. The description contained herein appears to be beyond what is considered incidental design and the paragraph provides for Contractor notice to the CO in cases where professional services are required. Sizing of MEP equipment and components as required by the paragraph are normally considered professional services not incidental services. Additionally, these services are all required during the proposal phase of the project prior to award of a TO. Therefore, if the TO is not awarded, who will retain ownership of the design provided to the Government? Can and will the Contractor’s design be used by the Government and others to perform the work required by the TOPR at a later date? | 1/13/21 | Designs and/or engineering calculations will not be required to be submitted prior to award of TO. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 032 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | SOW | If a TOPR is not awarded, is the incidental design provided by the Contractor to the Government considered to be the Contractor’s Proprietary information and as such may not be utilized in any way by the Government or other Contractors at a future date on the project described in the TOPR or any other similar project? | 1/13/21 | Designs and/or engineering calculations will not be required to be submitted prior to award of TO. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 033 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 14.4.1.3 | SOW | Design Documentation is further described in paragraph 14.4.1.3, starting on page 25 of 58. This section further indicates the comprehensive requirements set forth by the Government for “incidental design” to include design documentation, detailed drawings, shop drawings, fabrication drawings, complete project design drawings and details for all work trades, design calculations sizing of MEP systems and components, site work, energy savings and Return on Investment calculations. This definition of incidental design far exceeds what is common practice for a general contractor involved in Federal JOC or SABER contract vehicles without being compensated for professional services at the time of TOPR or for that matter even after award of a TO. Will the Government reconsider and revise these requirements? If not, will the Government provide an anticipated scope of projects to be performed under this SABER Contract in order for the Contractor to estimate the costs to be included in their Contractor’s coefficient to cover the costs for this incidental design. | 1/13/21 | Design drawings and engineering calculation costs required for a TO can be proposed using RS Means line items and are not required to be part of the contractor's coefficient. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 034 | 4-Jan-21 | Is there any Historical data regarding prior SABER Contracts similar to this at Luke AFB? If so please, provide the dollar amount and number of TOPR’s and TO’s awarded. | 1/13/21 | Historical data is irrelevant to proposal preparation and will not be provided. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||||
| 035 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 14.6.1 | SOW | SSOW attachment #1, paragraph 14.6.1, page 28 of 58, will the Contractor be permitted to update proposals that are not awarded immediately and held up to one year if there have been changes in the RS Means Unit Price Book, (UPB), due to the RS Means Quarterly pricing? The quarterly pricing adjustments to the UPB are permitted during the contract period as set forth in the SSOW, paragraph 11.2 on page 19 of 58. | 1/13/21 | Task Order Proposal Request will normally specify the period in which proposals shall remain valid. If the contractor takes exception to this period, they shall qualify how long pricing is valid for in their Task Order Proposal. If established timeframe is exceeded, contractor will have an opportunity to update pricing using the relevant RS Means quarterly pricing. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 036 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 13 | Page 54 and 77 | Luke Master Specs | In the LMS attachment #13, Section 017000, page 77 of 1865, As-Built submission to the CO is required within 5 days of the project final acceptance, in the SSOW attachment #1, page 54 of 58 As-Built submission is required to accompany the request for final inspection, which is correct? | 1/13/21 | As-built submission required with request for final inspection. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 037 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 and Attachment 13 | Page 76 | In the LMS attachment #13, Section 017000, Contract Closeout, page 76 of 1865, a Building Inventory/Condition Assessment is required to be performed by the Contractor, no mention of this is made in the SSOW attachment #1, is this a requirement for each TO? If required, is this work to be included in the Contractor’s Coefficient? | 1/13/21 | Building Inventory/Condition Assessment will be required for each TO. Costs shall not be included in contractor's coefficient. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 038 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 and 6 | Section L and M | Sections L and M identify one of the Key Personnel as the “Program Manager” no reference is made to the Program Manager in the SSOW attachment #1. The SSOW refers to the “Project Manager”. Is the Program Manager and the Project Manager the same person? | 1/13/21 | Reference Revised Attachment 5 and Attachment 6. All references to Program Manager have been changed to Project Manager. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L & Attachment 6 Section M | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 039 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 13 | Page 556 | Luke Master Specs | Reference to a Commissioning Agent, CxA is made in LMS attachment #13, Section 01 33 29, page 556 of 1865. Will this be required on all mechanical, electrical, & plumbing components and system on the SABER projects? If so, how is the contractor compensated for these activities and testing? Will the selection and inclusion of the appropriate line items from the RS Means UPB be permitted in the job cost estimates as an allowable cost? Is the CxA hire by the Government or the Contractor? | 1/13/21 | Commissioning will be specified per TO and appropriate line items from RS Means UPB will be permitted on TO proposals. TO will specify who hires CxA. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 040 | 4-Jan-21 | Due to the confusion regarding what testing is included in the Contractor’s Coefficient, is Testing, Adjusting and Balancing of HVAC Systems permitted as an allow job cost as included in the RS Means UPB? | 1/13/21 | Yes, TAB is permitted to be priced per RS Means UPB. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||||
| 041 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 13 | Luke Master Specs | The LMS attachment #13 technical specifications have blanks left to be filled in by others. If the LMS is to apply to a TOPR will the blanks be filled in and included as applicable to each TOPR issued by the Government? If not should the Contractor assume that these sections of the technical specifications will not apply to each respective TOPR? | 1/13/21 | Both LMS and UFGS will have blanks completed when issued with the TOPR or the TO SOW will address. Specs should never be assumed not applicable. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 042 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 13 | Luke Master Specs | In the LMS attachment #13, Section 015000 page 66 of 1865 requires security fencing at the jobsite within 15 days of the NTP, will this requirement be identified as a requirement or as not being required in each TOPR issued by the Government? If required is this cost included in the Contractor’s Coefficient? | 1/13/21 | TOPR may address, if not addressed contractor shall follow specifications. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 043 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 13 | Page 70 | Luke Master Specs | In the LMS attachment #13, Section 015800 page 70 of 1865 requires a project sign be erected at the jobsite within 30 days of the NTP, will this requirement be identified as a requirement or as not being required in each TOPR issued by the Government? If required is this cost included in the Contractor’s Coefficient? | 1/13/21 | TOPR may address, if not addressed contractor shall follow specifications. Contractor shall include this cost in coefficient. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | |
| 044 | 4-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | Paragraph 23.2 | In the SSOW attachment #1, paragraph 23.2. Construction Testing, page 33 of 58, the last sentence of the paragraph starting with “Any line items in this section of RS Means dealing with normal day to day construction inspection of a job site shall not be used on any task order..”. Are the line items for Technician for inspection per day for earthwork, concrete, bolting, roofing, & welding permitted as their presence on site is required to perform the respective QC tests as included within the RS Means Section 01-45-23.50. Please clarify. | 1/13/21 | Unclear on the what the RFI is asking. Specialized QC testing can be included as line items as stated in 23.2, additional costs outside of the line items will not be accepted. | CE | Porter | No | Michele Engelbrecht | ||
| 045 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 | What is the Seed Task order ROM cost or Government Range Cost. | 1/13/21 | Rough Order of Magnitude is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 which was added to Attachment 5 - Section L, paragraph L.5.2.. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Meshach Alvarado | ||
| 046 | 5-Jan-21 | If available, what were the previous SABER contractor’s coefficients for the same areas. | 1/13/21 | This information would need to be requested through a Freedom of Information Act request. | CONS | Merritt | No | Meshach Alvarado | ||||
| 047 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 1 | SOW | What is the Governments preferred RS Means Unit Price Estimating Software Platform if any “ 4clicks, JOC Core, E Gordian, Costworks, Etc.” | 1/13/21 | Reference Attachment 1 - SABER SOW Paragraph 2.9 "… The “e4Clicks Professional Project Estimator” or “e4Clicks Premier Project Estimator" software in conjunction with the current year “RS MEANS Master Composite Bare Cost” Database is the preferred method for estimates, but is not mandatory for the contractor. | CE/CONS | Porter and Merritt | No | Meshach Alvarado | ||
| 048 | 5-Jan-21 | Has the site visit time changed and if so what time? | 1/13/21 | Site visit times were changed due to facility availability. Two site visits were performed. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Meshach Alvarado | |||
| 049 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 25 | Paragraph 1 and 4.1 | Seed Project SOW | Per the Seed Task Order SOW.. paragraph 1 states “Construction will follow the included design” while section 4.1 on the next page of the SOW states “ the contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to design, manage and accomplish the project” Please clarify if the seed task order will require expanded design by the contractor or not. | 1/13/21 | The language in paragraph 1 of the Seed Project Task Order is generic in nature. The Seed Project has been fully designed by USACE and included in Attachments 23 and 24 of the solicitation. Expanded design is not required. | CONS | Merritt | No | Meshach Alvarado | |
| 050 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b.1 | Solicitation | Are these questions ( (a) – (h) ) separate from Attachment 10? | 1/13/21 | No. Attachment L Paragraph L.4.2.1.b.1 (a-h) are instructions for completing Attachment 10 Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) Sheets. The information at L.4.2.1.b.1 (a-h) should be detailed on the PPPI sheet. | CONS | Merritt | No | Claudia Carlos | |
| 051 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.2 | Solicitation | Is a PPPQ required if a CPAR evaluation has been issued for the project? | 1/13/21 | Yes, PPPQ's should be submitted even if a CPARS was issued for the project in accordance with Attachment 5 - Section L paragraph L.4.2.2., "Offerors should make their best effort to send out a sufficient number of PPPQs to reasonably expect the Contracting Office will receive at least one questionnaire on each cited contract/work effort". CPARs may be used to review performance in accordance with Attachment 6 - Section M, paragraph M.4.2.a. to evaluate Past Performance." | CONS | Merritt | No | Claudia Carlos | |
| 052 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | SF 1442 | Solicitation | In order to provide our PPPQ references sufficient time to evaluate our PPPI, will the Government please consider a two-week extension to the proposal submission due date? | 1/13/21 | Solicitation response date of 18 January 2021 changed to 29 January 2021, 2:00 PM MST. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | SF 1442, FBO Notice | Trina Bisaro |
| 053 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1 | Solicitation | It reads Present and Past; are present project allowed?, If present projects are allowed; is there a minimum completed percentage? | 1/13/21 | Reference Attachment 6 - Section M, Paragraph M.4.2.1 Recency, which states "Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non-Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage)". | CONS | Merritt | No | Claudia Carlos | |
| 054 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.1.1 | Solicitation | Can we provide projects within the past five (5) years. | 1/13/21 | Reference Revised Attachment 6 - Section M Evaluation Criteria paragraph M.4.2.1., which now states "PPPQ's should cover a period of three (3) years and Attachment 6 Paragraph M.4.2.1.a, which states "Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.". Also see revision to Table M.4.2.1. Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L.4.2.2. was also revised to state "PPPQ’s should cover a period of three (3) years." Table L.4.2. was also revised to indicate a three (3) year period. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L & Attachment 6 Section M | Claudia Carlos |
| 055 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.6.0.d | Solicitation | Is there a minimum $$ for each contract to meet RFP Requirements. | 1/13/21 | In accordance with Attachment 5 Paragraph L.6.0.d., the government anticipates issuing a task order at the time of award for the minimum guarantee of $2,000 and issuing project task orders at a later time but reserves the right as previously stated to fulfill the minimum guarantee by executing the seed project if funding becomes available. | CONS | Merritt | No | Claudia Carlos | |
| 056 | 5-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b.1 | Solicitation | Instructions in BOLD read to return completed PPPIs via e-mail directly to the Contracting Officers, etc. Does this mean that do not include them in Volume II? Due Date same? Or earlier | 1/13/21 | Reference RFI# 8. | CONS | Merritt | No | Claudia Carlos | |
| 057 | 6-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b.1 | Solicitation | Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.1, b. states Offerors will return the completed information PPPIs (Attachment 10) via email directly to the Contracting Officers; table L.4.2 under Volume 3, lists PPPI sheets to be included as part of our proposal. Are offerors to email Attachment 10 to the Government separately as well as include in our proposal? | 1/13/21 | Reference RFI# 8. | CONS | Merritt | No | Trina Bisaro | |
| 058 | 6-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b..b (1) | Solicitation | The format of the PPPI (Attachment 10) allows very little space to appropriately respond to each of the criteria provided in Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.1, b. (1) within the three-page limit. Will the Government allow Offerors to adjust the formatting of Attachment 10? | 1/13/21 | Yes, the formatting of Attachment 10 can be changed as long as it meets the requirements of Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors, paragraph L.2.1.2.. | CONS | Merritt | No | Trina Bisaro | |
| 059 | 6-Jan-21 | Attachment 5 | L.4.2.1.b..b (1) | Solicitation | The format of the PPPI (Attachment 10) allows very little space to respond to each of the criteria provided in Section L, Paragraph L.4.2.1, b. (1) within the three-page limit. Will the Government consider allowing Offerors an additional page to provide an appropriate response for each criteria? | 1/13/21 | No. Reference attachment 5 paragraph L.2.1.2. Pages shall be typed with 1 line spacing. Except for any reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall not be less than 12 point font with margins of at least 1" on all sides. Attachment L Table L.4.2 Volume 3 page NTE revised to allow for 4 pages. | CONS | Merritt | Yes | Attachment 5 Section L | Trina Bisaro |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .