2024 Paving IDIQ -Responses to Additional Request for Information 13 Dec 2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 75 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Airfield and Base Pavement IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA488724R0001
About this file
This document contains a log of questions and responses related to solicitation number FA488724R0001 from the Department of the Air Force for an Airfield and Base Pavement IDIQ contract. The solicitation requires services including airfield paving, base paving, and rubber removal to be provided over a five year ordering period. Offerors must submit proposals by January 15, 2024 with responses to technical, past performance, and price factors for evaluation. The log seeks clarification on items such as unit pricing, proposal formatting requirements, evaluation criteria, and specifications. Responses provide additional details to ensure offerors have a clear understanding of submission requirements.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFI Log
| REQUEST FOR INFORMATION LOG | |
| CONTRACT #: FA488724R0001 | PROJECT # / TITLE: 2024 Paving IDIQ |
| TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR | TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNMENT | ||||||||
| RFI # | DATE | DOCUMENT | SHEET / PAGE / PARA | DISCIPLINE | QUESTION / ISSUE | RESPONSE DATE | RESPONSE | POC | |
| OFFICE SYM | NAME | ||||||||
| 1 | 11/28/23 | Section B, Item 0002 | Page 4 of 56 of Solicitation | Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs | Section B, Item 0002 for Rubber Removal notes to Price Per Square Yards for Rubber Removal in the Supplies/Service column, though the Unit column notes to price per Lot. Will the Section B document be updated to reflect the Item 0002 Unit from 'Lot' to SY'? Changing the Unit in Section B will also make it consistent with the unit of measurement in the Attachment 11 Price Evaluation Worksheet. | 12-Dec-23 | Section B will be updated to reflect SY instead of Lot to match the Price Evaluation Worksheet | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 2 | 11/28/23 | Section B, Item 0002 | Page 4 of 56 of Solicitation | Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs | Is it the Government's intent to have one (per square yard) unit price for rubber removal that covers the 5 year period of the IDIQ, or unit pricing for each different year of the 5 year contract? | 12-Dec-23 | It is the Government's intent to have one unit price for rubber removal that covers the entire 5 year ordering period of the IDIQ. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 3 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph L.4.8 notes to submit one (1) original and (1) sanitized copy of Volume 1 (Technical). Please confirm whether a total of four (4) Volume files should be uploaded to DoD SAFE for the proposal submission (Volume I Original; Volume I Sanitized; Volume II Past Performance; Volume III Price). | 12-Dec-23 | Offerors shall submit a total of four files IAW Section L. paragraph 4.8. Offerors shall submit one (1) original for Volumes II-III and one (1) original and (1) sanitized copy of Volume I (Technical). | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 4 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph L.4.8 notes that the sanitized copy (of Volume I) includes the CAGE code but does not have any company name or markings. Is the intent of the sanitized copy to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name in the body of the Volume, or just within headers and footers of the document? | 12-Dec-23 | The intent of the sanitized copy (Volume I) is to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name and employees names throughout all of the documents in the sanitized copy of Volume I. This includes the Bonding Capacity Letter, Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control) and Management Plan (All references to the Offeror's Firm). The Offeror's Firm will only be referenced by their Cage Code in the sanitized version of Volume I. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 5 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph L.4.8 notes to provide a sanitized copy of Volume I. As Volume I, Factor 1 requires a Letter / Proof of Bonding Capacity, is the Government asking Offerors to redact the name of the Offeror on the Bonding Letter of the sanitized copy, as the Letter is very specific to the name of the Offeror? | 12-Dec-23 | The intent of the sanitized copy (Volume I) is to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name and employees names throughout all of the documents in the sanitized copy of Volume I. This includes the Bonding Capacity Letter, Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control) and Management Plan (All references to the Offeror's Firm). The Offeror's Firm will only be referenced by their Cage Code in the sanitized version of Volume I. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 6 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph L.4.8 notes to provide a sanitized copy of Volume I. Volume I, Subfactor 2 requires Offerors to provide resumes for Key Personnel. Do the resumes need to eliminate all references to the Company name? Can resumes identify the names of the proposed personnel, or are those individuals only to be referred to as 'The Project Manager,' 'The Superintendent,' 'The Quality Control Manager'? | 12-Dec-23 | The intent of the sanitized copy (Volume I) is to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name and employees names throughout all of the documents in the sanitized copy of Volume I. This includes the Bonding Capacity Letter, Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control) and Management Plan (All references to the Offeror's Firm). The Offeror's Firm will only be referenced by their Cage Code in the sanitized version of Volume I. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 7 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Paragraph L.4.8 notes to provide a sanitized copy of Volume I. Is it the intent for the Offeror's company name to not be identified in the Management Plan summary? If so, can specific references be made to the name of the agency / entity that an Offeror has worked with, to demonstrate specific experience? | 12-Dec-23 | The intent of the sanitized copy (Volume I) is to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name and employees names throughout all of the documents in the sanitized copy of Volume I. This includes the Bonding Capacity Letter, Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control) and Management Plan (All references to the Offeror's Firm). The Offeror's Firm will only be referenced by their Cage Code in the sanitized version of Volume I. Specific references to the agency/entity that an offeror has worked with to demonstrate specific experiences can be made. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 8 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | For the sanitized copy of Volume I, can Offeror's redact references to the company name (using appropriate black highlight in the software), or is there a specific naming convention that the Government would like for Offerors to use in lieu of using the Offeror's name? | 12-Dec-23 | The Government is not mandating how the Offeror's name is redacted in the sanitized copy of Volume I. The sanitized copy includes the Cage Code but does not have any company name or markings. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 9 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.6.2 Past Performance Volume Contents (Page 9 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | Volume 2 of the Past Performance Volume Contents notes to provide a Summary 'Not to exceed one (1) page.' Is the intent of the summary to provide the Government with a broad & general overview of the Offeror's past performance experience, rather than specific project(s)? | 12-Dec-23 | IAW Section L.6.2. the intent of the summary is to provide a broad & general overview of the Offeror's past performance experience. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 10 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 6 - Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) | Page 2 of 6 of PPPQ | Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) | Page 2 of the PPPQ notes to 'Provide details' of the subject project being identified. Due to the space limitation on the PDF, should Offerors interpret 'details' in this location to just mean the project name and type of work scope being reviewed, and that a more comprehensive project summary & description should be provided in Volume 3 (CPARS or PPPQ) of Volume II (Factor 2)? | 12-Dec-23 | Attachment 6 -Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) has been converted to a word document and dated 12 Dec 2023 to allow for comments to be added. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 11 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ Statement of Work | Page 10, Paragraph + (RS Means) | Price | The RS Means Manual has criteria for rigid concrete work for Highway, but does not address the complexity of Airfield Paving. How will RS Means account for airfield concrete paving, UFGS specifications and related items? | 12-Dec-23 | Airfield/Airport paving and related elements and activities are located in RS Means Division 32 Exterior Improvements. | 56 CES/CEN & 56 CONS/PKB | Ricky Jackson/ Jenn Kirsch |
| 12 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ Statement of Work | Page 10, Paragraph + (RS Means) | Price | How are Offerors to match up the character and specificity of airfield work (and other items) when the work does not align with RS Means related to production rates and task order specific elements such as phasing? | 12-Dec-23 | Airfield/Airport paving and related elements and activities are located in RS Means Division 32 Exterior Improvements. | 56 CES/CEN & 56 CONS/PKB | Ricky Jackson/ Jenn Kirsch |
| 13 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ Statement of Work | Page 10, Paragraph + (RS Means) | Price | How is the material price going to be adjusted when RS Means does not keep up with the local material escalation rates? | 12-Dec-23 | Material pricing will not be adjusted outside of RS Means. The total project cost is derived using the RS MEANS (National) Total Bare cost for every line item required to complete the project, the corresponding City Cost Index and the Contractor’s derived coefficient. The City Cost Index is updated by RS MEANS quarterly. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 14 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.7.4 Price Volume (Page 11 of 11) | Price | Paragraph L.7.4 notes that Offerors shall submit a full explanation in Tab 2 - Coefficient Development. Is the 'explanation' limited to completing the yellow highlighted cells in the Elements column, or is a written explanation required as well? | 12-Dec-23 | The full explanation is limited to completing the yellow highlighted cells in the elements column of Attachment 11 Price Evaluation Worksheet, Tab 2- Coefficient Development. No further written explanation is required. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 15 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 4 - Specifications | Section 32 13 14.13 Heavy Duty Pavements page 36 | Technical | Based on the UFGS guidelines above, should the max flexural strength be 650 at 90 days instead of 28 days due to the ongoing concern of brittleness with the higher strengths at lower ages? | 12-Dec-23 | Yes, that is one of the factors the Air Force Civil Engineer Center is looking at when designing Airfield concrete mixes. They want to see the curing over a 90-day period during the design phase. | 56 CES/CEN | Ricky Jackson |
| 16 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 6 - PPPQ | Section 2.C | Customer or Agency Identification | Section 2, Paragraph C of the PPPQ notes to provide details on type of work, locations worked, organizations serviced, to included Department of Defense, Government or commercial work. As the PPQ does not provide space between Section 2.c & Section 3, is the intent for the Customer to provide a description of the work below Section 3 of the same page, or is it not necessary to include as the Offeror will include that information in their project summary of the Factor 2, Volume 3? | 12-Dec-23 | Attachment 6 -Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) has been converted to a word document and dated 12 Dec 2023. This will allow the customer the necessary space to provide details as required by Section 2.C and Section 3. Both the PDF version and the Word version will be accepted. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 17 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.6.3 CPARS or PPPQs | Past Performance | Offerors are required to submit no more than five (5) past projects to demonstrate experience. Are Offerors permitted / intended to provide their own project summary descriptions in Volume II, Volume No. 3? Is it assumed so as the page limits are not to exceed 30 pages, and PPPQs are excluded from that page count. | 12-Dec-23 | IAW Attachment 9- L.6.3 Submit a maximum of five (5) projects which includes airfield paving, base paving, and rubber removal projects for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts (Maximum of 30 Pages). PPPQ's are excluded from the page count. The summary in Volume 2 is to be used to provide an overview of all projects. No further summaries are required. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 18 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 4 - Specifications | Section 32 13 14.13 Heavy Duty Pavements page 51 3.5.8.3 | UFGS Guidelines do not allow the use of tie bars under section 32 13 14.13. Is the intention to now allow/require the use of tie bars in Airfield pavements? | 12-Dec-23 | Tie bars should not be used to “tie” together panels of pavement features built on stabilized subbases because doing so increases restraint to pavement movement from thermal changes, and the likelihood of cracking in the panels due to the restraint stresses. | 56 CES/CEN | Ricky Jackson | |
| 19 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | For the sanitized copy of Volume I, should the Proposal Cover Page eliminate any name reference & office address of the Offeror? Is the Proposal Cover Page only to have the Offeror's Cage Code? | 12-Dec-23 | The intent of the sanitized copy (Volume I) is to eliminate all references to the Offeror's firm name and employees names throughout all of the documents in the sanitized copy of Volume I. This includes the Bonding Capacity Letter, Key Personnel (Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control) and Management Plan (All references to the Offeror's Firm). The Offeror's Firm will only be referenced by their Cage Code in the sanitized version of Volume I . | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 20 | 11/28/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.4.8 Electronic Offers (Page 6 of 11) | Instructions to Offerors | For the sanitized copy of Volume I, how should Offerors sign the Cover Letter? Should the Cover Letter include the name & signature of the person authorized to submit the proposal, or not have any reference to the company or individual(s) on the Letter? | 12-Dec-23 | IAW Attachment 9 Final Section L Instructions to Offerors paragraph L.7.2. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 20b, and 20c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1442 in block 30a, 30b, and 30c. Cover letters are not required to be signed by an authorized official of the firm. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
| 21 | 12/12/23 | Amendment 0001 | Contracting | Amendment 0001 was issued on December 12th. Which of the three proposal volumes should Offerors incorporate the Amendment SF 30 document(s) into? Should it be in a new Appendix section at the back of Volume III - Factor 3 Price, immediately following the signed Standard Form 1442, or elsewhere in one of the proposal documents? | 13-Dec-23 | Standard Form 1442 has been added to sam.gov for offerors to acknowledge Amendment 0001 dated 12 Dec 2023. IAW Attachment 9 Final Section L Instructions to Offerors paragraph L.7.2. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 20b, and 20c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. SF30 is not required to be submitted as part of one of the three volumes. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch | |
| 22 | 12/12/23 | Attachment 6 - Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) | Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) | The response to RFI 10 notes that Attachment 6 (PPPQ) has been converted to a Word document to allow for comments to be added. If Offerors have already had clients / evaluators complete and return PPPQs to the Government prior to the RFI response, please confirm that those submissions will be acceptable in that form and that it will not be necessary to ask evaluators to complete and resend new PPPQs with the updated Attachment 6. | 13-Dec-23 | Both the PDF version and the Word version of Attachment 6 -Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) will be accepted. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch | |
| 23 | 12/12/23 | Attachment 8 - RFI Log, Government Response Number 17 | Past Performance | The response to RFI 17 notes that no summaries are required for the five projects submitted in Volume II - Past Performance. Please confirm that it is acceptable that Offerors provide their own project summaries that provide relevant performance & experience information, as the original PPPQ form did not allow for thorough summaries. It is assumed that any project summaries will count against the 30 page maximum for the volume section. | 13-Dec-23 | Offeror individual project summaries are not required and will not be evaluated. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch | |
| 24 | 12/12/23 | Attachment 9 - Section L | L.6.3 CPARS or PPPQs | CPARS | Attachment 9, Paragraph L.6.3 notes that PPPQs are excluded from the page count. Please advise whether CPARS are also excluded from the page count, or whether they count against the 30 page maximum. | 13-Dec-23 | IAW Attachment 9, paragraph L.6.3. CPARS and/or PPPQ’s should cover a period of up to five (5) years. Submit a maximum of five (5) projects which includes airfield paving, base paving, and rubber removal projects for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts (Maximum of 30 Pages). PPPQ’s are excluded from the page count. CPARS are included in the page count. | 56 CONS/PKB | Jenn Kirsch |
Solicitation: FA488720REC01 Attachment 5: RFI Log Date: 15 June 2020 image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .