Attachment 29 QA CAO 7 Jul 21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- JBER MACC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA500021R0023
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a federal solicitation for a Multiple Award Construction Contract on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The solicitation seeks design-build services for repair, alteration, and construction projects across multiple construction disciplines. Offerors must submit past performance information on up to five relevant projects from the past three years, with a two page description for each. Pricing is required for two seed projects involving repair of an alternate control tower and renovation of building restrooms. Design services are included for the control tower project. Proposals are due by July 6, 2021 with award of task orders to follow within a few months. The Department of the Air Force Pacific Air Forces is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 44
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
Sheet1
| QUESTION NUMBER | RESPONSIBLE AGENCY | QUESTION | RESPONSE |
| 1 | CONS | Section M.D.3 states that the Government will not consider past performance information regarding sister companies, but it will allow past performance from predecessor companies. As written, the solicitation denies viable 8(a) Prime Offerors the ability to leverage experience and capabilities of sister companies (sister subsidiaries) who are active, part of the management and execution structure, and will be part of the offeror’s team as an integrated team partner. It does not allow companies organized in accordance with Federal Regulations and SBA guidance, to demonstrate their full capability and capacity to perform the work required by the Air Force under this contract. As a result of this solicitation constraint, a significant advantage is given to 8(a) companies with Joint Ventures (JVs) based upon mentor-protégés, which typically consist of a large business JV partner. This approach by the Air Force limits competition in the pool of 8(a) contractors and provides an advantage to large businesses. 48 CFR 15.305 as well as SBA guidelines call for and encourage the use of sister subsidiary past performance. Furthermore, allowing use of predecessor companies also has the Air Force rely on experience from companies that by definition, no longer exist cannot actually support the offeror in a meaningful way. We request that the Air Force modify the solicitation to enable an 8(a) Prime Contractor to include previous experience of sister companies (sister subsidiaries) as experience of the Prime Offeror as long as the proposal demonstrates that the sister company (sister subsidiary) is still active and will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. This approach is significantly more inclusive to the entire pool of 8a companies and is a better utilization of the set aside process. | The government will not modify the solicitation to enable offerors to include past performance of sister companies. |
| 2 | CONS | On page 59 of 68 of the original solicitation, section (i) states, “If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent part performance information on previous arrangements with same partner.” Can the Government please define what constitutes a teaming arrangement? CFR 48 9.601 states that a contractor team arrangement, as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which – (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.” Please clarify the discrepancy between Section L where it discusses a teaming arrangement and M.D.3 where it states that subcontractors experience will not be evaluated. Furthermore, the government included Attachment 17, Teaming Partner Consent Form, which discusses a teaming partner participating with the prime contractor. Please advise. | The government does not see a conflict. Members of a team that submits a proposal are not subcontractors. All members of the team are part of the offeror. |
| 3 | CONS | Please confirm if a bid bond is required for this response. If it is required, where shall it be included in our response? | Clause 52.228-1 should be 52.228-15. This is corrected in Amendment 004. |
| 4 | CONS | Please clarify what is meant by all files must be in Microsoft office format and that documents provided by the Government in PDF format are exempt. Is the Government requesting that files be submitted separate if one file is in Word and another file is in PDF? | See amended language in Section L, paragraph 1.C.4.l. in the solicitation as amended in Amendment 004. |
| 5 | CONS | Please confirm that the five projects included in Attachment 8, Tab B are a summary of the five projects presented for Part IIIa, Past Performance Quality. | Yes |
| 6 | CONS | Past Performance. Is it acceptable for a newly formed Joint Venture to use the past performance of a prior Joint Venture if both the newly formed and prior joint ventures have the same partner members. | As stated in M.D.4. The Government will only consider Joint Venture past performance if the same Joint Venture will be submitting the proposal as the Joint Venture. |
| 7 | CONS | In reviewing the proposal format requirements, we would like to know if we can submit all government provided .pdf documents and all proposal developed word documents as a complete set of PDF documents? We understand all Excel documents will be submitted as separate unlocked files. Allowing word documents to be converted to PDF files will allow the proposal to to be submitted as single PDF file with tabs for Table of Content, Parts, and Sections. This will make is a much more manageable and organized proposal submission. As well as help with size management and reduced attachments. | See amended language in Section L, paragraph 1.C.4.l. in the solicitation as amended in Amendment 004. |
| 8 | CONS | Can you please clarify how many project we are to include in Attachment 8, Tab B. Are we to only include the 5 Projects we are using as experience OR are we to list all projects that are relevant within the past 3 years? | 5 projects submitted for past performance that are relevant within the past 3 years. |
| 9 | CONS | Would the Government consider changing the past performance to a 5 year lookback instead of 3 years | No. |
| 10 | CONS | I understand we list up to 5 projects. Do you want any projects from our design teaming partner as well or only the Prime Offeror? | If the design teaming partner is a subcontractor then projects from them will not be accepted for past performance. If this is a teaming arrangement then all members of the team should submit projects for consideration for past performance. |
| 11 | CONS | Reference: Section L, 4. PART III - PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL, Paragraph (d) Past Performance Information requires “no more than five (5) completed relevant projects.” Paragraph (m) PART IIIa limits this part to 15 pages with 2 pages per project. If up to 5 projects is allowed, can the Government please specify what it expects to see on the remaining 5 pages? | Letters, metrics, customer surveys, etc. is any information held by an offeror that they believe demonstrates customer satisfaction. Note that the 15 page limit for this section includes this information. |
| 12 | CONS | Reference: Section L, 4. PART III - PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL, Paragraph (a) Part IIIa, Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Projects requires to address any current performance problems. Is this information required as part of a 2-page project description or should we include it separately? If separate from project descriptions, what is the page limit for this requirement? | Information on performance problems is included in the 2-page limit. |
| 13 | CONS | Are contractors allowed to submit a project that is substantially (99.9%) complete and already passed the beneficial occupancy date (BOD)? | No. Only projects that are complete with no remaining actions to be taken will be considered. |
| 14 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Please provide the period of performance / contract duration for the seed project Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical | See Attachment 4 Seed Project FXSB 20-5254 Price Schedule.pdf for the period of performance. Note that Attachment 4 has been revised in Amendment 004 to correct the header. |
| 15 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Please provide the period of performance / contract duration for the seed project Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373 | See Attachment 6, revised to read “Work shall start within 10 days after date of receipt of the Notice to Proceed, and shall be completed within 120 days. This performance period includes administrative time, submittal time, material ordering time, and physical construction time.” |
| 16 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Can Building 13373 be used by the Contractor as the laydown area / material storage? | Yes, IAW 01020 Scope of Work Section 1.6, 01000 General Contract Requirements Section 4, and the project contract. |
| 17 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Where will the Contractor laydown / material storage be for the Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical? Is temp fencing required? | Contractor laydown and material storage areas to be located next to the hangar inside security fence, precise location to be determined upon Task Order award. |
| 18 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical; section 3 Description of Work and Special Instructions; Paragraph 3.1.1 states “Provide complete design and construction services and drawings as noted in this document and on the Schedule of Material Submittals.” Please indicate the level of design required. The only mention of drawings is in paragraph 3.3.1 shop drawings for the aluminum stairs. The only required submittals are for the FRP Grating and carbon monoxide detectors. | The design provided by the contractor shall not require PE stamped drawings but shall be drawings that are taken to the 65%, 95%, and 100% design levels such that they can in turn be used as "Issued For Construction" (IFC) drawings. See Attachment 23 FOPR Seed Proj FXSB 20-5254. |
| 19 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical; section 3 Description of Work and Special Instructions; Paragraph 3.1.1 states “Provide complete design and construction services and drawings as noted in this document and on the Schedule of Material Submittals.” Please clarify 100% Architectural, Electrical, Structural design package is required and drawings are to be stamped by a PE? | The design provided by the contractor shall not require PE stamped drawings but shall be drawings that are taken to the 65%, 95%, and 100% design levels such that they can in turn be used as "Issued For Construction" (IFC) drawings. See Attachment 23 FOPR Seed Proj FXSB 20-5254. |
| 20 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | SOW Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373, indicates no design or submittals. Please indicate required level of design and design and material submittals. | This project requires only 65%. See Attachment 2 MACC SOW (CAO 25 June 21), Section 01000, revised paragraph 1.3. |
| 21 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical; section 3 Description of Work and Special Instructions; 3.8 Electrical; Paragraph 3.8.1. Please confirm receptacles are to be wall mount and no wall demo, patch, paint will be required. | Yes, that is correct, all receptacles are to be surface mounted on the walls, no wall demolition, nor patching and painting shall be required. |
| 22 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | SOW Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373. Is the existing water heater to be replaced? | No. |
| 23 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | SOW Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373. No bath/toilet accessories are called out. Please confirm bath/toilet accessories are not to be included by contractor. | Bath/toilet accessories not described, shown, or drawn in the contract package are not to be included by the contractor. |
| 24 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | SOW Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373. Please provide a door schedule. | See Attachment 5 Seed Proj FXSB 21-1058 SOW SPECS DRAWINGS, page 137 of 140. |
| 25 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical. For the stairs, would the Government accept steel or hot dipped galvanized in lieu of aluminum. This would facilitate field modification and be a lesser cost. | No, the Government will not accept steel or hot dipped galvanized stairs in lieu of aluminum in the proposal. The government may entertain a change after award but for the purposes of evaluation all offerors must conform with the specifications in the proposal. |
| 26 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | SOW Renovate Restrooms in Building 13373. Is the Contractor responsible for hiring 3rd party security while working in the controlled area? | The Contractor is not required to hire third party security for this project. See Section 01100 General Site Requirements Section 10.2. |
| 27 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW Repair Alt Control Tower Fire Escape Electrical. Is the Contractor responsible for hiring 3rd party security while working in the controlled area? | No the contractor is not responsible for hiring 3rd party security while working in the alternate control tower. Coordination with the facility manager of the tower shall be obtained prior to start of construction. |
| 28 | CONS | Section L, 1. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS states: “The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts; Part I - Summary and Miscellaneous Data, Part II – Price Proposal, and Part III - Past Performance Proposal.” Section L, 4. PART III - PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL, Paragraph (m) PART IIIa, PART IIIb, and PART IIIc indicates offerors are to submit these parts as separate electronic copies. Please advise if Part III – PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL is to be submitted as one electronic copy/file or as three separate files? | Each part (PART I, PART II, PART IIIa, etc.) needs to be in its own separate file/file name/attachment, and not combined into one document. If more than one file is needed for a part, that is acceptable. |
| 29 | CONS | Please confirm that only PART IIIb / Past Performance Information is requested to be submitted ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. If so, does it also have to be included in the final submission along with Parts IIIa and IIIc, should all three parts be submitted as one electronic copy/file? | Yes. Only Part IIIb information is requested to be submitted in advance. If submitted in advance it does not need to be included with the final submission. Each part (PART I, PART II, PART IIIa, etc.) needs to be in its own separate file/file name/attachment, and not combined into one document. If more than one file is needed for a part, that is acceptable. |
| 30 | CONS | In Solicitation FA500021R0023, Section L, Point 1. Proposal Preparation Instructions, B. Specific Instruction, point 1 it states “Proposals shall be submitted by e-mail or DoD SAFE. If using DoD Safe, email john.jeffrey.1@us.af.mil and lauren.mitchell.5@us.af.mil, ask for a drop-off request via DoD SAFE (Secure Access File Exchange) Service. Instructions on how to use DoD SAFE can be found at https://safe.apps.mil/. E-mail no later than the solicitation closing date and time to both solicitation points of contact: Mr. John Jeffrey at john.jeffrey.1@us.af.mil and 1st Lt Lauren Mitchell at lauren.mitchell.5@us.af.mil.” In Solicitation FA500021R0023, Section L, Point 4. Part III – Past Performance Proposal, subpoint 3. it states “However, offerors are requested to submit Part III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals.” To submit via the DOD Safe site it requires that the government provide a solicitation-specific access link to each offeror within 14 days of the submission due date upon request by the offeror. Since there will be two submissions, the first being Part III 10 days before submission and the second being Part I and II on June 21, 2021, can the government please confirm that offerors will need to request two separate DOD Safe Site links for each separate submission? | If two links are required to submit all of the required documents, then submit two requests for DoD SAFE drop-off requests and two links will be provided. |
| 31 | CONS | In Solicitation FA500021R0023, Section L, Point 4. Part III – Past Performance Proposal, subpoint 4. (page 59 of 68), point l it states “All files must be in Microsoft Office format and must be able to be opened on Government computers. Documents provided by the Government in PDF format are exempt from this requirement and may be submitted in PDF format. The same format used for the initial proposal shall be used for the final proposal resulting from any discussions and/or updates, if applicable. Offerors are advised to submit proposals in time to verify that the Government received the files and that the files can be opened and read. The Government is not responsible if files submitted are not readable or are in the wrong format. Replacement files will not be accepted after the deadline for submittal of proposals. All spreadsheets must be unlocked and all formulas must be included and readable by the Government.” For Parts I and II there are portions of each Part that contain documents that were distributed by the government in PDF format including the following: (1) SF 1442, (2) Representations and Certifications, (3) Attachment 4 and 6 and (4) Attachment 10. However, there are also portions of each Part that will need to be created in Word including the (a) master summary/TOC (b) Part specific TOCs (c) exception, deviations or waivers, (d) cross-reference tables, (e) tables and figures TOCs (f) covers and (g) misc items (ie title pages, tabs). As both of these Parts are required to be submitted in 1 single file can the government please clarify if the offeror can submit the entire Part I and the entire Part II each in their own PDF file? If not, can the government please clarify how offerors are to submit each section of each Part if some are in word and other sections are in PDF? Should offerors submit each section in word format or PDF format or should offerors submit a word version of the entire Part I and Part II and a PDF version of the entire Part I and Part II? | See amended language in Section L, paragraph 1.C.4.l. in the solicitation as amended in Amendment 004. |
Each part (PART I, PART II, PART IIIa, etc.) needs to be in its own separate file/file name/attachment, and not combined into one document. If more than one file is needed for a part, that is acceptable.
| 32 | CONS | Is there a file size limit for the proposal submission? If so, and offerors' proposal files exceed the maximum size, can they submit separate PDFs of the portions of the proposal in separate emails to the CO? | There is no file size limit beyond the page limits stated in the solicitation. If an offeror is concerned that their proposal may exceed limitations allowed by e-mailing proposals they should submit via DODSAFE. |
| 33 | CONS | In Solicitation FA500021R0023, Section L, Point 4. Part III – Past Performance Proposal, subpoint (a) states “Provide information requested in paragraph Section L- 01B4(c) limited to 2 pages per project, and any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and/or quality of completed projects.” Are the letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc. demonstrating customer satisfaction outside of the two-page limit for each project writeup? If so, are they also outside of the 15 page limit for the entire Part IIIa Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contract section listed on page 60 of 68 under the proposal submission table in subpoint (m)? | The two page contract information is to be included in Part IIIa, Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts. Letters, metrics, customer surveys, etc. is any information held by an offeror that they believe demonstrates customer satisfaction. Note that the 15 page limit for this section includes this information. |
| 34 | CONS | In Solicitation FA500021R0023, Section L, 2. Part I – Summary and Miscellaneous Data, point (a) states “(a) The offeror shall provide a concise summary and master table of contents of the entire proposal.” (Page 59 of 73) Can the government please clarify what type of “summary” they would like to see before the master table of contents? Is this an opportunity for offerors to introduce their firm(s) and provide an introduction of what is provided in their proposal responses? What is the page limit for this summary? | There is no page limit. However, this is a summary of information provided elsewhere in the proposal, not an opportunity for additional information to be added. |
| 35 | CONS | For pricing on the seed projects, Attachment 4 and 6, will the cost of design and design services be required as part of the overall price or will the government be providing the design for these two seed projects? | Contractors should include all design costs necessary to take the government-provided SOW to final design and provide as-builts upon completion of construction. Government will not provide additional design beyond the SOW. |
| 36 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Please advise to the Period of Performance (POP) for this project. | See Attachment 4 Seed Project FXSB 20-5254 Price Schedule.pdf for the period of performance. Note that Attachment 4 has been revised in Amendment 004 to correct the header. |
| 37 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW, Section 3, 3.1.1, states, “provide complete design”. Please define the required level of design, should PE stamped drawings be provided for each construction discipline? | The design provided by the contractor shall not require PE stamped drawings but shall be drawings that are taken to the 65%, 95%, and 100% design levels such that they can in turn be used as "Issued For Construction" (IFC) drawings. See Attachment 23 FOPR Seed Proj FXSB 20-5254. |
| 38 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Please confirm the location and quantity of the existing Fire Alarm Panels. | See Attachment 25 provided in Amendment 0004 |
| 39 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Assuming a test of 10% of all Fire Alarm devices will be required after the new FA devices have been installed, please confirm the approx. quantity of existing fire alarm devices within this facility. | The Fire Alarm panel is not a newer addressable type, therefore testing of 10% of all Fire Alarm devices will not be required. Only testing of the installed devices to ensure the circuit they are on functions per code. |
| 40 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | SOW, Section 3, 3.3.2, instead of removing the existing roof top walkway system, striping LBP and reinstalling it, would the USAF allow the contractor to design, provide and install a new roof top walkway system instead of salvaging and reusing the existing? | No, the Government will not accept proposals to install a new walkway system instead of salvaging the existing. The government may entertain a change after award but for the purposes of evaluation all offerors must conform with the specifications in the proposal. |
| 41 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Are there any scheduled activities that could impact the use of a crane for hoisting materials off/on the tower and barrel roofs? | Yes, there are possible activities that could impact the use of a crane, therefore coordination with the airfield manager and facility managers shall be done prior to any crane usage. |
| 42 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Crane setup and positioning will need to be near the hangar doors, will the aircraft inside be temporarily relocated during construction? - If not, what would be the protocols for allowing aircraft access in and out of the hangar? | For the crane positioning near the hangar doors, coordination will be required with the airfield manager and facility managers to ensure all parties are well informed and understand the plan when the time comes for crane operations . |
| 43 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Where will Contractor laydown area be located (next to hangar or outside of security fence)? | Contractor laydown area to be located next to the hangar inside security fence, precise location to be determined upon Task Order award. |
| 44 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Will escorts be required? If so will Contractor be required to pay for escorts? | No, escorts required. Coordination with end user to secure access ability will occur once task order has been awarded. |
| 45 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | What is the substrate under the BUR that the new handrails and aluminum stairs will be attached to? | The substrate underneath the BUR is 3 x T&G wood decking. |
| 46 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Are the as-builts for the existing roof assembly? If yes, please provide. | See Attachment 25 provided in Amendment 0004 |
| 47 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Please advise to the Period of Performance (POP) for this project. | See Attachment 6 provided in Amendment 0004, with amended Price Schedule. Revised to read “Work shall start within 10 days after date of receipt of the Notice to Proceed, and shall be completed within 120 days. This performance period includes administrative time, submittal time, material ordering time, and physical construction time.” |
| 48 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Please provide a Site Map or drawing that identifies the existing sewer route, approx., pipe size and termination point. | All known sewer sizes, routing, etc pertaining to the project are shown in the as-built exhibit drawings. |
| 49 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | The existing water service and sewer service pipes both appear to daylight within a insulated wood framed box, (both piping system are within 6 inches of each other), located on the south exterior of B-13373. Is the contractor required to alter or modify, insulate, freeze protect, the piping at this location or anywhere beyond (upstream) of where the two-pipe systems daylight above grade? | Only if/as needed to perform the work described in the project contract. |
| 50 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Is replacement, upgrading or reuse of the existing Fire Alarm devices within this projects scope of work? If yes, Should the contractor assume the existing Fire Alarm Panel can and will be reused to connect the new fire alarm detection devices? If so, should the contractor include testing and certification of the Fire Alarm system? | See 01020 Scope of Work Section 2.1 and NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code. If new heat detectors are compatible with the existing FAP the Contractor can assume that the existing FAP can and will be reused. |
| 51 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Should the contractor assume the existing Fire Alarm system and services serving the warehouse/storage bay of Bldg. 13373 meet NFPA or can the contractor assume all Fire Alarm scope is limited to the bathrooms only? | The Contractor can assume the fire alarm scope is limited to the bathrooms only, except NFPA 72 shall apply. If new heat detectors are compatible with the existing FAP the Contractor can assume that the existing FAP will be reused. |
| 52 | CES | Per RFP General Contract Requirements section 01000 para 1.3, will stamped design drawings be required for the DB projects? | Stamped deigned drawings may be required for design-build projects and any such requirement will be stated on a task order basis. |
| 53 | CES | Is the contractor expected to engage a professional engineering and design team for responding to the various DB task orders or is the contractor expected to perform DB capabilities with the onsite management staff? | On a per task order basis, the contractor may be expected to engage with professional engineering and design teams, the SOW and other supporting documentation shall designate whether it is required for stamped design drawings per task order. |
| 54 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | For seed project FXSB20, will there be access to the tarmac adjacent to the hangar for load out of demolished materials? | Yes, with proper coordination there will be access to the tarmac adjacent to the hangar for the purpose of loading out demolished materials as well as laydown of new materials as needed inside the security fence. |
| 55 | CONS | Page 66, #3, “The evaluation of past performance information (i) will take into account past performance regarding predecessor companies, (ii) will not take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience, (iii) will not take into account past performance regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition, (iv) will not take into account past performance information regarding sister companies, (v) will not take into account past performance as a subcontractor, and (vi) will pay particular emphasis on those trades required to complete the project work to include the following…” Please clarify the difference between predecessor and sister companies. | Predecessor means an entity that is replaced by a successor and includes any predecessors of the predecessor. |
Sister company is a company which is owned by the same parent company as another company.
| 56 | CONS | Page 66, #4, “The Government will only consider Joint Venture past performance if the same Joint Venture will be submitting the proposal as the Joint Venture. “, clarification on the restriction of this statement, dose this exclude past performance of a Joint Venture partner who executed work under a previous Joint Venture contract with a different partner? | Yes. |
| 57 | CONS | Are bid bonds required for the seed projects, and if so, what is the required percentage or dollar amount? | Bid bonds are not required. Clause 52.228-1 should be 52.228-15. This is corrected in Amendment 004. |
| 58 | CONS | SF 1442, 13D requires 365 days to hold price on both seed TOs. With the current supply and labor concerns as a result of the continuing impact from COVID, there is serious instability of market and labor conditions. 365 days is an excessive amount of time to hold pricing, as we cannot reasonably estimate for any significant potential delays and increases in cost of necessary labor and material associated with industry wide contingencies beyond our control. Will Contracting be incorporating FAR 52.216-4 into the contract performance to allow for Economic Price Adjustment on labor and materials should there be impact? | The government will not add Economic Price Adjustment to this IDIQ. |
The Government is aware of increased pricing due to the recent pandemic but as manufacturers start ramping up productions the prices should stabilize. Offerors should negotiate with their vendor to secure pricing.
Once the IDIQ is awarded TOs will typically be awarded within a few months of proposal submission.
| 59 | CONS | Due to the reissue of the RFP and SOW in Amendment 2, contractor respectfully requests a two week extension so contractors, sub-contractors and design teams can review and incorporate into pricing. | Amendment 003 extended the proposal due date to 28 June 2021. Amendment 004 extends it to 6 July 2021. |
| 60 | CES - FXSB 20-5254 | Please confirm the manufacture and model of the existing fire alarm panel in the control tower. | See Attachment 25 provided in Amendment 0004 |
| 61 | CES-FXSB 21-1058 | Per 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 of the SOW for bldg. 13373, the requirement is for toilets and urinals to be equipped with touchless sensor activation. Can these be battery operated? If not, the line voltage supply will require a power supply/transformer installed probably on top of the bathroom ceiling. | Values are to be mechanical, not touchless. The requirement for touchless operation has been removed from 01020 Scope of Work Sections 3.11.1, 3.11.2, and 3.11.3. |
| 62 | CONS | Will separate bid guarantees be required for each of the seed projects? | Bid bonds are not required. Clause 52.228-1 should be 52.228-15. This is corrected in Amendment 004. |
| 63 | CONS | What percent of the total amount of the bid will be required for the bid guarantees? | Bid bonds are not required. Clause 52.228-1 should be 52.228-15. This is corrected in Amendment 004. |
| 64 | CES | Can you confirm that design services are for after task order award only and apply only to seed project FXSB 20-5254? | Design services may be required for other task orders under the MACC contract and shall be identified within the SOW and supporting documents per task order. The seed project FXSB 20-5254 does require design services after award of the task order pertaining to the seed project FXSB 20-5254. FXSB 21-1058 does not require design services after award. |
| 65 | CONS | Considering Alaska Native Corporations can use common management (key personnel) which transfers their past performance from one company to another, can sister subsidiary companies’ past performance be utilized? This is how newly formed 8(a)s are not limited from participating in a competitive pool for awards. | In M.D.3. the solicitation explicitly states that past performance information "will not take into account past performance of key personnel who have relevant experience." This is not limited to certain offerors or types of offerors. |
| 66 | CONS | The Government’s response to question #10 indicates we are to submit past performance for each teaming partner. Does the 5 project limit apply to each partner or to the entire proposal? | The 5 project limit applies to the proposal as a whole. |
| 67 | CONS | Can you please clarify how we are allowed to use the past performance of a teaming partner but not of a previous joint venture with identical partners. Is the expectation that we would create teaming agreement with our previous joint venture partnerships to allow the use of their past performance? | The answers to questions 6 and 56 appear to have caused some confusion. The Government is not disallowing work performed under previous joint ventures. However, any work performed under another joint venture, whether with the same or different partners, can only be used if the work was performed by the offeror or a member of the current joint venture and not another member of the previous joint venture. If the previous joint venture had the same partners then any work performed by that JV will be considered if it meets the requirement for recency. |
As stated in 13 CFR 124.513(f), the government will "consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously."
Any interpretation of the previous answers in conflict with this should be disregarded.
It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide a sufficient factual basis for the Government to determine whether the work was performed by the offeror or a member of the current joint venture. The Government will not simply attribute past performance to an offeror or a member of the current joint venture without sufficient evidence of the actual work performed in relation to the current solicitation and the relationship of the entity in the past performance effort and an offeror or a member of the current joint venture.
68 CONS We are requesting an extension due to the Government responses provided in Amendment #4. See extended proposal due date included in Amendment 005.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .