Attachment 10 Questions and Answers.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FA500023R0003

Mini‐MACC

Question Number

QUESTION RESPONSE

Part III – Past Performance – Is part IIIC past performance supplemental worksheet only for the no more than 5 submitted projects or is the desire for all of the projects completed by the contractor meeting recency and relevancy as defined in Section M?

Part IIIc Past Performance Supplement Worksheet should include, and is limited to, the 5 submitted projects correlated to Part IIIa Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Projects, which is required to meet recency and relevancy as defined in Section M.

2 Section M - Will the government take past performance information for an individual member of a Joint Venture where the project was performed as a Joint Venture?

The Government will accept past performance efforts of a joint venture where the offeror can show and verify that their member company performed the work submitted.

3 Are both drinking fountains furnished by the government for the seed project? Yes, both drink fountains will be furnished by the government.

4 Will the government please confirm if new drinking fountains fit in existing alcoves for the seed project? Confirmed, new fountains will fit into existing alcoves.

5 Is a bonding capacity letter required with our proposal submittal, and if so, where in our proposal should it be included? There is no bonding capacity letter required in response to this solicitation.

6 Is there a file size limit per file for submission? No, there is no file size limit. The submitted proposal should meet the file requirements identified in Solicitation Section L.2.d.

Page 59 o9f 69, Section L – (5) Part IV – Technical Proposal, bullet (b), sub-bullet 3. Timeline – does the government want an official schedule submitted within the technical proposal? As the seed project is estimated to be completed within 48 hour period there would not be a week-by-week schedule that is normally developed for seed projects.

Section M of the solicitation- Technical narrative shall include a realistic schedule for completion of work that does not exceed 60 days from Notice to Proceed is sufficient for the seed project.

Pages 57-60 of 69, Section L and page 1 of 69, SF1442 . Section L states that offerors are to submit 1 electronic copy of each Part but on SF 1442, block 13 it says offerors are to submit 1 original and 1 copy of the file. Can the government please confirm offerors are to only submit 1 electronic copy of each file as indicated in Section L and not 2 copies of each part?

Offerors are to submit one (1) electronic copy of each required file in response to the solicitation.

Page 59 of 69, Section L, Part IIIa, Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Projects and page 66 of 69, Section M, Part III, Past Performance Factors. Will the government accept projects that are substantially complete (90% or more complete) for examples of Past Performance?

Completed projects are defined as projects that have been accepted as complete by the customer as indicated in Section L1.b.(4)(a)1.

Page 66 of 69, Section M, Basis of Contract Award. Can the government please provide further details on how each Part of the response will be scored in correlation to each other? Such as are all Parts of equal importance or will pricing be given higher scoring importance to the other Parts or are some parts when combined equal to the importance of pricing?

Section M, Paragraph 1, this is a competitive performance-price tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection. Competing offerors' combined past performance information and technical "acceptability" will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. As stated in Section M, Paragraph 3.b, to be considered for award the offeror's technical proposal must be rated as "Acceptable." The Government may award a contract to other than the lowest price offeror. The Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and evaluated Past Performance.

11 Will the Government accept CPARS in lieu of PPQs?

All offerors are expected to arrange for PPQs to be submitted for all projects that are to be considered. Although the government may use CPARS, if available, offerors are not to submit CPARS in place of PPQs. Offerors should not rely on CPARS in place of PPQs.

Past Performance Information should show projects of similar complexity. SOW states the contractor shall provide all material, equipment, and labor to accomplish “less-complex” and/or “minimal” design, repair, alternation and/or minor construction projects in an expeditious manner. Can you clarify the level of complexity?

For a project to be considered similar in scope and magnitude of effort, and complexity it should meet the relevancy requirements in Section M 2.b.(4)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FA500023R0003

Mini‐MACC

Question Number

QUESTION RESPONSE

13 Can affiliate past performances be used?

Per Section M, paragraph 2.b(2)(b)(iv) of the solicitation, the past performance evaluation will not take into account past performance information regarding mere sister companies. Past performance of members of a joint venture or a party to teaming agreement meeting the requirements of Section L, paragraph 1.b(4)(d).4 will be considered.

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. Please confirm that documents can be submitted in Word or PDF format, except for spreadsheets in excel? Please confirm the total number of documents to be submitted is 5: Summary and Misc Data (File Name: Part I), Price (File Name: Part II), Past Performance Quality (File Name: Part IIIa), Past Performance Supplemental Worksheet. (File Name: Part IIIc), and Technical (File Name: Part IV).

This does not include PPQs which will be submitted by the client.

Per Section L 2.d.(12), all files must be submitted in Microsoft Office format. The PDF formatted documents provided by the Government are the only documents exempt from the Microsoft Office formatting requirement and can be submitted in PDF format. The total number of documents to be submitted as stated in the question is accurate, per Section L 2.d.(14).

In order to ease the burden on our clients who could potentially receive numerous requests to fill out PPQs for this and other procurements, would the government please consider allowing CPARS and/or PPQs that were previously filled out to be included with our submittal, in lieu of requesting a new PPQ from clients who have already filled one out previously?

All offerors are expected to arrange for the PPQ provided as attachment 7 of the solicitation to be completed and submitted for all projects that are to be considered.

The PPQ provided under this solicitation is specific to evaluation of this solicitation, thus another PPQ would not be represenative of the information the government is looking to obtain. Although the government may use CPARS, if available, offerors are not to submit CPARS in place of PPQs. Offerors should not rely on CPARS in place of PPQs.