Pre-proposal_Conference_Minutes_10R0007.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

PACIFIC AIR FORCES

15 Jul 10

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

FROM: 35 CONS/LGCA

Unit 5201, Bldg. 656, Misawa AB, Japan

APO AP 96319-5201

SUBJECT: Pre-proposal Conference Minutes & Record of Site Visit, RFP No. FA5205-10-R-0007, Roads and Pavements IDIQ Contract, Misawa AB, Japan

1. This is the pre-proposal conference minutes, including record of site visit, which was conducted for subject solicitation on 14 Jul 10 at 35 CONS conference room and on Reese Road, IAW the solicitation provisions AFFARS 5352.215-9001 Notice of Pre-bid/Pre-proposal Conference and

FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction). 12 firms’ representatives, totaling 28 individuals, attended this conference/site visit. The following are names of the firms and the Government representatives attended:

2. Pre-proposal Conference.

a. At 1300 hours of 14 Jul 10, the conference was opened by Mr. Sakamoto/Administrative

Contracting Officer (ACO) who explained the Roads and Pavements (R&P) IDIQ Contract and particulars/remarks of the solicitation by presenting the Slide Show (see attached slides). All attendees were allowed to ask questions at any time during the session.

Firms Attended (in alphabetical order) Government

KAJIMA ROAD Co., Ltd. Mr. Nogawa, Acq Team Lead CO, 35 CONS

KAMIKITA KENSETSU, Co., Ltd. Mr. Sakamoto, ACO, 35 CONS

KOSAKA KOMUTEN Co., Ltd. Mr. Johoji, CA, 35 CONS

NIPPO Corporation Mr. Kawahara, CA, 35 CONS

NIPPON ROAD Co., Ltd. Mr. Sato, CA, 35 CONS

NISHIMATSU KENSETSU Co., Ltd. Mr. Nakamura, CA, 35 CONS

SEIKITOKYU KOGYO Co., Ltd. 1Lt Choi, 35 CES/CCE

SHOWA KENSETSU Co., Ltd. Mr. Kashiwazaki, Team Lead, 35 CES/CEPM-B

SUZUKI KENSETSU KOGYO Co., Ltd. Mr. Maruyama, Team Lead, 35 CES/CEPM-A

TAISEI ROTEC Corporation Mr. Yoha, Civil Engineer, 35 CES/CEPM-B

TANAKA CONSTRUCTION Co., Ltd. Mr. Tashima, Civil Engineer, 35 CES/CEPM-A

TANAGA GUMI Co., Ltd. Mr. Ruike, Gov’t Inspector, 35 CES/CEPM-A

- 2 -

b. Topics covered by Mr. Sakamoto were:

Purpose of R&P IDIQ contract and its mechanism (Task Order based contract).

How to insert proposal prices in the pricing schedule and exhibits.

How the Task Order pricing be structured.

Contract clauses and solicitation provisions.

Fill-ins, representations, and certifications.

Preparation of technical proposal and past performance information.

Evaluation factors and procedures.

And so on, as demonstrated on the attached slides.

c. Questions and Answers. There were two questions brought by the prospective offerors during the session above. Questions are shown on a non-attribution basis IAW solicitation provision AFFARS 5352.215-9001(d) hereinafter. The following summarizes the questions and the Government answers:

– Q-1. Is the Performance Bond required on individual Task Order basis? Or the increase of the original Performance Bond is allowed when new Task Order(s) is/are issued?

– A-1. The submission of the Performance Bonds shall be made on each respective

Task Order which exceeds the award amount of $100,000.00. (by Mr.

Sakamoto/ACO.) (Ref. SF 1442 para. H-902)

– Q-2. (After award of this contract,) will the contractor be required to have his/her staff stands by at all time, while no tasks order is issued?

– A-2a. Providing contractor’s staff stand by at all time is not a mandatory. (by Mr.

Sakamoto/ACO)

– A-2b. In this solicitation, offerors are required to submit an organization chart for key program management staff and subcontractors in the Technical Proposal (ref. SF

1442 para. L-100 (e)(1) and M-900(a)(1)). Also, the Historical Data (SF 1442

Attachment 4) is provided to aid the offerors’ to understand the characteristic of this contract requirement. The Government will review the organization chart to ascertain if the proposed organization and the manning are adequate. Upon award of the contract, the contractor will be required to establish the organization as proposed for

- 3 -execution of the contract requirements, but it does not mean to tie down the personnel in this contract only. (by Mr. Nogawa/Team Lead CO)

There was no further question. The session was moved on to the technical briefing by

Mr. Yoha, Project Engineer/35 CES to enhance understanding of the price structure.

d. Line Item (SubELIN) Composition: Mr. Yoha briefed the composition of the work items in this contract, which are listed in the Exhibit A thru C as SubELINs, with the corresponding references in the Specifications/Attachment 1, and the

Drawings/Attachment 2.

e. Questions and Answers. There were three (3) questions brought by the prospective offerors during the session of the technical briefing. The following summarizes the questions and the Government answers:

– Q-3. (When reading the Section 01 11 00 of the Specifications,) It appears that works required by SubELINs A/B/C001CV and CW, “Replace Existing Manhole with Precast Concrete Structures and Ductile Cover 600/900 mm Round or Square

(Load Class T-25)”, contain works of A/B/C001FE, “Removal & Disposal of

Concrete Curbs”, and A/B/C001FF, “Removal & Disposal of Concrete Curbs and

Gutters”. (When reading the “Precast Concrete Structure” includes precast concrete curb/gutter,) Are these a duplication, or otherwise, who are they used?

– A-3. Those are not duplication. SubELINs A/B/C001CV and CW are for

“replacing manhole”, and are inclusive not only for the one located on the road/sidewalk, but also the one located by the road. Depending on where the manhole is located, and how the manhole is installed, removal and/or restoration of precast concrete structure will be associated with those items. (by Mr. Yoha/35 CES

Engineer.)

– Q-4. Please specify the size/material of “Personnel Chain-link Gate” and “Double

Swing Chain-link Gate” in SubELINs A/B/C001ET and EU.

– A-4. The “Personnel Chain-link Gate” in SubELIN A/B/C001ET is shown on the

Drawing No. C-55. The “Double Swing Chain-link Gate” in SubELIN A/B/C001EU is shown on the Drawing No. C-45 for the pair as an each. (by Mr. Yoha/35 CES

Engineer)

– Q-5. Regarding SubELINs A/B/C001HD and HE, the duration of usage is described as “e.g. by week, or months”. Which period is correct?

– A-5a. Those are a typographical error, and those shall be “per month”. (by Mr.

Yoha/35 CES Engineer)

– A-5b. Paragraph 1.1.1.16 of Section 01 11 00 in the Attachment 1, Specifications, will be corrected as stated, and revised by the later Amendment. (by Mr.

Sakamoto/ACO)

- 4 -

There was no further question. The pre-proposal conference was ended at 1445 hours, and all parties were moved on to the Site Visit to enhance understanding of the site conditions and required quality level under this contract.

3. Site Visit to Reese Road.

a. Following the pre-proposal conference session ended at 1445 hours, the scheduled site visit was made by all attendees. The location all parties visited was at Reese Road, at the boundary between the new road surface (repair completed in October 2008) and the old.

Mr. Yoha made on-site briefing to all attended prospective offerors in regard to the typical form/finish of the required works.

b. Questions and Answers. There was one question brought by the prospective offerors during the site visit. The following are the question and the Government answer:

– Q-6. Standards of Asphalt Concrete (AC) in the specifications are slightly different from the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) in the area of aggregate gradations. Will the contractor be required to provide AC strictly the same composition with the U.S.

standards?

– A-6. The AC composition will be examined by 35 CES in the material approval submittal. When the AC quality is identified that well above than the U.S. Standards for the area of stability, the JIS AC may be allowed. In that case, a minor disparity of the aggregate gradations will not be an issue. (by Mr. Yoha/35CES Engineer.)

There was no further question. The site visit was ended at 1515 hours.

New

Old