Q A_Set__4.pdf

Solicitation No. FA5613-14-R-0016

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC)

RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SET #4

26 Nov 2014

Question 1. In Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers, Set 2, the Government provided a response to Question 30 as follows: "Assume there are no AT/FP issues. Assume there is no expansion of the parking". We read this response to tell us that 45 Person Band Facility parking area required by the governing UFC (13,500 ft2 of parking required for 45 spaces) is

NOT required for this project and should NOT be included in the design or pricing. We further note that an ATFP analysis of the building is required by UFC 4-101-01 of 9 Feb 12, Changed 01

Oct 13. Paragraph 1-8.2 talks to applying the AT/FP standards to Existing Buildings when project costs exceed 50% of the replacement value of the building. In addition, we believe paragraph 1-8.3, which applies to Building Additions, must be analyzed and the results incorporated into the project. We also note that the UFC requires, at a minimum, ATFP compliant exterior window and door glazing for the Addition, and possibly for the

Existing Building (depending on the project cost versus building value analysis). We interpret the Government’s answer to Question 30 as waiving all these AT/FP requirements for the Seed

Project Design and Pricing. Can you please confirm that we have correctly interpreted the

Government’s response to Question 30?

ANSWER: Yes, assume no ATFP requirements or concerns and the 45 Person Band

Facility parking area required by the governing UFC (13,500 ft2 of parking required for 45 spaces) is NOT required for the seed project.

Question 2. Via Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers Set 2, in response to Question 2 and other similar questions, the Government provided, in part: “…The SOW adds the additional 41 person office mostly in the annex (area 6) and perhaps the 2 nd floor somewhere, if space allows…”. We see no such requirement for administrative office space for 41 persons in the UFC or SOW. We believe, instead, that the only office space required for the 45 person band facility, by table 2-1 of the UFC is for 9 of the 45 band members, as follows: the commander (200 NSF), enlisted bandleader (150 NSF), NCO and performance group leaders (210 NSF 1 room with 3 desks) and an office space for administrative operations and transportations (425 NSF, 1 room with area for 4 desks). We would ask that the Government carefully review the response to

Question 2, and either provide clarification, or modify the SOW to incorporate what appears to be a new requirement for administrative office space for the remaining band members.

ANSWER: The 41 leftover personnel are part of the original 45 person band and not an additional 41 persons.

Question 3. In your Questions/answer set 3 answer 24 distributed on 13 Nov 2014 you state that we shall not consider any Handicapped issues for the SEED Project. This means no HC toilet ,no HC ramp and no HC access to the second floor need to be designed and estimated.

This is missing in the revised SOW dated 14 Nov 2014! Please confirm and correct.

ANSWER: Yes, there are no ADA requirements for the seed project. This will be added to the assumptions via an amendment to the Seed Project SOW and posted to Fed Biz Opps.

Question 4. Paragraph 3.4D of UFC 4-171-04AN addresses the need for a “Charge of Quarters

(CQ)” responsible for after-hours security in the 45 Person Band Facility, with an associated CQ desk and space requirement. We believe this requirement for “…the restraint of possibly rowdy activities by personnel in the Instrument Lockers/Day Area….” is a requirement of a by gone era

(portions of the UFC are taken from documents from 1983), and can be eliminated. We would like to eliminate the requirement for a CQ desk and CQ area from the project. Please confirm this assumption.

ANSWER: The CQ desk is a very small space and serves many purposes besides internal conflicts. The CQ desk is critical to the security of the overall building and therefore is still a requirement.

Question 5. In your answers you always stated that all assumptions will be incorporated into the seed project SOW and posted to Fed Biz Opps. In order to take into account all assumptions, it is necessary that these assumptions are available in a short term. When becomes these assumptions posted?

ANSWER: Via amendment #2 posted to Fed Biz Opps on 14 Nov the assumptions have been incorporated into the Seed Project SOW.

Question 6. In section L Instructions to offerors B.5.c Narrative Graphics. The displays shall not exceed DIN A3 in size. The presentation of the design in this small format is very unfavorable and not clear. Is it possible to extend the format size? The folding could be in accordance with the DIN.

ANSWER: Please follow the DIN A3 format. The DIN A3 format is the best size for our review process. The drawings are unlimited, so detail can be expressed in multiple sectional views in the A3 size if necessary.

Question 7. Since the pre-proposal conference held on 21.okt 2014 we are working on a creative design because the information was given that you will be “open for creative solutions with few constraints” (See slide show).

Now, after our creative concept is finished, questions and answers Part 3 were uploaded on

13.11.2014. There is an answer to question 23 which states that the required annex is only allowed for the required office space not for other solutions. Does this mean in fact that we have to start from the beginning again because otherwise we will fail the technical acceptance? Not taken in account that there are several arguments (architectural and economic) supporting other solutions.

ANSWER: From the beginning the Annex was to be used and was intended for the additional office space and is stated twice in the Seed Project SOW on page 2 in para 1 and on page 4 in para 3.10. All improvements and recommendations outside of the design requirements can be discussed in the narrative as long as the minimum requirements from section L are sufficiently documented. The 20 page limit for narratives still applies.

Question 8. The language in Section M of the Solicitation provides that the Government will evaluate “the individual line items of the design-build seed project price proposal to determine whether prices are complete and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.” Section M further provides that “incomplete proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.” We understand “incomplete proposed prices” to mean a failure by an offeror to propose a price for a required line item of the seed project. Is this correct or does the Government intend the language to mean that it will conduct a price realism analysis?

ANSWER: No, the Government does not intend the language to mean it will perform a price realism analysis. The Government will evaluate Prices for completeness and price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404. When preparing your pricing please strictly follow sections L and M of the solicitation. Please reference Solicitation page

47, Section L Instruction, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, para E Volume III – Price and Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, page 52 para F Factor 3 – Price.

Question 9. The RFP describes a program of $30M annually and the RFP identifies a target of 4 awards. If this target is achieved, each awardee could reasonably expect $7.5M in task order awards per year. If the Government conducts the TORFP evaluations in a similar manner to the seed project evaluations, each awardee would need to submit a 35% design package with its pricing information in response to a TORFP. This means each awardee can reasonably expect to incur significant design fees each year during the course of performance. We are seeking clarification on how those fees will be accounted for by the Government during performance and in the price evaluation as part of the competition. Please clarify:

• Will awardees be required, in response to a TORFP, to include the cost of preparing the

35% design in its offer?

• Are offerors in response to this solicitation required to include design costs as a line item in our proposal for the seed project? Would pricing in response to the seed project be considered

“incomplete” without such costs included?

ANSWER: 1. After award in response to a Task Order (TO) RFP that includes a design requirement a contractor should include all the reasonable costs to be incurred in the performance of subsequent TO to include design development costs.

2. Proposal should be inclusive of all applicable, required and customary cost elements.

Reference Solicitation page 52, Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, Section F, para

1.a pricing should be “consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal”.

Question 10. The contract does not define the design submittal and review process for the seed project or TO RFPs. To provide a fixed-price offer for the seed project and to understand the process during performance, we require the following information regarding the seed project and

TO RFPs, all which affect the design duration, schedule, and pricing:

• How many design submittals will be required for presentation to the Government?

Should we expect to provide: Concept, Interim, Pre Final and Final packages? What are the

Government review times for such design submittals?

• How will the design comment review process be conducted? Via the Projnet web site

(DrChecks)? Will a Government authorization to proceed with construction on each task order be required upon completion of design?

• Will “fast track” design build be used (in other words, will the successful task order awardee be able to start some field work prior to the approval of the Final Signed and Sealed design package)?

ANSWER: 1. Each submittal schedule in performance of the contract will be determined on a case by case basis after award of a TO.

2. If required the Government will utilize design review meetings to address any comments or concerns regarding the respective project and design. Physical performance will commence upon Government acceptance and approval of a design.

3. The schedule of physical performance is contingent on the elements of work required and will be determined on a case by case basis after award of a TO.