Atch_2_-__Consolidated_Q&A_2_(Conf_&_Site_Visit).pdf

Consolidated Q&A 2 (Post Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

FA5613-19-R-0003

K – Contracting C – Cost/Pricing T- Technical P – Past Perf.

Solicitation/A ttachment Reference

Cross Reference Discussion/Comment/Question Government Response

P-001 Volume II- Past Performance

Offerors identified incongruent information between the RFP, L.5.2.3.1 Specific Content (page 36 of 45) and the Government provided PPI form (Attachment 6). Please clarify the exact information that needs to be provided in the PPI form for Past Performance Information to be deemed technically compliant.

Atch 6 was provided as a sample (it’s marked as the sample). Offerors can choose to use Atch 6 (it is our preference) or follow the instructions stated in L.5.2.3.1 in a format of your choice as long as all specific contents listed are addressed in detail.

P-002 Volume II- Past Performance

The relevancy assessment identified in RFP para.

M.4.1.2 mentions, “magnitude (historical average value of task orders issued under the MACC is approximately €1 million or equivalent in dollars).” However, the standardized technical proposal (STP) in attachment 5a lists the magnitude of the SEED project between $1-5M.

Considering this range in magnitude and Offerors ability to select projects that best meet the scope/magnitude/and complexity to the efforts described in this solicitation, Offerors respectfully request the Government to change the RFP relevancy assessment for magnitude to include projects valued between €1-5M.

STP that tells the offerors the details of a particular project, the magnitude is required to be expressed in range IAW DFARS; therefore, the magnitude for the seed project was expressed between $1M and $5M.

Section M.4.1.2 is an evaluation criteria set for the source selection level, not at the task order level. To determine relevancy, the Government will use the historic magnitude benchmark for major projects which is approximately 1million EURO or dollar equivalent. This means that any contract/task order magnitude approximately equivalent to 1million EURO or higher, will be given more consideration over those under 1 million EURO. The magnitude criteria stated in Section M will remain the same.

K-001 Proposal Due Date

13 Additional Solicitation Requirements

The formal RFP documents were posted on 5 Oct 2018. Some documents have been revised. 30 days are a very short time to finish a 35 % design.

Is it possible to extend the due date for example 10 days?

The draft RFP was released on 12 Sep 18 to get feedbacks from industry and to give you the heads-up on the General Requirements, Special Contract Requirements, Seed Project SOW, all pre-design documents and Section L&M for you to build on 35% design. The Government released 80-90% draft documents. The only documents that could not release at the time were the PPI, PPQ, Seed Project STP, LD info and Form 66, Material Submittal for the seed project which is less than 20% documents. The Government understands that some documents have been changed since the draft stage;

however, the changes were minimal and did not affect the overall requirements. Therefore, the Government sees no reason for the 10 day extension on the proposal due date.

T-001 Technical Proposal Page Limit

The total pages for the technical proposal is limited to 35 pages. Since the Subfactor 2, Quality Management Plan (QMP) is included, could the technical proposal page limit to be increased to 40 pages?

The Government concur with the suggestion.

The Government confirms that 35 page limit still remains the same for Subfactor 1, 35% Concept Design; however, the Government will allow10 pages for Subfactor 2, QMP. Amendment 0001 will reflect this change in Section L.3.2., Table 1.2.

T-002 Atch 3 – Seed Project SOW Shelves How high are the shelves? What could be the highest edge of a stored piece be?

Shelf dimensions are included in RFP Atch 3g – Shelf Layouts & Dimensions. Atch 3g will be added via Amendment 0001.

T-003 Atch 3 – Seed Project SOW Shelves

What is the maximum load required for the shelving unit frame? Please provide the max.

weight information.

Max load information is included in RFP Atch 3g

– Shelf Layouts & Dimensions. Atch 3g will be added via Amendment 0001.

T-004 Atch 3 – Seed Project SOW

Sprinkler System Does the sprinkler system must be wet?

RFP Atch 3, Seed Project SOW, Title II, 17) is revised to address that the sprinkler system could be dry or combination. This revised Atch 3 will be attached to Amendment 0001.

T-005 Atch 3 – Seed Project SOW Fire Alarm Is there a specific brand name of fire alarm the offerors should propose in the technical proposal?

RFP Atch 3, Seed Project SOW, Title II, 15) is revised to address the specific brand name and to add a radio transmission system. This revised Atch 3 will be attached to Amendment 0001.

P-003 Volume II- Past Performance

PPQ

Substitution

Would the Government consider substituting Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) for Attachment 7 -

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)?

The Government already has the full access to CPARS records because it is a Government system. Nor did in Section L anywhere that CPARS from an offeror was requested.

If so, would you please exclude the CPARS from the page count?

The Atch 6, PPQ contains in-depth questions that normally CPARS report cards don't reveal. The Government will evaluate both CPARS and PPQs to assess the offeror’s performance quality;

therefore, one cannot be a substitute for the other.

The Government needs both for our thorough performance quality evaluation. The terms and conditions of the solicitation for the PPQ will remain as they are.