Consolidated_Q&A__4.pdf

Consolidated Q&A #4 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

T-01

RFP,

Technical Subfactor 1

L.4.3.1.1

RFP para. L.4.3.1.1. requires a “…complete 35% concept design across all disciplines IAW the Seed Project SOW…” seeming to imply a reference to U.S. Government Standards for a “35% design” submittal (we note that German Standards have no reference to a “35% concept design” submittal). We note that all references in U.S. Government Unified Facilities Criteria refer to a 35% submittal as a “Design Development” submittal and not a “Concept Design” submittal.

Also, at 35%, the Design package would not, in any case, be considered “complete” as required by the Solicitation. (UFC 1-309-09n, at Chapter

15 “DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTALS

(35% - 50%)” provides an example of specific criteria from the US Government regarding Design Development submittals.

The Atch 3 - SOW para. 1.5 clearly defines the requirement for a concept design according to the HOAI service phase 3. The minimum requirements the Government requested are listed in subparagraphs 1.5.1 – 1.5.3 which the Government believes adequately addressed.

T-02 Atch 3 – Seed Project SOW Paragraph 1.5

Atch 3, Paragraph 1.5, “Design Requirements” requires the provision with the Offeror’s response of, among other items, “…a service Phase 3 (concept design) IAW the HOAI…” The “Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure (HOAI)” is a German Standard for design which provides requirements for design products. The HOAI lists 9 separate “Stages” of design progress, which do not necessarily correspond to the US requirements and do not contain a “35% Concept” Stage or Phase. Instead, HOAI Stage (assumed “Phase”) 3, requires “Construction drawings at 1:100 scale, with provision of outline specifications and a cost plan”. We assume that the Government does not require “Construction” or “Final Signed and Sealed” type drawings to be submitted with the Offer. If Specifications are to be provided, certainly the 35-page limit must be

1) The Atch 3 - SOW para. 1.5 clearly defines the requirement for a concept design according to the HOAI service phase 3. The Government requests all drawings that are required for HOAI service phase 3.

2) The official edition of the HOAI does not use the term “outline specifications”, please specify.

3) It is the Government’s opinion that the 35 page limit should provide an adequate space for the design narrative (the pages for drawings and bill of quantities are unlimited IAW L.3.2, Table 1.2).

increased and the time to prepare such specifications must be allowed for. We kindly request clarification regarding which standards are to be followed.

T-03

RFP,

Technical Subfactor 2

L.4.3.2.

RFP para. L.4.3.2 requires submission by the offerors of a “Quality Management Plan”. The elements of the QMP provided for in subparagraph L.4.3.2.1 do not address design related elements. As the Seed Project is a “Design Build” type project where the successful offeror will be required to develop the submitted design package from a presumed Concept design to a Final Signed and Sealed Construction package, will the QMP provided by offerors be required to address design elements—in other words, be required to be an integrated Design- Build QC Plan? If so, we request that at least 20 pages be allowed to be submitted with the QMP (Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation, issued on 09 November 2018, allows for only 10 pages for the QMP submission).

Paragraph L.4.3.2.1 requires the offeror to provide the QMP to cover “all activities”, that means the QMP should include all manners of requirements including both, construction and design.

For the required QMP contents listed in that paragraph, the Government believes that 10 pages would be sufficient for offerors to address their QC procedures, processes and methods in a clear and concise manner.

T-04

Reference to UFC 4-440-01, “Warehouses and Storage Facilities” does not appear in the Solicitation. Will such UFC be required to be applied to the Design?

Atch 3 - SOW para. 1.2 clearly states: “All relevant United States (US) and German rules and regulations shall be applied. … If a conflict exists between US and German regulations, the more stringent of the two shall take precedence.

The contractor shall comply with the following US regulations, but is not limit to: … “

T-05

Will the Specifications provided in the Design be edited UFGS Sections or Standard German DIN specifications?

The question is not clear; therefore, the Government is unable to provide the answer.

Please specify or elaborate the question.

T-06 Who is the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for Fire Protection Related Issues in the Design?

US Government or German Authorities?

The US Government has the authority over the fire protection matters.

T-07 At 35%, foundation and building loading verifications would normally be provided. We respectfully request as-built drawings for the

As-built drawings for the existing load carrying structure are not available.

existing load carrying structure to perform such analysis, if a 35% progress design package is required.

K-01

The Government is requiring the bidders to provide 35% design documents and a complete Bill of Quantities for the Seed project. It will difficult to provide accurate 35% design without a complete set of construction drawings for Building 2167 and an extensive site visit to take measurements. The Government should expect to receive 35% designs from bidders with significant variations. Furthermore, the requirement for 35% design gives large businesses an unfair advantage because they can devote more resources to this effort. We recommend that the Government remove the requirements for a 35% design and complete Bill of Quantities and instead require Bidders to only submit a total price for the Seed project and an approach to managing the project.

1) The Government held the Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit on 7 Nov 18. The invitation for this event was posted on FBO with the RFP release on 1 Nov 18 and it was opened to all potential bidders for attendance. Furthermore, the conference briefing slides, conference/site visit minutes and attendance record were promptly posted on FBO on 9 Nov 18. All potential offerors had the same opportunity to attend this one-time event and the Government has no intention to alter the technical evaluation criteria stated in the RFP for those who chose not to attend the site visit.

2) This MACC acquisition is based on full and open competition; it is not a set-aside for Small Business (SB) concerns. In fact, there is no SB requirements for any contracts to be performed in OCONUS locations; therefore, such claim that large businesses are given unfair advantage is irrelevant and invalid.

3) The Seed Project is a “Design-Build” real task order. Evaluating price for the seed project alone without evaluating the offeror’s technical/design capability is not only inconsistent with the “Best Value Tradeoff” source selection objective but also poses a significant technical risk to the Government. The Government does not intend to change any proposal requirements or evaluations criteria stated in Section L&M of the RFP.