Draft RFP Attachment 8_Questions and Answers Gov Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA5613-24-R-0007
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) in Germany. The MACC is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a wide variety of design-build, sustainment, maintenance, alteration, repair, renovation, and minor construction projects over a 9-year period with an estimated value of $950 million. Key details include:
The RFP is expected to be issued around October 2024 with proposals due around November 2024. The contract will use the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) evaluation method. Offerors must meet certain criteria related to project experience, design expertise, certifications, staffing, and proximity to the work locations. Past performance will also be evaluated. The RFP will be distributed electronically through SAM.gov and the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system. Responses cover various RFP requirements such as CAGE codes, communication methods, language, submission process, and proposal organization.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Atch 5 - Q&A Form K - Contracting T- Technical
| P - Past Performance | Document Reference | |||
| (including paragraph, page) *Example: Self Scoring Matrix, Atch 2d | Discussion/Comment/Question | Govt. Response | ||
| K | Section L. | Do all teaming partners have to have a cage code and a UEI? | CAGE codes are not mandatory for subcontractors, but if they have one, they should be provided. | |
| T | Section L. | Any HOST nation designer approval on the drawings per the German code per 8.6 and in addition per UFC? | Designer approval by a Certified and Registered Architect or Engineer based on German requirements. | |
| K | Section L., Para. 1.16 | Based on the flexibility provided to bidders by 1.16 of the draft Section L – will the USG provide any specific details from bidders about the composition of their teams? Will we need to provide teaming agreements/MOUs/etc? | Yes, this has been clarified in paragraphs 1.16 and 3.4. Joint Venture Contracts must be provided if a teaming arrangement is planned to occur. Additionally, team structure/ company structure must be provided. | |
| K | Section L., Para. 1.5 | |||
| Section L., Para. 2.1 | Communication during the source selection will be transmitted via E-Mail, or the Solicitation Module PIEE. Is there a risk to miss an information as long as we are not registered by PIEE? | Everything will be posted on SAM for all announcements. The final RFP posting on SAM will include a link to PIEE, where the final RFP will be located. This has been clarified in paragraph 1.6. | ||
| K | Section L., Para. 1.9.2 | |||
| Section L., Para. 4.3 | Paragraph 4.3 states "Work samples shall be in English." This appears to conflict with the information provided in Section L., para. 1.9.2 on page 3 of 16 which states "supporting documentation within the work sample may be in German." Please clarify. | The language for submitted documents shall be in English. Only within the text of the supporting documents within a given Work Sample may original German documents remain in the German language. This includes certifications, design calculations, and/or other relevant documents. This has been clarified in paragraph 4.3. | ||
| K | Section L., Para. 1.5 | |||
| Section L., Para. 2.1 | Para 2.1 states "proposal submission for this submission will be electronic via the solicitation module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). Paper and CD-ROM submission of Volume II Technical Experience will be accepted via hand delivery." Request the Government confirm that Offerors can submit our responses to Volumes I-IV electronically to PIEE. | This has been clarified. Proposal submission for this solicitation will be 100% electronic via the solicitation module within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). It has been confirmed that PIEE can accept an unlimited number of attachments at up to 1.9 GB each. | ||
| K | Section L., Para. 1.5 | |||
| Section L., Para. 2.1 | All document must be uploaded vie PIEE. Do you offer a training for this System? | Informative documents have been provided. Draft RFP Amendment 0004 will offer an opportunity to download and submit documents through the PIEE Solicitation Module. | ||
| K | Section L., Para. 2.1 | Para. 2.1 mentions "The proposal due date and time for this solicitation is November 2024 at 1500 CET." As HRTO is a new proposal rating procedure for the European market and with Industy Day on 14 August 2024 and Questions due to the Government for review and response on 21 August 2024, Offerors request the Government to consider extending the proposal due date until the end of January 2025. | At this time, the Government will not be extending the proposal due date. | |
| K | Section L., Para. 2.1 | MESZ and November 2024 does not corespondet. In November 2024 we have MEZ. | The local time will be corrected to the appropriate time zone. | |
| K | Section L., Para. 2.1 | In reference to submitting the confirmation screenshot to the PCO and Contracting Specialist, the "confirmation shall include a date/time stamp documenting submission of the proposal in PIEE before the due date." Should Offerors interpret this as if the solicitation (SF 1449) indicates a due date (for example) of 3 November 2024 15.00, they are required to upload/submit their proposal on 02 November 2024? Please confirm? | The confirmation time stamp shall be NLT the due date/ time. | |
| K | Section L., Para. 2.2 | The proposal organization table shown on page 6 of 16 under paragraphs 3.4 and 4.1.2-4.2.5 indicates small text referencing a file naming convention. Request the Government confirm that these sections are considered and should be submitted as stand alone files and should not be consolidated in their respective Volumes. | The team structure of Volume I should be included as part of the file of Volume I. Section L has been updated to reflect this. |
Volume II should have a separate file for each work sample. As such, each section in Volume II should be stand alone files.
| K | Section L., Para. 2.2 | Proposal organisation: under 4.1.3 Work samples there is no page limitation. In Appendix C, page 2 there is a 1 page limit. How many pages are allowed | The description of the work sample cover page, Appendix C, page, has been updated from a limit of 700 characters to two-pagse. The two-page limitation refers only to the description. There is no page limit on the remainder of the work sample. |
| K | Section L., Para. 3.5 | The Financial Responsibility Information section mentions that evidence may include official letters from financial institutions demonstrating that the Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitments. Could the Government please clarify the specific amount or scope of financial coverage required for this solicitation? | This has been clarified in Section L., Paragraph 3.5. A bank guarantee of at least $4M is required to show financial resources. |
| T | Section L., Para. 4.3 | An acceptable work sample is defined as [...] taking place within the last seven (7) years of the release date of the MACC solicitation. 5. We would suggest extending the past performance validity from the past seven (7) to the past nine (9) years. The latter would mirror the contract duration planned for the MACC contracting vehicle. | Work Samples performed in the past 10 years will be accepted, this has been clarified in Section L., Paragraph 4.3. |
| T | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Teaming with 2 German entities maximum to fulfill the requirement of the work samples? | This has been clarified in Section L, Paragraph 4.3. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | What are the contract Sections A, B, C, F and H? We can not find these sections in the submitted documents? | The work samples should include the relevant project’s contract and any other relevant documents. For the contract itself, Sections A, B, C, F, and H correspond to who the contract is with, scope, period of performance, contract value, and schedule. Any modifications to the contract should also be included. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Work samples shall include sufficient information to substantiate all points claimed on the Self-Score Matrix. Please explain the points, base for the evaluation criterias? | The Self-Score Matrix encompasses the Technical Experience. Offerors will score themselves in accordance with each line item within the Self-Score Matrix and submit all evidence supporting the score within Work Samples. |
Once proposals are received, the Technical Evaluation will verify the submitted scores by reviewing the Work Samples provided. Scores may be reduced if provided documentation does not support the score. The Government Validated score is the score that must meet or exceed the minimum threshold.
T Section L., Para. 4.3 Please explain the project requirement differences of Sections 1, 3, 4 and 5 versus section 2. For Section 1 of the Self-Scoring Matrix, of the projects submitted, at least 50% must have been performed in Germany, with the remaining up to 50% performed in other parts of Europe or CONUS.
For Section 2, Design, of the projects submitted, 100% must have been performed in Germany.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 have been removed from this sentence; Sections 3, 4, and 5 work samples will not have a place of performance associated with them, as only certificate(s) or address(s) will be provided.
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Reference is made to the following: "For Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5, the Offeror shall submit the percentage of work samples with a primary performance location ...from the following locations: 1) 50 percent from Germany and 2) 50 percent either Europe or CONUS locations." Request the Government remove the reference to "50% Europe or CONUS" as these projects outside of Germany would not meet the evaluation criteria in Sections 3, 4, and 5. Request the Government change this requirement to reflect Germany as the primary performance location, as only projects performed in Germany will be meet the evaluation criteria set forth in Sections 3, 4, and 5. | Language has been adjusted to only include Section 1. Sections 3, 4, and 5 work samples will not have a place of performance associated with them, as only certificate(s) or address(s) will be provided. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Reference is made to the following: "For Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5, the Offeror shall submit the percentage of work samples with a primary performance location ...from the following locations: 1) 50 percent from Germany and 2) 50 percent either Europe or CONUS locations." Please confirm that Offerors are to interpret this as work samples submitted for Factor 1 must be performed 50% in Germany and 50% in either the EU or CONUS? | Language is adjusted to state “at least 50% from Germany.” |
| T | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Experience with the US Government in CENTCOM? | The Agency’s needs are reflected in the required categories and sample locations. Expertise, outside of these locations, is not relevant to the Agency’s requirement. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Official contract documentation. The submittal of subcontracts is a very sensible information. Is it possible to reduce the document on the frontpage and the page with the signatures? Price does not count in this proposal | Yes, for subcontracts, information that needs to be redacted should be redacted. It is permissible to provide only the relevant information. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.3 | Is it possible to reduce the time frame for the minimum performance time to 3 months? | For projects with a total contract value under $750k, the minimum performance has been reduced to 3 months. This is clarified in Section L. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.6.1 and Para 4.6.2 | Can Offerors use the same Work Sample to cover multiple categories listed in Sections 1-3? | Offerors may reuse Work Samples as relevant. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.6.3.1-3 | The Certifications in Category 9 are not connected wirh a project. It is a certification for a company. Is is sufficient to submitt the certification document? | Yes, it is sufficient to submit the certification document. All certifications within Category 9 can be submitted as one work sample, and only the description and proof of each certification will be needed. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.6.3.4 | The TRGS certification is a personal qualification and should be used under section 4.6.4 Staffing | This is correct and has been moved to Category 10. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.6.4 | Please clarify if the staffing categories 10a to 10e should only reflect the personnel certifications for those who worked under a specific work sample. Are Offerors are required to submit Staffing Requirements for the entire company, or for individual contracts provided as work samples, compiled within a work sample? | For staffing categories 10a to 10f, the number of personnel certifications should reflect those who are currently working within the organization. The staffing categories can be considered as a separate work sample where evidence for the number of construction laborers, architects, and engineers is provided. Category 10 may be submitted as one work sample. All certifications can be submitted within the Category 10 work sample, and only the description and proof of each certification will be needed. Section L has been clarified. |
| K | Section L., Para. 4.6.5.2 | Request the Government edit the sentence to read "The Offeror shall rate itself based on distance to Spangdahlem Air Base." | Text has been corrected to state the correct base. |
| K | Section L., Para. 5.3 | "The Offeror shall provide the most recently completed CPARS as part of the Past Performance submission is CPARS was created for the work sample (contract/TO)." Request the Government confirm that an interim CPARS evaluation will also be acceptable to submit to demonstrate past performance. | A final interim CPARS evaluation may be acceptable to demonstrate past performance if a final CPARS is not yet available. |
| K | Section L., Para. 5.3 | Offerors have difficulty obtaining a past performance information sheet from Contracting Officers and other Government officials when a completed CPARS is available. Please confirm if Offerors that have a completed CPARS available must also submit a past performance information sheet | PPQs are not being requested, only a Past Performance Information Sheet. Please provide both a Past Performance Information Sheet and CPARS, if applicable. |
| K | Section L., Para. 6.4 | Section K shall be submitted or through SAM? | Section K shall be submitted with the proposal. |
| K | Section M., Para. 4.4 | Offerors request clarification to the "recency" evaluation of past performance. Section M mentions "In order for the Past Performance to be determined “Recent,” at least six months of the subject performance shall have occurred within the last seven (7) years, as of the date of initial RFP issuance." However, Section L, para. 4.3 states "For all current and ongoing work samples the Offeror shall calculate their points based on data up until 30 June 2024 for all Evaluation Categories." Considering the solicitation has not yet been released, Offerors request this sentence to be edited to reflect work samples with at least six months of the subject performance shall have occurred within the last seven (7) years, as of the date of initial RFP issuance. | This has been clarified in Section M., Paragraph 4.4 |
| K | Appendix D- Self- Scoring Matrix | What is the process for scoring and verification of points? Is the Self-Scoring Matrix procedure completed by the contractor or the Government? | The contractor will score themselves, and the Government will verify all points by reviewing the evidence provided in the proposal. If any discrepancies are found, points will be adjusted downward to accurately reflect evidence provided in the proposal. |
| K | Appendix D- Self- Scoring Matrix | The self-scoring matrix has a mixture of € and $ currencies. Request the Government edit the currency in the self-scoring matrix to reflect € currency. | This has been corrected to only dollar currency. |
| T | Appendix D- Self- Scoring Matrix | What is the requirement for office location pre-award and post-award? | The contractor must have an office within 25 kilometers of Spangdahlem or Ramstein prior to the award for points to be valid. |
| T | Appendix D- Self- Scoring Matrix | The remarks below the matrix state, "For section 2 & 3, projects can be submitted multiple times." Did the Government intend to say that projects can be submitted multiple times for Section 1 - Relevant Construction Experience and Section 2 - Design Experience? | This is a typo and corrected. It now states Sections 1&2. |
| K | Appendix E / D | Appendix E shows 14 Projects, Appendix D shows 12 projects. How many projects are allowed? | This is a discrepancy and has been corrected. The correct number is 12 projects |
| K | Appendix E / D | Please provide a clarification of the Self-scoring versus the cross reference matrix. | The Self-Scoring Matrix is where the Offeror will input their score. The Cross-Reference Matrix is where the document and page references are input to support the self-rated score of each line item. |
| K | General | We work a lot for the US Army, what are the main differences working for US Air Force | A comparison cannot be provided as experience with both entities in the same capacity does not exist. |
| K | General | Can the USG provide any more detail on bonding requirements, such as bid bonds, performance bonds, payment bonds, etc.? | As this is an OCONUS location, bonds do not apply (FAR 28.102-1(a)(1)) |
| K | General | In modern enterprise structures, specialist companies are often managed as separate entities within a larger group to enhance specialization and operational efficiency. Can projects and staff from these associated companies within the group be used as references by the Offeror? If so, will these be valued equally to projects and staff directly associated with the Offeror? | To utilize a work sample from the larger organization, entities must be identified in "Appendix A_ Existing Joint Venture Agreements" to identify organizational structure. |
See also Section L 4.3. Work samples where a subcontractor is a Prime will not be accepted.
| K | General | Is this a consolidation/re-solicitation of any previous contract vehicles? Can you provide any contract/solicitation numbers for historical reference? | The most recent MACC solicitation number was FA5613-19-R-0003. |
| K | General | Is there any historical information available about previous task orders that were executed? Where they were executed? Values, time frames, basic service descriptions, and even just the number of task orders? What are the kind of projects that we can expect from the magnitude range? | For FY22 and FY23, the Ramstein Area had: |
Total 133 <250K 57 250k-500k 27 500k-1M 20 >1M 28
Example Projects include:
INSTALL AWNING AND PATIO ADDITION AT GOQ 1027
REPLACE SEWAGE PIPING, B#2755
SUS/REP ROOF DORMITORY B 2773
INSTALL EXTERIOR BLINDS SOUTH SIDE, B2108
| K | General | Can the Government confirm whether projects performed under the current MACC contract are given a higher ranking or priority in the evaluation process compared to those outside this contract? Additionally, will companies that have a long-standing performance record under the existing MACC, demonstrating a proven understanding and fulfillment of contract requirements, be rated more favorably than new Offerors who have not yet demonstrated their capability under this contract? | Projects performed under the current MACC will not be given higher ranking or priority in the evaluation process compared to those outside this contract. Similarly, companies with a long-standing performance record under the existing MACC will not be rated more favorably than those outside the existing MACC |
| T | General | Are design and construction based on UFGS or DIN and EN? | Building is primarily completed in accordance to German code and regulations. In case of Life, Health and Safety the more stringent code takes precedence. In case that due to building, environmental, equipment or similar requirements US or DoD code and regulations shall be followed this will be outlined in each Task Order's SOO or SOW. |
| T | General | Are QC and CQM certifications required? | These certifications are not required. |
| T | General | Fire per NFPA or German code? Same goes for electricity (NEC or German code) (example connection to fire trucks) | Building is primarily completed in accordance to German code and regulations. In case of Life, Health and Safety the more stringent code takes precedence. In case that due to building, environmental, equipment or similar requirements US or DoD code and regulations shall be followed this will be outlined in each Task Order's SOO or SOW. |
| T | General | The ABG 1975 regulates how US government projects in Germany are to be processed and serves as a bilateral agreement between the US and German governments. As you know, design-build projects are primarily executed using the BDV procedure. For each project, the ABB determines the necessary documentation to ensure that the construction measure conforms to German regulations, while compliance with US standards is verified by the US government. The key challenge lies in ensuring that both host nation and US regulations are fully met. Simple design-build contracts in either the German or US markets are not representative of this contract, as the MACC contract is a direct DoD contract processed in accordance with ABG 1975 as outlined above. Is this assumption correct? | Building is primarily completed in accordance to German code and regulations. In case of Life, Health and Safety the more stringent code takes precedence. In case that due to building, environmental, equipment or similar requirements US or DoD code and regulations shall be followed this will be outlined in each Task Order's SOO or SOW. |
| K | General | We would appreciate a general recap of the HTRO MTTR methodology and bidder’s self-evaluations. Specifically, any details on the USG’s expectations of acceptable documentation to substantiate a bidder’s score. | The Self-Score Matrix encompasses the Technical Experience. Offerors will score themselves in accordance with each line item within the Self-Score Matrix and submit all evidence supporting the score within Work Samples. |
Work Samples shall include all relevant information for a project, to include contract, SOW, SOO, Modifications, etc.
Once proposals are received, the Technical Evaluation will verify the submitted scores by reviewing the Work Samples provided. Scores may be reduced if provided documentation does not support the score. The Government Validated score is the score that must meet or exceed the minimum threshold.
| K | General | The solicitation uses HTRO MTTR for evaluating technical experience and past performance. Could the Government clarify whether these factors are evaluated independently or if there is a specific weighting applied between them? Specifically, is there a defined weighting between past performance and the technical proposal (e.g., 50%/50%)? | There is not a defined weight. To receive award, an offeror must meet the minimum score, have acceptable past performance, and meet all other criteria in the solicitation. |
| K | General | Will the “Minimum Score Required” be included in the final RFP? Will the MTTR be shown in the final RFP? Will a company get an award if it reaches the MTTR? | The MTTR for award has not yet been established. This will be provided with the RFP and known to all offerors. To receive award, an offeror must meet the minimum score, have acceptable past performance, and meet all other criteria in the solicitation. |
| K | General | Could the Government clarify the expected number of general contractors that will be involved in this contract? Additionally, is there a limit to the number of companies that can be assigned to this contract? | The exact number of awards has not been determined, as they will be based on the companies meeting a minimum score, having acceptable past performance, and meeting all other criteria in the solicitation. There is no limit to the number of companies. |
| K | General | If an Offeror is unable to respond to certain project requests, is it acceptable to provide a letter of commitment as an alternative? | It is unsure what this question is referring to. Is this a question regarding providing a letter of commitment if a proposal is unable to be provided at the Task Order level? |
| K | General | Are Task Orders in EURO or USD? | The award will be in EURO. |
| T | General | What kind of projects are planned in the near future that will come out under the MACC | The projects are generally a mix of renovation projects. The first task orders would ideally start next summer, depending on contract award date. |
| T | General | Are there any of the mentioned locations that have a focus | The main focus would be on Ramstein and Spangdahlem. Most of the projects will be in the Ramstein area due to the larger customer base. |
| T | General | The execution of design-build contracts usually takes three years, and only projects that are at least 80% complete are considered eligible. Given that some projects have extended beyond three years due to delays caused by the ABB/LBB approval process, we propose allowing DB projects that have been completed in the last five years or are at least 80% complete to be eligible for consideration. Would the Government be willing to extend the eligibility criteria to reflect this reality? | Work Samples performed in the past 10 years will be accepted, this has been clarified in Section L. |
&"Arial,Bold"&14Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) (Draft) FA5613-19-R-MACC Attachment 7
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .