FINAL_Questions_and_Answers_MACC__June_28__2019.pdf

DRAFT RFP FA568219RA001 MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Q: Will there be any communication/networking requirements in future task orders under this MACC (e.g. in building communications; perimeter security, CCTV, access control, fire alarm/suppression, mass notification, etc; OSP/ISP/networking, SCIF related requirements, etc)?

A: Future requirements executed from the MACC could contain these elements of work, however, the Seed Project is the only Construction Task Order requirements that has been identified at this time.

2. Q: Would it be possible to include in the Past Performance volume (for experience and past performance), projects performed in the EU (at least some of them), instead of all projects performed in Italy? USAF, as you know, operates strongly in other countries in Europe, and that experience could be relevant.

The Government will change the solicitation to the following:

Section L.4.3.1.1:

Projects provided for experience must demonstrate experience in performance in Europe and Italy. Projects submitted shall meet the Euro values and other requirements established in Section M, section M.2.3.1.1

Section M.2.3.1.1 Sub-factor1 –Prior Experience has to be read as follow:

1. Two (2) construction projects with a contract value of €500,000 or less

2. Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

3. One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

4. Completed by the offeror

5. Two of the above mentioned projects among the five (5) performed in Europe must have been completed within the Republic of Italy

Section M.2.3.3.2 Relevancy has to be read as follow:

1. Two (2) construction projects with a contract value of €500,000 or less

2. Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

3. One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

4. Completed by the offeror

5. Two of the above mentioned projects among the five (5) performed in Europe must have been completed within the Republic of Italy

3. Q: For JVs, is it possible to use projects of its members, where the solicitation states "prime" or "offeror", in lieu of "prime" or "offeror” that is the JV?

A: No, it is not. Joint Venture will be able to submit only projects performed as a Joint Ventures. Verbiage referring to prime offeror will be removed from the RFP.

4. Q: In refertence to the: draft_attachment_2_section_m_20_march.pdf PAG. 2 for the Project in subject line( RFI Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Italy Solicitation Number: FA568219RA001), could you please provide a SOW for the seed project: Project No. ASHE 18-1025 RENOVATE EXPAND FAC.939 FOR

EOD?

A: No, the Seed Project SOW will be avaialble at the time the final Request For Proposal (RFP) is published.

5. Q: In order to meet the standard and prepare minimum 5 past performances experiences according with your requirements “relevancy” here below, we would like to acquire more construction activities information possible on the Seed Project.

1. Relevancy: Prior Experience information provided will be assessed to determine if it is relevant to this requirement. Relevant projects are defined as requirements that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as defined below.

ꞏ Scope: Broad range repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and/or minor construction projects on various real property facilities across multiple trades similar to the Seed Project.

ꞏ Complexity: Projects requiring multiple trades, including design work similar to the Seed Project.

ꞏ Magnitude: Projects consistent with the Euro value of projects anticipated to be executed during the MACC period of performance. Specifically, all submitted past experience projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

ꞏ A: Information on the Seed Project will be avaialble at the time the final RFP is published.

6. Q: 1. Reference L.5.2.3.: Past Performance Information (PPI). Submit accurate information on a minimum of five (5) total recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort (“recency” and “relevancy” are defined in Section M.2.3.3).? (Section M.2.3.3:

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the contractor submits a minimum of five (5) recent and relevant projects that meet the following minimum criteria) However in Table L-4 - Past Performance Project Values there are only 4 project listed as follows:

1. Minimum Number of Projects Project Value

2. At least two (2) €500,000 or less

3. At least one (1) Between €1M- €7M

4. At least one (1)* (see table notes) Between €1M- €7M *Note: Projects submitted for this value shall be design/build projects in which the Offeror completed at least 60% of the Archetect & Engineering design of the total project

QUESTION: Projects for past performance are four (4) minimum or (5) minimum?

A: The minimum number of Past Performance projects is 5 (five). Table L-4 Past performance Project Values as to read as follow below:

5. Minimum Number of Projects Project Value

6. At least Two (2) €500,000 or less

7. At least Two (2) Between €1M- €7M

8. At least One (1)* (see table notes) Between €1M- €7M

9. *Note: Projects submitted for this value shall be design/build projects in which the Offeror completed at least 60% of the Archetect & Engineering design of the total project

7. Reference: L.5.2.3. Submit accurate information on a minimum of five (5) total recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort (“recency” and “relevancy” are defined in Section M.2.3.3).. M.2.3.3.: Magnitude: Projects consistent with the Euro value of projects anticipated to be executed during the MACC period of performance. Specifically, all submitted past experience projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

Two (2) construction projects with a contract value of €500,000 or less Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1M- €7M Completed by the offeror as the prime contractor Completed within the Republic of Italy After evaluation of each submitted past performance project, a single overall relevancy rating is assigned. However, there will be no relative comparison between offers assigned the same rating (for example, one “Very Relevant” offer will not be rated higher or lower than another “Very Relevant” rated offer). The Government will use degrees of relevancy outlined in Table M-4 when assessing past performance Q: Will projects that meet the economic value and complexities of the solicitation and are completed by the prime contractor but not within the Republic of Italy be rated Not Relevant for not being done within the Republic of Italy, Somewhat Relevant for having effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, Relevant for similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, Very Relevant for effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires?

A: As it partaines to the Past Performance assessment, project location (inside or outside of Italy and Europe-see answer to Q2) is an element of Magnitude. Adhearance to the Magnitude requirements will affect the overall Adjectival Rating as outlined in Table M-4 of Section M.

8. Q: Given Italy is part of the European Union, by European Union laws shouldn’t projects within other countries of the European Union be given the same consideration for past performance so has to encourage greater competition and economical solvent and qualified companies from within Europe to provide offers that could ultimately prove to be economically beneficial to the US Government?

A: See answer to Q2 and Q7.

9. Q: Reference: L.5.2.3. Past Performance Information (PPI). No more than two (2) of the past performance references may be for subcontractor or joint venture partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Include rationale supporting the offeror’s assertion of relevance.

Question: If Subcontractors can provide no more than two (2) of the past performance references, can they also with written consent, provide minor SOAs certifications for the offer?

A: Subparagraph L.5.2.3 will be revised. PPI from subcontractors or joint ventures partners will not be accepted.

The offeror submitting the proposal will have to provide the required current SOA certifications.

10. Q: Will the US Government give higher, same or irrelevant considerations for projects executed for the USAF in Europe in lieu of projects completed in the Republic of Italy?

A: See answer to Q2 and Q7.

11. Q: Question: Will prime or subcontracted designer be required to have a DOR (Designer of Record) for the MACC?

A: No, a Designer of Record will not be required.

12. Q: In section L.3.2, Volume 2 is defined as Past Performance, and Volume 3 is defined as Price and Other Contracting Considerations. On page 4 of section M, M.2.3.2 Factor 2 is defined as Price and in M.2.3.3 Factor 3 is defined as Past Performance. Kindly clarify which is factor 2 and which is factor 3.

A: Factor 2 is Past Performance and Factor 3 is Price.

1. Section M.2.3.2 Factor 2-Price has to be read M.2.3.2 Factor 3-Price.

2. Section M.2.3.3 Factor 3-Past Performance has to be read M.2.3.3 Factor 2

Past-Performance.

13. Q: Please clarify what you mean by “teaming arrangement” and “teaming partner”.

A: The verbiage referring to teaming arrangement and teaming partner will be removed from the RFP.

14. Q: For the purpose of bidding on this solicitation, please confirm that an RTI (Raggruppamento temporaneo di imprese) is eligible to bid.

1. In the positive, please also advise if the RTI can either be "costituito" (established) or "costituendo" (not yet established).

A: A joint venture will be able to bid on this solicitation. However, the JV must be established before the time of the solicitation (DUNS, CAGE obtained and SAM registered). See Q3.

15. Q: Offerors shall complete an Experience Overview Sheet, Attachment 6, with a minimum of five (5) projects performed within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Is it possible to extend to six (6) years?

A: The Government will not extend the requirement to 6 years.

16. Q:Minimum Number of Projects Project Value At least two (2) €500,000 or less At least one (1) Between €1M- €7M At least one (1)* (see table notes) Between €1M- €7M What happen about projects between Eur 500.000 to Eur 1.000.00? Is it possible to include them?

A: With reference to Past Performance evaluation, projects submitted that do not meet these minimum requirements could receive a lower evaluation rate in terms of magnitude.

At least one (1) Between €1M- €7M has to read as follow: At least two (2) Between €1M- €7M.

17. Q: L.5.2.6. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).

Is it possible submit CCASS/CPARS evaluation instead of PPQ?

A: PPQ is required.

18. Q: (draft) Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.3.2. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits - Page 3 of 10. The 35 page limit for all Technical Volume are not enough to deliver detailed narratives as required by the Govt. Recommend the page limit is increased to 55 pages, and offerors may not use up all the pages.

A: Government will increase limit to 55 pages.

19. Q (draft)_Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.3.3. Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit - Page 4 of 10. Schedule the conference as early as possible, as soon as the RFP is published in May. And definitely do not schedule it too late. This causes for a lot of uncertainties, and little time to prepare. This results in higher prices, as offerors are compelled to calculate higher risks, due to the limited time for preparation. Lastly, this will give the Government more time to answer these questions.

A: The Government will give this consideration. The pre-proposal conference date will be published in the RFP.

20. Q (draft) Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.3.4. - Page 5 of 10.

Please clarify whether non-Italian entities but entities members to the EU are also eligible to participate? This means a German entity will be submitting a German equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce and a German equivalent of DURC.

Please confirm or clarify.

A: In accordance to DFARS 252.225-7042, “the offeror represents that it has been duly authorized to operate and to do business in the country or countries in which the contract is to be performed”.

The L.3.4 from points 1 through 4 has to read as follow:

1. Representations and certifications, Section K

2. Documentation proving good standing and license to operate a business within the Republic of Italy.

a. Current Italian business registrations, license, and/or insurance required to legally operate within the Republic of Italy or show rationale for non-applicability.

b. Historical Chamber of Commerce documentation proving the authority of the firm to operate in the specific business sector of the instant solicitation, showing the Capital of the firm, names of partners/owners and submission of financial reports and changes to partners/owners. This document must not be older than 90 days from date of proposal.

c. Current Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC) certifying the payment of host social security benefits or equivalent document. This document must not be older than 90 days from date of proposal.

d. Current Anti-Mafia Self-Certification

3. Societa Organismi di Attestazione Certificate

a. Current SOA OG 1 category IV

b. Current SOA OG 11 category I

4. Written assurance from a Financial Institution

21. Q (draft) Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.4.3.1. Subfactor 1 - Prior

Experience - Page 6 of 10. Government requires only experience from MATOC or SABER contracts. This limits competition. We recommend that the experience factor is open to “US Government projects AND projects in the EU”.

A: The solicitation does not restrict projects to those completed under MACC, MATOC, or SABER contracts. It clarifies that projects completed under these types of agreements may be used.

See answer to Q2.

22. Q: (draft) Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.5.2.4. Subcontractor Letters of Consent - Page 8 of 10. Could you please clarify if proposed Subcontractor past experience is going to be accepted and evaluated as if it were experience of the proposed Teaming Arrangement, in relation to the 5-project count of section L.5.2.3. Past Performance Information (PPI)?

A: In accordance with L.5.2.3, Past Performance, projects completed by Subcontractors will not be accepted .

23. Q: (draft) Attachment_2_Section_M_20_March M.2.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1 - Prior Experience, Magnitude. In the case of a proposed Teaming Arrangement, can the proposed Key Subcontractor’s prior experience be used for the fulfillment of the minimum five (5) past performance project requirements?

A: In accordance with revised L.4.3.1 (c), Prior Experience projects completed by subcontractors, joint venture partners or teaming arrangement partners shall not be accepted.

24. Q: (draft)_Attachment_2_Section_M_20_March M.2.3.3 Factor 3 - Past

Performance: M.2.3.3.2 Relevancy:Magnitude: “Specifically, all submitted past experience projects must meet the following minimum requirements:” Do projects used for ‘Factor 3 - Past Performance’ have to be the same projects as listed in ‘Sub-Factor 1: Prior Experience’?

A: No, they do not.

25. Q: (draft) Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March. L.5.2.6. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). “The POCs will then complete the PPQ and send them directly to the Government representatives.” We suggest that the Government provides the option to the POC/Client to return the signed/stamped PPQ back to the Contractor to pass onto the Government if they choose to. In the past Clients have been more receptive to this and it has provided more control by the Contractor to ensure PPQs are delivered to the Government in a timely manner.

A: In accordance to L.5.2.6 the POC(s) will then complete the PPQ and send them directly to the Government representatives.

26.Q: (draft)_Attachment_1_Section_L__20_March, L.3.4. – Page 5 of 10. We note that a Bank Letter of Commitment may be required. Could the government please comment on the likely magnitude or requirement for Bank Letters of Assurance or Letter of commitment at the time of proposal submittal, if any?

A: The magnitude of the written assurance from a Financial Institution will be defined on the RFP.

26. Q) We are a company with all the requisites required by MACC, in particular those relating to Past Performance, except for the SOA, for which we are in possession of the OG11 category classification VI, but for the OG1 IV category we are in possession of the III classification. Is it possible for us to participate in a joint venture with a company in possession of this requirement? Even if there is no previous experience together?

A: The joint venture itself must meet the SOA certificates requirements mentioned under Section L.3.4. Moreover, see Q14.

27.Q) With reference to the draft Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the documentation issued 22 March 2019, will the Past Performance evaluation in the form of CPARS be acceptable in lieu of the abovementioned PPQ form since CPARS is the required evaluation form used by U.S. Government Agencies? All the required evaluation categories as required by the FAR are included in the CPARS and as per our experience, the Government Agency evaluators will only provide CPARS when available. Please clarify.

A: See Q17.

28. Q: In the Government’s evaluation of project experience will projects performed in

Italy be considered more relevant than projects performed in Europe since the performance of this contract will be in Italy?

A: See Q7.

29. Q: Could you please clarify if in the case of a Joint Venture already established, but without a past performance relevant to satisfy the requirements, such lack can be bypassed by the past performance of the individual companies that make up the joint venture?

A: See Q23.

30. Q:Reference M.2.3.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Prior experience Reference M.2.3.3.2 Factor 3 – Past Performance Performing projects for the US Government requires specific procedures, certifications and requirements which makes the contract management very unique. Additionally, the contractor performance assessment (CPARS, CCASS, PPQs) is tailored on the mentioned requirements.

For this reason, we believe that a project which has been executed for a US Government Agency should be more favorably considered and rated.

Would the Government consider to review the RFP and include this additional requirement in the relevancy criteria?

A: This additional requirement will not be added to the RFP.

30. Q: Reference amendment dtd on 03-May-2019 L.5.2.6. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Is it possible submit CCASS/CPARS evaluation instead of PPQ? A: PPQ is required.

Being a CPARS-CCASS, which is the official Contractor evaluation assessed by the Government representatives right after contract completion, they are the most reliable documents that reflect accurate and fair evaluation from Client involved representatives during the project execution.

Frequently, it happens that the Government representatives during the time of construction are no longer available today; and, therefore requesting a PPQ now, when a CPARS is available, will result in poor information from the current, available representatives because they were not involved during the project and they have no knowledge to properly assess the contractor’s performance.

For this reason, we recommend that the Government includes CCASS/CPARS evaluations whenever they are available.

A: PPQ is required. In accordance to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) structure, if CPARS and/or other Past Performance Reports for the project PPQ is completed, are available, section 1.K and section 4.G3 must be filled out.

32. We have a follow-up question on the first question/answer provided related to in building communications; perimeter security, CCTV, access control, fire alarm/suppression, mass notification, etc; OSP/ISP/networking, SCIF related requirements. Such networks/systems/solutions may only be designed/engineered/implemented by US companies with a facilities clearance.

Question: if there are NO US companies with facilities clearance awarded as a prime contractor on this MACC, than HOW does the gov’t solicit & contract “security cleared” requirements in future task orders?

A: So far we do not know if in the future there will be the need of these specific requirements at Aviano Air Base or at other geographically separate units in the Republic of Italy.

1. Is that solicited / contracted “through the prime contractor” to any US cleared company who is on the prime’s team acting as a subcontractor?

o If so, will that be for products/materials AND services? (asking specifically towards services, as US companies with clearances might not meet specific Italy based requirements such as Anti-Mafia Self-Certification).

A: The MACC future projects will be construction ones.

See Q20. In accordance to L.3.4 an offeror must submit:“Documentation proving good standing and license to operate a business within the Republic of Italy.

a. Current Italian business registrations, license, and/or insurance required to legally operate within the Republic of Italy or show rationale for non-applicability.”