MACC_Questions_and_Answers_10012019.pdf

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT‐FA568219RA001

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

1. Reference: Solicitation Attachments #4 through #9.

Question: The Solicitation requires Offerors to use Attachments #4 through #9.

However, these are provided only in PDF format. Please provide the attachments in MS Word.

Answer: Word version of Attachment #4 through #9 has been posted on www.fbo.gov

2. Reference: Section L.4 Subfactor 1 – Previous Experience, p 6.

Question: This subfactor requires projects with a value below €500,000 and then projects with a value above €1M. This forms a gap, and Offerors are not able to submit otherwise relevant projects that are between the €500,000 – €1M range.

Please update the requirement to allow for project also in the €500,000 – €1M range to be submitted for review, as the MACC contract will also include Task Orders with such magnitudes.

Answer: Requirement remains as it is.

3. Reference: Section L.5 Volume II – Past Performance, pp 7 & 8.

Question: This subfactor requires projects with a value below €500,000 and then projects with a value above €1M. This forms a gap, and Offerors are not able to submit otherwise relevant projects that are between the €500,000 – €1M range.

Please update the requirement to allow for project also in the €500,000 – €1M range to be submitted for review, as the MACC contract will also include Task Orders with such magnitudes.

4. Reference: Section M.2.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1 - Prior Experience, p 3.

Question: This subfactor requires an Offeror’s projects to comply with the following 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”. The Seed Project however includes New Construction. Please update the requirement for Sub-Factor 1 Prior Experience to include projects that demonstrate New Construction, too.

Answer: Minor construction includes new construction projects.

5. Reference: Seed Project Technical Specifications, AC1 - 8. CUSTODY OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, p 14.

Question: Was an Asbestos test performed by the Government or by a previous Government Contractor in Facility 939 in the timeframe between January 1999 and September 2019?

Answer: It is foreseen the removal of probably asbestos contain material (PACM) in Ib – Item 6 and Id - item 8 – pag 317 and others, based on our report there are two fire doors in which it is possible that contain asbestos, in any case it is a confined type.

6. Reference: Seed Project Technical Specifications, AC1 - 8. CUSTODY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, p 14.

Question: If an Asbestos test was performed, please provide the Reports.

Answer: See Q&A no. 5.

7. Question: In accordance to Technical Specifications, is contractor supposed to move equipment currently present inside building 939 EOD?

Answer: The User equipment will be moved by the User, the building equipment belongs to the contract.

8. Question: In accordance to Technical Specifications, will people be moved during the construction activity?

Answer: Yes, people will be moved during the construction activity.

9. Question: In accordance to Technical Specifications, does contractor has to provide furniture for building 939 EOD?

Answer: Contractor does not have to provide furniture.

10. Question: How will 31 Contracting Squadron evaluate price proposal?

Answer: Price proposal will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404.

11. Question: What happens if the Independent Government Estimate for the Seed project is lower that all offerors submitted price proposals?

Answer: Price proposal will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404.

12. Question: What happens if the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) did not arrive within the solicitation closing date to 31 Contracting Squadron, will our proposal be determined unresponsive?

Answer: In accordance to Attachment 1 Section L, L.1.1 “Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Section L and/or failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award”.

13. Question: with reference to Volume I Technical Subfactor, Subfactors 1 – Prior

Experience –, and Volume II, Past Performance, please clarify if it could be considered valid a contract started in October 2013 and terminated in July 2015.

Furthermore please clarify if contracts begun before September 2014 but performed within 2014-2019 could be accepted.

Answer: In accordance with L.4.3.1. Subfactor 1-Prior Experience: “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. Any ongoing efforts used by the offeror must have begun at least six

(6) months prior to the issue date of this solicitation and be 50% or more complete”. The issue date of this requirement (FA568219RA001) was August 28

2019. As such, only projects initiated after August 28 2014 will be considered.

Ongoing projects that are not yet complete must be 50% or more complete as of February 28 2019 to be considered.

14. Question: Regarding the distance between existing B939 and the new addition to be constructed, the RFP provides that upon “customer request”, Italian Law requirements for minimum separation distance between the buildings of 10m has been “waived". Can you please explain what this means--has the customer sought approval from the AHJ to obtain such approval? Or is this required of the successful offeror? (Design Analysis ASHE_18-1025, Page 7, Paragraph 1.2.3

PROPOSED WORKS).

Answer: No approval needs to be obtained by the successful offeror. Based on EOD mission requirements we waived the 10mt clearance that is an architectural requirement for facilities having windows facing each other and in accordance with D.M. 1444/1968 and following updates.

15. Question: Reference L.1. General Instructions, L.3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L-1. Please, confirm that all Volume III Price and Other Contracting Consideration documents must be submitted in a redacted copy, including CCEB, self-certifications, SF1442 fills-in, etc.

Answer: Offerors will not be required to submit a redacted copy of Volume III Price and Other Contracting Considerations (see changed Section L- Table L-1, Proposal Organization).

16. Question: Reference L.1. General Instructions, sect. L.3.4.1 paragraph 2.a “the offeror is an Italian company. Please, clarify what other current Italian registrations other than CCIAA, DURC and SOA must be submitted with the proposal?

Answer: In accordance with L.3.4.1, an offeror has to submit documents from para 1 through 4.

17. Question: Offerors respectfully requests the Government to remove Section

L.4.3.1. Subfactor 1- Prior Experience from Volume One as the project experience information being requested by Offerors and evaluation criteria is identical to what is required for Section L.5.2.3, Past Performance Information (PPI) in addition to the evaluation criteria identified in Section M.2.3.2 for PPIs.

Answer: L.4.3.1 remains as part of the solicitation requirements. Projects submitted by an offeror in accordance with section L.4.3.1 may be different (or equal) from the ones submitted under Section L.5.2.3.

18. Question: In order for Offerors to provide sufficient detail to comply with the information requested in Volume I, Subfactors 1-3, we respectfully request the Government to increase the page limit to 75 pages.

Answer: Page Limit remains as it is.

19. Question: MACC Final Questions and Answers posted to the FBO site on 28 June

2019, question 3 asked “For JV’s, 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?” The Government responded and stated “No, it is not. Joint Venture will be able to submit only projects performed as Joint Ventures.” In addition, question 26 in the MACC Final Questions and Answers posted to the FBO site on 28 June 2019 requested the Government to consider the use of JV partner SOA classifications for JV’s submitting as the Prime. The Government responded “The joint venture itself must meet the SOA certificates requirements…” Offerors would kindly request the Government to reconsider this answer and edit the text in L.4.3.1 Subfactor 1- Prior Experience, (c) to allow partners of a JV (who is submitting as the Prime Offeror) to submit projects for experience and benefit/share the SOA classifications/certifications that each JV partner possesses to enhance a JV’s capabilities. Typically, Offerors that elect to form a Joint Venture do so to share expertise, experience, resources, and qualifications (i.e.

SOAs) from each partner of the JV—providing an added benefit to the Government. The stringent requirement that “Joint Ventures will be able to submit only projects performed as Joint Ventures” hinders Offerors ability to demonstrate their broad spectrum of capabilities and could potentially limit the Government pool of Offerors for this solicitation.

Answer: Section L.4.3.1 remains as it is.

20. Question: Please verify that the Government seeks the information specified in SOW, sections 9.3.2 (j) and 17.2 to be in both English and German languages?

Answer: The term “German” has been changed with the term “Italian.

21. Question: SOW, Section 6.3 (b) on page 11 of 31 mentions “the names, qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person assigned a QC function.” Due to the restricted page count for Volume I, will the Government accept the names, qualification, duties, and responsibilities in a tabular format for personnel assigned a QC function?

22. Question: Table L-1., Proposal Organization, Volume I Technical Proposal mentions “scale of 1:100 for any interior and technical equipment design drawings;

1:500 or less for any exterior design drawings.” As Offerors received 100% design drawings with the solicitation package, we would like to request the Government omit the design scale information from Table L1 and confirm that the Government is not seeking any drawings to be submitted with the proposal submission.

Answer: Any references to Drawings have been removed Table L-1 Volume I Technical Font & Size and Page Limit.

23. Question: Table L-1., Proposal Organization, Volume I Technical Proposal, Page Limit mentions “Bill of Quantities.” As there is no further reference/requirement for Bill of Quantities listed in Section L or M, Offerors request Bill of Quantities to be omitted from Table L-1.

Answer: Any references to Bill of Quantities have been removed from Table L-1 Volume I Technical Page Limit.

24. Question: SOW, Section 6.3.b on page 11 of 31 states “the names, qualifications (in resume format), duties responsibilities, and authorities assigned a QC function.” Offerors respectfully request the Government omit this requirement from the proposal as detailed resumes will be provided with QC Plan per each task order upon award.

Answer: The requirement remains as it is. In accordance with MACC SOW para 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7.5 the QMP submitted against proposal FA568219RA001 will be resubmitted for review in response to future Task Order Request For Proposal (TORFP) and the QMP will be able to be revised based on Government or Contractor’s request.

25. Question: SOW, Section 6.3.c on page 11 of 31 mentions “a copy of the letter to the QCM signed by an authorized official of the firm which describes the roles, responsibilities…” Offerors respectfully request this requirement be removed for the submission of the proposal as these authorization letters will be provided with QC Plan per each task order upon award.

Answer: See answer to question no. 24.

26. Question: SOW, Section 6.3.g on page 11 of 31 mentions “…proposed reporting formats.” Should Offerors provide examples of proposed reporting formats, can these be placed in an attachment and not be counted against the Volume I page restrictions?

Answer: Yes, Offeror should provide examples of reporting formats as part of Volume I Technical.

27. Question: Could you please provide clarifications in reference to the required SOA certifications? In the SECTION L SOA certification and classification requested are lower compared with what Italian normative would call for projects value ranging from 1 to 5 million project. Can you please confirm the below required SOA? a. Current SOA OG 1 category IV (value max 2.5M) b. Current SOA OG 11 category I (value max 258 K euro). The SOA Certification is a mandatory certificate (issued by authorized Certification Bodies) which proves the economic and technical capability of a company to qualify for the execution of public works contracts based on estimated contract value. See attached document.

Is the Italian norm applied in this case? If yes are you going to increase the SOA Category as per projects magnitudes? For foreign contractors registered outside of Italy (Spain or Romania) what is the SOA equivalent document required?

Answer: In accordance with Section L.3.4.1 (3.a and 3.b) current SOA OG 1 category IV and current SOA OG 11 category I are confirmed as part of solicitation requirements and must be submitted by the offeror in order to be determined responsive.

28. QUESTION: Attachment 2, Section M, par M.2.3.1.3, Table M-3. Due to the short period to perform the design validation, design errors could be omitted. Who should take on the over-cost in case the design has errors that have not been identified in this report?

ANSWER: In accordance with M.2.3.1.3 Table M-3 Note, the Design Validation Report is on the offeror’s responsibility.

29. QUESTION: Attachment 2, Section M, par M.2.3.1.3, Table M-3. Should our price be limited only to documentation received from the USG?

ANSWER: Seed Project Price Proposal submitted by an offeror against RFP FA568219RA001 is on offeror’s responsibility.

30. QUESTION: Attachment 2, Section M, par M.2.3.1.3, Table M-3. In the event that errors are identified during the design validation. Who will be in charge of modifying the design? When should the cost overdue cost caused by this error be evaluated, after the project is awarded or earlier?

ANSWER: If errors identified by the offeror through the Design Validation Report are later confirmed, a contract modification will be accomplished.