Roofing_RFP_QandA_February_14_2014v5.pdf

Enterprise Roof Replacement and Repair RFP

FA8056-14-R-0001

RFP Questions & Answers February 14, 2014

For reference, the following Questions and Answers provide clarification for the Enterprise Roof Replacement and Repair RFP. Questions are organized by topic and then by date; oldest to newest within each topic. Bolded dates indicate that the question has been added since the prior version of the Questions & Answers document was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

Topic Index Page #

A. Process Clarification 1

B. Scope Clarification 5

C. Bonding and Warranties 6

D. Roof Types 7

E. Regional Breakdown / Limits on Proposing 8

F. Joint Venture 9

G. Subcontracting 11

H. Contractor Responsibility 11

I. 25% Mandatory Prime Contractor Performance 14

J. 80% Task Order Participation 15

K. Pricing 15

L. Technical Requirements 19

M. Small Business/Small Business Categories 28

A. Process Clarification

Date Posted On FBO

1. Question:

Just saw this requirement posted and it appears to be the same that was issued a week or so ago with Mr. Richard Porter as the Contracting Officer. This RFP has Mr. Luke Schultz. Did the Contracting Officer change?

Answer:

Mr. Luke Schultz will be the Contracting Officer for this requirement. Mr. Richard Porter, the previous Contracting Officer, has been assigned to a different workload. Mr. Schultz's contact info is

Address: 1940 Allbrook Drive, Building 1, Room 300 Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 Telephone: 937-257-2541 Email: luke.schultz@us.af.mil

2. Question:

When is the last day / time to submit questions or concerns regarding this acquisition, Roof Repair and Replacement Construction for the United States Air Force (USAF)?

Answer:

Questions / concerns regarding this acquisition should be submitted no later than midnight, Eastern Standard Time, 5 calendar days prior to when proposals are due.

01/17/14 mailto:luke.schultz@us.af.mil

3. Question:

Will there be a site visit or any other pre-proposal meeting?

No; there will not be another pre-proposal conference or site visit. A pre-proposal conference was held back in April 2013. The details of that meeting are located at https://www.fbo.gov/notices/5315b78a19d92969b1bf45b7c5524c6b

Note: There are some changes from that pre-proposal conference information and the requirements in the final RFP.

4. Question:

I am having trouble entering some of the data on Attachment A – Proposal Cover Sheet Template.

It will not allow me to enter my 5 digit zip code

It will not allow me to enter the Offer expiration date of 10/24/2014, which would be 240 days from the offer due date

We are aware of the errors in attachment A. A solicitation Amendment correcting these errors will be released shortly.

5. Question:

The section indicates that RFP Section J, Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan and Attachment 2 - Roofing Price Matrix are only to be provided electronically. The Offeror will not be required to provide these items in the original hard copy volumes II and IV. Is this correct?

Answer:

Yes, Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan and Attachment 2 - Roofing Price Matrix are to be submitted electronically. This requirement is called out in RFP Section L, paragraph 3.7. Electronic submission of these attachments must be in accordance with RFP Section L, paragraph 3.6.

6. Question

2.1 In the Organization and Page Limitation table, the hard copy of the line item "Volume III Ref 7.3 Roofing Price Matrix" is required. Is this different from Attachment 2 roofing Price Matrix, which will only be provided electronically in referenced to the Section L, paragraph 3.7?

Answer:

Yes, that is correct. The submission required in RFP Section L, Paragraph 7.3 is Attachment 2 - Roofing Price Matrix. This matrix is required to be submitted electronically only. We will correct the table of contents in RFP Section L, in the Table at 4.2 to reflect this. Sorry for the confusion.

1/31/14 https://www.fbo.gov/notices/5315b78a19d92969b1bf45b7c5524c6b

7. Question All questions, concerns, requests for clarification are to be sent to both the Primary and Alternate Contracting Officers. The Primary and Alternate COs listed in 2.3 are the same contact, Luke Shultz. Is it the Government's intent to not have the Alternate CO?

Answer:

The Government intends to name a new Primary PCO, but hasn't yet finalized on who that will be.

Once we have identified that Primary PCO, the solicitation will be amended with the correct name and contact information. In the interim, please send all correspondence to Mr. Luke Schultz.

8. Question The Offeror needs to allow additional time for delivery by mail due to security screening on packages at the Wright-Patterson AFB mail processing facility. Can the CO provide an estimated or average time allowance for the security screening?

Answer:

No, the CO cannot provide an estimated or average time allowance for the security screening. Our best advice is to send the proposal well before the due date, and confirm that it was received. The POC is Mr. Luke Schultz, (937) 257 – 2541, luke.schultz@us.af.mil.

9. Question It is stated that the RFP document shall be returned in its entirety. Does this mean that the proposal needs to include pages 3-137 in its entirety?

Correct, the RFP must be returned in its entirety. We expect to see all pages returned, even pages 1-2 which were not identified in the question.

10. Question In the Q&A, having 60 days to prepare the proposal is mentioned several times, however, when this RFP was posted 60 days was not afforded.

Answer:

In the Q&A from the Pre-Proposal Conference held in April 2013, the AF did state that it would allow 60 days for response based upon an anticipated RFP release date of mid-June 2013. However, given the total amount of time that interested parties have had to consider their approach, pricing, and teaming, and the minimal degree to which the RFP has changed since April 2013, the AF believes that the current deadline is more than adequate.

The date proposals are due is as stated in the solicitation, on page 1 of the RFP, field 10, on SF 1442.

2/7/14 mailto:luke.schultz@us.af.mil

11. Question:

I am unable to enter a date in the Date field, Cell "I1", for any of the regions in the Roofing Management Plan, Attachment 1. I have tried several formats including the specified format, MM/DD/YYY, and have been unsuccessful with all attempts.

Answer:

That date field in Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan has been corrected in RFP Amendment 0003 posted on FBO on 2/10/14.

12. Question:

I am trying to put the company phone number in the Attachment A - Proposal Cover Sheet. The form requested (555-555-5555), and the form will not accept it.

Answer:

That phone number field in Attachment A - Proposal Cover Sheet, has been corrected in RFP Amendment 0004 posted on FBO on 2/14/14.

13. Question:

Since the estimated or average time allowance for the security screening cannot be determined, can I hand-deliver the bid package to Mr. Luke Schultz? What protocol do I need to follow? Please provide any form that needs to be filled out for access.

The process for base access will be posted to FBO the week of 17 Feb 14.

14. Question:

Reference: Page 114/137, table in section 4.2 and page 115/137, section 5.3. The table on page 114/137 lists 4 sections for Volume 1. Section 5.2 on page 115/137 does not show in which sections or tabs the required information should be placed. What should be placed in each of the sections/tabs for Volume 1 - Proposal Validity, Model Contract, Task Order 0001 Signed Statement, and Contract Information?

To clarify, in the RFP Section L, page 114/137, a table is listed with 4 Volumes. The requirement stated on page 115/137 Section 5.2 is fulfilled when the Offeror submits Attachment A - Proposal Cover Sheet Template, with Volume 1. We do not require the sections within each Volume to be organized in a specific matter with tabs as long as all the required information is included within each Volume. Please resubmit your question if this answer does not address your question.

15. Question:

There is an issue with the text when you try to print the 'Instructions' page of Attachment 3. Some of the text does not print?

We have no issues printing the document. Please review your printer settings.

2/14/14

B. Scope Clarification

1. Question:

It appears that you intend to rely on Roofing Contractors to determine roof replacement, as opposed to roof repair or restoration, when an independent roofing consultant can make that determination without an ulterior motive. We also offer technical document preparation and in-progress, quality assurance inspections to assure we're getting what we're paying for. Can you provide any input regarding how we could go about pursuing this business?

The Small Business Administration may be able to provide advice on marketing your services.

2. Question Can a firm with a primary NAICS of 236220 bid as a prime? The answers to the questions do not say yes or no. We are an 8(a) Tribal Owned 236220 company with a secondary NAICS of 238160. In the NAICS of 238160, we are under the size standard.

Answer:

If a firm represents in System for Award Management (SAM) that it is a small business under NAICS 238160, it is eligible to submit a proposal.

What is the estimated construction range or budget for this bid?

Those firms that win IDIQ contracts will be awarded a $1,000 post award conference, and will be eligible to compete for construction work within the region of their successful proposal. Values of projects will vary, and will be identified by the ordering contracting officer. Ceiling values for the Regions are identified on page 68 of the RFP. They are as follows:

West: $80M Midwest: $20M Northeast: $40 M Southwest: $70 M Southeast: $115 M

Please note that in RFP Section L, the projected projects section that starts on page 123, the Government provided information concerning the size of Task Orders you may see in each Region.

C. Bonding and Warranties

Is the following correct? Bid Sureties are not required for this project, only Surety Letters stating the appropriate limits as associated with each region?

Correct, for purposes of winning an IDIQ contract, bid bonds are not required. The bond capacity letter must meet the requirements described in RFP Section L, Paragraph 6.4.4 found on pages 118-119 of the solicitation document. The bond capacity letter will be evaluated according to the requirements found in 11.2.4, 11.2.5, and 11.2.6 page 134 of the solicitation.

Bonding limits, the RFP states in the Midwest that the largest job could be 3,500,000.00 and a dozen could be over a 1,000,000.00 if that's the case could we just have 5,000,000.00 in bonding? And is the total bonding for 5 years? Just hard for an 8(a) small business to get that much bonding in the amount of 8,000,000.00.

Answer:

An actual bond is not required in response to this RFP. Instead the Offeror must furnish a bond capacity letter from an approved Surety, as per RFP, Section L, paragraph 6.4.4, which identifies its aggregate bonding capacity. Aggregate bond capacity is defined as the total value of bonded projects that an Offeror may carry at any given time. The aggregate bonding requirement will remain as stated in the RFP.

Actual bonds will be required after award of the IDIQ’s, when task orders are solicited.

The manufacturer of the roofing product must provide up to 20-year No Dollar Limit (NDL) warranty for water tightness for work that the Offeror performs. This is separate from the warranty the Offeror provides for work completed stated in 6.5.3. Is this correct?

Answer:

No. The manufacturer NDL is the same warranty as referenced in 6.5.3. We expect that the prime contractor will be capable of conveying to the Government the manufacturer's 20 Year NDL Warranty for installation work that is subcontracted. We will amend the RFP to clarify.

D. Roof Types

Does the Offeror need to have experience on all eleven (11) roof types in the region they are submitting a proposal?

There is no specific requirement for the Offeror to prove they have experience on all eleven (11) roof types in the region they are submitting a proposal. Offerors however, must demonstrate that they are capable of performing all eleven (11) roof types. This is accomplished with submission of applicator agreements and subcontractor prequalification documents per Section L, paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.5.2.

Section L, 8.3 defines the Corporate Experience requirements for Offeror.

1/24/14

Does the Offeror need to have experience on all eleven (11) roof types to submit proposals in their two selected regions?

Answer:

There is no specific requirement for the Offeror to prove they have experience on all eleven (11) roof types in the region they are submitting a proposal. Offerors however, must demonstrate that they are capable of performing all eleven (11) roof types. This is accomplished with submission of applicator agreements and subcontractor prequalification documents per Section L, paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.5.2.

Section L, 8.3 defines the corporate experience requirements for Offeror.

What is meant by "Metal (Hydrostatic) Membrane" as one of the roof types?

Structural Metal Roofing Systems are sometimes referred to as "Hydrostatic" (water barrier systems) and Architectural Metal Roofing System are sometimes referred to as "Hydrokinetic" (water shedding), but the inclusion of the word membrane in this roof type description is causing some confusion. Can you please clarify what is meant by "Metal (Hydrostatic) Membrane" by providing examples and manufacturers of these types of systems and describe how it is different than the "Metal Roof" roof type.

Answer:

What currently reads as Metal (Hydrostatic) Membrane Roof, is understood by others to mean Metal (Hydrostatic) Roof which is the intent. Any standing seam metal roofing manufacturer should supply product that meets the UFGS specified in the RFP. To understand the difference between Metal Roof and Metal (Hydrostatic) membrane please review the UFGS referenced in the RFP (page 9, item number 0007, and page 13, item 0011).

All roof types included in the UFC 3-110-03, Roofing, are included in the scope of this project, even if they are not specifically included within the 11 roof types listed in 2.3. Should the contractor use the UFC 3-110-03 for pricing?

Answer:

RFP Attachment 3 – Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Projects Descriptions, should be used for pricing.

Only 11 roof types in this RFP are in scope. Any roofing work done to these 11 roof types is included in the scope. UFC 3-110-03 contains additional roof types not included in the scope of this RFP. Use the instructions in the RFP, Attachment 3, for submitting the pricing information as required, for evaluation.

E. Regional Breakdown / Limits on Proposing

FA8056-14-R-0001 on this solicitation - the small companies are allowed to bid on no more than 2 regions. Are the Teaming large partners allowed to bid on all 5 Regions with different partners?

Please remember this is a 100% small business set-aside, therefore companies must meet the requirements of FAR 52.219-6. However, there is no restriction on the number of regions in which a subcontractor (large business or small business) may participate in work with small business and 8(a) Offerors on this solicitation.

F. Joint Venture

Per section 8.3, Corporate Experience of Offeror, if we plan to propose as a joint venture, will you accept experience from the individual firms? For example, 3 projects from Company A, 2 projects from company B.

Yes, for firms proposing as a formal joint venture, we will accept Corporate Experience from the individual firms.

On past performance in a joint venture does that have to be as a joint venture or can one company use their past performance?

Answer:

The past performance of the individual companies along with that company’s own past performance on any additional contracts performed under a joint venture can be utilized to satisfy the past performance requirement. Past performance of a different company to the joint venture will not be imputed to the Offeror, reference the RFP Section L, paragraph 11.2.2.

How do you determine experience if one company in the joint venture has more than 40 years of roofing experience and the other company doesn't have roofing experience, can we use just 1 of the companies experience?

Yes, as long as one company in the joint venture has 5 years of experience and meets the other experience requirements in RFP Section L, paragraph 8.3.

We are an 8(a) firm and would like to submit a proposal for the projects in the Southeast under a Teaming Agreement with a very experienced roofing company. As part of our proposal, we would submit to you the Teaming Agreement, including our roofing partner's commitment to perform the work jointly with us as it is awarded. Will you consider our Team's past experience and capabilities as the Offeror's?

Only in the case of a formal Joint Venture, we would accept past experience and capabilities of your roofing partner. If the Teaming Agreement is a prime / subcontractor relationship, we would not accept the experience of the subcontractor. Please reference Section L, paragraph 8.4.1 and FAR 9.601.

We are an 8(a) contractor. Do we need to submit a teaming agreement if we are teaming with a small business partner? If so, where should we include this in the proposal?

Answer:

If entering into a formal joint venture, a document showing SBA approval of the joint venture is needed for 8(a). The RFP will be amended to require, prior to award, the Government will require evidence of a formal relationship among the Joint Venture members and to clarify where in the proposal it will be included. If the teaming arrangement is a prime / sub relationship, no teaming documentation is required other than what is required in Attachment 1 – Roofing Management Plan Worksheet.

6. Question:

Under RFP Amendment 0002 that was issued, USACE is requiring that all contractors that need a partner to meet the qualifications, has to be currently enrolled in a joint venture. This requirement creates difficulty for the smaller 8(a) firms and the rule seems not to support the growth of disadvantaged firms. The costs and effort of joint ventures for these specific contracts creates an undue burden on the smaller 8(a) firms. We request that Formal Teaming Arrangements be considered for the 8(a) firms with the intent of creating a joint venture if successful in obtaining an award on the contract. This type of arrangement would considerably ease the costs and constraints of the current language in Amendment 0002 and justify the costs and effort to assemble a formal joint venture if the teamed firms proposing are successful with an award.

Answer:

Your question referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), however this requirement is from the U.S. Air Force (USAF). To clarify, the requirement does not state that all contractors who partner must be in a joint venture to meet the qualifications. The Government will accept Small Business Teaming Arrangements (see below) for proposal evaluation; however, Small Business Teaming Arrangements that include 8(a) members must be formalized and approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as a Joint Venture under 13 CFR 125.1(u).

“Formal Small Business Teaming Arrangements” is not a reference found in 13 CFR 125.1. Small Business Teaming Arrangements include joint ventures and prime/subcontractor relationships between small businesses in accordance with 13 CFR 125.1(u). All Small Business Teaming Arrangements between prime/subcontractor must be provided to the Contracting Officer as part of the proposal submission in accordance with 13 CFR 125.1(u)(2)(ii).

Please also note that the SBA must approve an 8(a) joint venture agreement prior to the award of an 8(a) contract on behalf of the 8(a) joint venture (Reference 13 CFR 124.513(e)(1)). Joint Ventures that include 8(a) firms must submit their joint venture application to the SBA at the time of Offeror proposal submission to the USAF and the application must be approved by the SBA prior to contract award.

7. Question:

Please clarify if a signed Teaming Agreement between teaming partners will allow the team to use the experience of all team members?

Answer:

As the 1/31/14 response to question F4, only in the case of a formal Joint Venture, we would accept past experience and capabilities of your roofing partner. If the Teaming Agreement is a prime / subcontractor relationship, we would not accept the experience of the subcontractor. Please reference Section L, paragraph 8.4.1 and FAR 9.601.

8. Question:

Per Q/A dated 7 Feb 14, question #4, concerning Joint Ventures; with the original RFP absent of any language that JV's will be required for offering firms to use teaming member experience and now that it has been determined that Joint Ventures are going to be required, we respectfully request a 3 month time extension, to allow viable firms to create a formal SBA joint venture with their teaming partners.

Since that requirement was never a part of the Solicitation, it appears that this decision would serve as a basis for protest once the project is awarded. We also again request that this requirement be reconsidered and allow teaming arrangements to be allowed.

The terms of the RFP were not changed by the answer to Question #4 (Section F) provided on 7 Feb 14.

RFP Section L, Paragraph 8.4.1 provides that corporate experience of “The Offeror” will be assessed.

Only the prime contractor may be considered “The Offeror”, which does not include subcontractor experience. Therefore, the RFP terms remain unchanged and do not require that additional proposal preparation time be granted.

Regarding the request for teaming arrangement acceptance, please refer to the answer provided in Question # 6 (Section F). For further clarification on Small Business Teaming Arrangements or 8(a) Joint Ventures, please refer to 13 CFR 124.513(e) and seek guidance from your legal counsel and the

SBA.

G. Subcontracting

Part 1 - From the RFP, Section C, statement 6.2.3 states "This documentation [pre-qualification process document (6.2.1)] may be requested by the Government and the Contractor must provide within 10 business days"; however, Section L, statement 6.5.2 states "The Offeror must provide documentation showing the criteria it described in response to paragraph 6.5.1 has been met for…".

Does this solicitation proposal require attachment of an actual pre-qualification document (filled out by our subcontractor) or just a proof statement that criteria are met?

Yes the intent of 6.5.2 is for the Offeror to provide prequalification documentation for ALL the subcontractors that you list in Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet. For example, if you have five (5) subcontractors we require pre-qualification documentation on all five (5) subcontractors.

The Roofing Management Plan Worksheet is non-binding, meaning the Offerors can pick other subcontractors during the period of performance. The purpose of RFP Section C, 6.3.2 is to allow the Government the ability to collect pre-qualification data on subcontractors that are added during contract performance, if the Government determines it necessary.

Is a contractor eligible to submit a proposal in a Region as a prime contractor and also be listed on another proposal as a subcontractor within the same region? Is it possible to be a prime in one region and a sub in another?

Answer:

Yes, one contractor may propose on up to two (2) regions as a prime contractor or joint venture member and also provide subcontractor services in other regions. However, due to bonding and capacity requirements, one contractor may not propose as a prime contractor or member of a joint venture in more than two regions.

H. Contractor Responsibility

Does an EMR rating of greater than 1.0 preclude a contactor from consideration for award of the IDIQ?

Yes, an EMR rating of greater than 1.0 will render the Offeror technically unacceptable, per RFP Section L, paragraph 11.2.2.

As stated in Clause H-02 Off Ramp Procedures, one of the factors a contractor can be off-ramped is if there are unsafe site conditions resulting in a EMR of greater than 1.0 during the contract period. Will an EMR rate based on only construction activities or on site activities be acceptable in meeting the mandatory <1.0 EMR rate for this solicitation as long as it is stated by our WC Insurance Carrier?

If a company has multiple Experience Modification Rate (EMR) ratings, the company (including all members of a joint venture) must provide each of their ratings in the RFP proposal submission. All EMR ratings must be below 1.0.

Further IAW (in accordance with) RFP Section C, Paragraph 5.3, the Contractor (i.e. all joint venture members) shall maintain an EMR for workers compensation of 1.0 or less throughout the IDIQ period of performance.

Many small businesses use staff leasing companies who handle the WC insurance administration. Will an EMR rate documentation from the WC insurance carrier of the staff leasing company or Professional Employer Organization (PEO) be acceptable in meeting the EMR requirement? The document lists our company name.

Yes.

Section 6.4.2 Safety states “The EMR must be reported on company letterhead from the company providing the Offerors workers compensation insurance"; however, workers compensation insurance will not provide EMR report because EMR is calculated and provided by the WCIRB, Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California. Would WCIRB report on EMR satisfy the requirement?

The EMR information must be on letterhead from the provider or administrator. The RFP, specifically Section L, paragraph 6.4.2, and Section M, paragraph 11.2.2, is being amended to provide a clarification on this requirement. This clarification will state that the EMR must be reported on letterhead from the company, agency, or bureau that provides or administers your workers compensation program.

On the RFP you mention an EMR rate if it goes above 1.02 that doesn't qualify us. Is this rate current or for the start of the job. Where do you insert the information in the binders?

You are to submit your current EMR rate as stated in the RFP, Paragraph 6.4.2 which states: " ...Safety:

The Offeror shall submit its current EMR used to compute its workers compensation insurance premiums."

The information is inserted in Volume II Technical of your proposal. See RFP Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph 4.2, Organization and Page Limitations, Volume II, 6.4.2, Safety. Additionally, see RFP Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, EVALUATION CRITERIA, Paragraph 11.2.2.

Are we able to use roofing IDIQ's contracts as past performance or would you prefer individual task orders under the roofing IDIQ?

Answer:

The work that you submit as Corporate experience must meet the relevant commercial roofing work criteria as stated in the RFP Section L, Paragraph 8.3.

7. Question:

For an 8(a) firm that has no experience prior to 2010, will it be acceptable to indicate not applicable or will the proposal be deemed non-responsive if past performance cannot be provided for 2009?

Answer:

If your proposal does not meet the 5 year requirement, as per RFP Section M, Paragraph 10, the proposal would be considered non-responsive and may require a determination of responsibility by the SBA, RFP Section L, Paragraph 8.5.

8. Question:

We are an 8(a) roofing contractor with years of experience on government roofing projects. We have experience with projects of the specified magnitude, however, completed those projects simultaneously within the same year. Would base-wide roof inspections/assessments that met the specified magnitude qualify for past performance? Please advise if this is acceptable.

Our requirement for 5 years of project experience is for corporate experience (RFP Section L, Paragraph 8.3), not past performance. The work that you submit as Corporate experience must meet the relevant commercial roofing work criteria as stated in the RFP Section L, Paragraph 8.3.

9. Question:

Reference: Page 118/137, section 6.4.1 - Quality Control and page 72/137, section 4.0 and 4.2. The qualifications required for key personnel shown in these paragraphs differ. Page 72/137, says the CPS and QCM must show 5 years previous experience in commercial roofing or construction. Page 118/137 says the key personnel must show 5 years roofing experience. Which is correct?

Answer:

The RFP amendment 0002, posted on FBO 2/7/14 clarifies that the CPS, QCM, and other key personnel must show 5 years of Roofing experience.

I. 25% Mandatory Prime Contractor Performance

If you are a qualified 8(a) Joint Venture are you obligated to do 25% of the contract total or is it 25% each?

The joint venture is considered a single entity when awarded a contract. The joint venture concern will perform at least 25% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials with its own employees.

Reference: Page 112/137, section 6.3.1 - Management Plan, page117/137, section 6.3.5 - Limitation on Subcontracting, and Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan.

If the Offeror is a General Contractor (GC), the roofing work would typically be executed by a qualified subcontractor. The GC would execute all of the program and project management. Section 6.3.1 and Section 6.3.5 do not clearly state the Offeror must be able to self-perform roofing work. The Attachment 1 definition of self-performance is that the Offeror must perform construction with its own personnel. Is the Offeror required to self-perform some of the roofing work?

The Contractor will perform at least 25% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees (FAR 52.219-14). Please reference the RFP Section C, Paragraph 5.1.

J. 80% Task Order Participation

RFP states that we have to bid 80% of all task orders, if we don't we will lose our position does a black mark go against us as work not performed, or do we just get kicked off the team?

The performance standard requirement is 80%, anything less than that is non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the contract. If that 80% is not met, the Government may use remedies up to and including off-ramping.

An IDIQ contract awardee that fails to bid on 80% of the task orders risks being off-ramped from the IDIQ. Bidding on 80% of the task orders, is a requirement of the contract, failing to do so would be considered “negative performance,” and may be recorded in the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

K. Pricing

1. Question Do we include the cost of Project Manager (PM), Superintendent and Quality Control personnel in our line item pricing in the attachments, since it states we will be required to have them on site while work is going on and a PM must be available to any base within an hour's notice.

Answer:

Yes, all costs should be rolled into the price per square foot for all roof types. When creating your NTE pricing, please refer to the instructions in Attachment 3 – Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions.

2. Question To clarify, our line item pricing to be submitted in our proposal as shown on attachment 2 Roofing Price Matrix and 3 Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Descriptions are for evaluation purposes only to see if our company could be selected as one of the regional IDIQ contractors, then going forward, should we become a successful regional IDIQ contractor all task orders would be priced competitively against other regional IDIQ contractors as per task order scope of work without regard to the line item unit prices we submitted in our proposal pricing for attachments 2 and 3.

The prices submitted in Attachment 2 – Roofing price matrix are "Not-to-Exceed" prices that serve two purposes. First, they will be used to calculate a total evaluated price for purposes of IDIQ award, second, they form an upward boundary that task order unit prices may not exceed. The purpose of Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Descriptions is to assist the Offeror's in preparing their "typical" and "most difficult" prices to go in Attachment 2 - Roofing Price Matrix.

The following link, from the April 17, 2013 Roofing Pre-Proposal Conference (slides 137 – 163), includes pricing examples that might provide additional clarity for your question.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d307a6b5689f37c7990a65da5f15 d1bf&_cview=1

3. Question Which precedent will govern the bids?

Answer:

We assume your question to be, “How does the Offeror create NTE pricing for The Typical and Most Difficult Projects in Attachment 2 – Roofing Price Matrix?”

Offerors should use Attachment 3 – Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions when formulating prices. The “Typical” and “Most Difficult” prices in Attachment 2 – Roofing Price Matrix should be based on their respective sample project descriptions in Attachment 3 –Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions. If this does not answer your question, please resubmit, providing the RFP reference upon which the question is based.

4. Question UFC 3-110-3 calls for 90 mil thick Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM), fully adhered or ballasted. Mechanically attached is not allowed. What is the requirement here?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d307a6b5689f37c7990a65da5f15d1bf&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d307a6b5689f37c7990a65da5f15d1bf&_cview=1

We assume that you are referencing Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions with your question. The "Instructions" worksheet on the Attachment states: "...Offerors will not conduct site visits to any bases or contact any bases, as these are sample roofing projects and do not represent any actual or specific task order project..." The requirement here is to provide your Not-To-Exceed pricing for the sample projects in Attachment 3. The EPDM is called out to be fully adhered. For purposes of the NTE pricing, use the sample project (which is 60 mil); however, a base task order may require 90 mil, which should be factored in when providing your “Most Difficult” pricing for this roof type.

5. Question

UFC 3-110-3 calls for minimum 72 mil thick PVC and recommends fully adhered installations. What is the requirement here?

Answer:

We assume that you are referencing Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions with your question. The "Instructions" worksheet on the Attachment states: "...Offerors will not conduct site visits to any bases or contact any bases, as these are sample roofing projects and do not represent any actual or specific task order project..." The requirement here is to provide your Not-To-Exceed pricing for the sample projects in Attachment 3. For purpose of the NTE pricing, use the sample project (which calls out 60 mil); however, a future task order may specify 72 mil.

6. Question What is the ESG using as the government cost estimates? What industry standards are you using? Is this cost estimate being utilized Air Force wide on this contract?

Answer:

The government cost estimate is based on the sample projects in Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions.

#15 felt is referenced as part of BUR and MB systems. Do you really want to use organic roofing plies?

Should this be 15# fiberglass felt, which would be a Type IV fiberglass material?

Answer:

As stated in Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions, for APP and asphalt built up roof, we call out #15 glass fiber felt and 4-plies glass (type IV), respectively. If this does not answer your question, please submit a clarification.

UFC 3-110-3 calls for cover boards for all roofing installations except ballasted EPDM. What is the requirement here?

We assume that you are referencing Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project

Descriptions with your question. The "Instructions" worksheet on the attachment states: "..Offerors will not conduct site visits to any bases or contact any bases, as these are sample roofing projects and do not represent any actual or specific task order project..." The requirement here is to provide your Not-To-Exceed pricing for the sample projects in Attachment 3. For purpose of the NTE pricing, use the sample project (which does not call out cover board); however, the future task orders may call out cover board.

Attachment 3 addresses the project descriptions of a “typical” and “most difficult” variation that an Offeror must consider in calculating per square foot costs for the 11 different roofing systems for any region that Offeror will bid. However, the conditions stated for the “most difficult” variation are quite vague; i.e.:

1. “Offeror is required to seal an excessive amount of penetrations …”. As is obvious, “excessive” is quite imprecise; would that be 100 or 1,000?

2. “High density rooftop equipment resulting in greater flashing requirements …”. Once again, how much is “greater”? Further, will the equipment need to be disconnected and reconnected?

The note immediately following the “conditions” indicates that the list of aggravating conditions is not complete yet we are to put a “not to exceed” price together that becomes a limit of a price that can be bid. How can a contractor risk manage this process to insure that difficult roofs can be completed for pricing that must be given without all relevant conditions being known?

Answer:

For the purposes of bidding on this RFP, we have called out in detail the Typical sample projects in Attachment 3 – Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Descriptions (Reference). Offerors must quantify the cost drivers for the Most Difficult projects based upon their judgment and experience.

The Most Difficult NTE pricing that you provide must not prevent you from being able to bid on 80% of the future task order projects.

There seems to have been a change in the Roofing Management Plan Form compared to the Pricing Matrix. Dover, DE was removed and Duke Field was added. Please confirm which base list is correct and issue a revised form.

Answer:

The RFP will be amended to add Dover AFB, Delaware to the Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet. Dover AFB will appear on both the Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet and Attachment 2 - Roofing Price Matrix. Additionally, this Amendment will remove Duke Field from the Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet. Duke Field will then, not appear on either of the RFP Attachments.

11. Question In the Q&A Response Dated 7 February 2014, Section K "Pricing" Question # 4 and 5 answered questions regarding the Most Difficult NTE pricing. The way contractor interprets the government's request for pricing is to use Attachment 3 SOW for each roof type and price out the Typical NTE value based on those quantities and minimum SF allowance (e.g. 30,000 SF low-slope, 15,000 SF steep slope). However, the Most Difficult NTE pricing is far more vague and far reaching based on the answers to Question 4 and 5. Based on the response, it could be feasible that we will come across a Task Order SOW for a 500,000 SF building requiring asbestos abatement, security escort, 400 skylights, 25 air handler units, 1000 pipe penetrations, myriad ducting and curbs, gutters and downspouts on a 50' tall building, 8" of new insulation, crickets at 50 drains, and a new 90 mil EPDM roof fully adhered, all performed at premium rates after hours because of the secure nature of the facility. With the amount of variables possible for the Most Difficult NTE pricing, how does the government intend to determine a competitive range for the Most Difficult projects without a standard specification and SOW from which to adjudicate?

Answer:

It is not feasible for us to define the most difficult project. Instead the Offeror must rely on its experience and needs to develop a price that allows your company to propose on 80 % of the future task orders. Please also bear in mind that the most difficult project pricing is weighted at 20% of the total evaluated price.

Understand that this proposal is NTE pricing, and at the task order level you will then submit proposals based on that individual project’s specific requirements and risk. At this stage an Offeror is expected to build into its NTE prices the level of risk the Offeror’s own experience determines.

L. Technical Requirements

If the Prime contractor provides the materials and the applicator agreements, does the Subcontractor need to submit additional applicator agreements on the same roof type? E.g. Prime contractor provides all materials for Wright Patterson, OH, but labor is provided by the subcontractor. Does the subcontractor still need to submit applicator agreement for all materials?

Answer:

If the subcontractor is performing installation work, the prime, as part of it’s subcontractor pre-qualification process must ensure that its subcontractors have the proper applicator agreements.

Therefore, to be rated “acceptable” on Section M, paragraph 11.3.1 the Offeror must specifically address how it ensures all subcontractors performing installation work have applicator agreements from a manufacturer furnishing product that meets the requirements of the UFGS.

To meet Section M, paragraph 11.3.2 the Offeror must submit pre-qualification documentation on all subcontractors identified in RFP Section J Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet (minimum of five (5)) showing subcontractors are acceptable in accordance with the criteria established in response to paragraph 11.3.1.

Section 6.4.3 Applicator Agreements state "this applicator agreement must certify that the manufacturer's product meets the requirements of the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) for the specific roof type, and that the manufacturer is willing to provide up to 20-year No Dollar Limit (NDL) warranty for water tightness for work that the Offeror performs." Two of the eleven roof types, tile roof and slate roof, do not have a certification program or NDL warranty program.

Answer:

The RFP will be changed to delete the requirement for applicator agreements and 20 year NDL warranties for tile roof and slate roofs only. Applicator agreements and 20 year NDL warranties are still required for the other 9 roof types.

Regarding the eleven types of roofing systems the requirement is a to provide an Applicator Agreement that will state the manufacturer will offer a 20 year NDL (No Dollar Limit) warranty.

However we cannot find a manufacturer of slate, clay tile and shingle roof systems that provide a 20 year NDL warranty. We further investigated and found that even the specific manufacturer for slate that is listed on page 13 of 15 in Attachment 3 (the Description specifically says Slate Shingles, Vermont, semi-weathering green & gray) Vermont being the manufacturer, does not offer a 20 year NDL. The manufacturers do offer 20 year limited warranties on some of their roofing systems, but not a 20 year NDL.

Please see the response to Question L2 above related to the portion of this question related to tile and slate roof systems. There are manufacturers that offer 20-year NDL warranties on asphalt shingle roof systems.

Are the installations going to be governed by UFC 3-110-3?

Answer:

Yes. Please refer to Section C - Descriptions and Specifications, ROOFING STATEMENT OF WORK SOW, Paragraph 7.0.

Are you going to use ASHRAE Zones and Insulation requirements for the installations?

Yes. On the task orders the requirements will be in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1.

UFC 3-110-3 call for National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) flashing details. Is this a requirement for these projects?

Answer:

The flashing details will be specified in the task order. The NRCA flashing details will be the minimum that will be called out in the task orders.

Will vapor retarders/barriers be required for all roof installations?

Answer:

For task orders, where analysis requires vapor retarders/barriers, they may be required. The assumption for all task orders is that they will be required.

Line Items 0011 on page 13, 1011 on page 27, 2011 page 40, 3011 page 53, and 4011 page 66 reference UFGS 07 41 14. We have tried to find UFGS 07 41 14 in the Design Guide for the National Institute of Building Science and this reference does not exist. Please clarify?

Answer:

The RFP will be amended for CLINs 0011, 1011, 2011, 3011, and 4011 to list the correct UFGS as 07 41 13.

You are requesting a Certified application agreement. Does the Prime contractor have to have one or can the Subcontractor supply this?

Answer:

If the Offeror identifies in Attachment 1 -Roofing Management Plan Worksheet that it will self-perform installation work, the Offeror must submit an applicator agreement from the materials manufacturer that it listed. See RFP Section L, Paragraph 6.4.3 and RFP Section M, Paragraph 11.2.3.

If the Offeror identifies in Attachment 1 - Roofing Management Plan Worksheet that it will subcontract installation work, the Offeror must demonstrate that it’s Subcontractor pre-qualification process verified that the subcontractor holds the appropriate applicator agreement. The actual applicator agreement may be provided but isn't required as long as the Offeror provides the Government some assurance that a review of the applicator agreement was accomplished.

You stated that one of the changes from the RFP draft was "Deleted the Technical_Proposal_Narrative attachment doc". Are you still requesting Volume II Technical (complete) per 4.2 organization and Page Limitation, page 114 of 137?

Yes. It is still required to provide the technical submission as outlined in RFP Section L table 4.2, and as specified in RFP Section L Part 6 (Volume II Technical).

11. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; verify the typical deck type for each system we are to prepare pricing for. The sleepers are noted on concrete for low slope and the vapor barrier over metal decks.

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description. We did not call out the type of deck for the roofing system. Assume that the deck is functional and does not require repairs. In the U.S. Air Force inventory, we have all different types of roofing decks.

12. Question

Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding Asphalt Built-up Roofs. The three insulation line items all exclude fastening. Are we to mechanically attach, fully adhere (what method), or provide a combination of these for the insulation layers?

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “Asphalt Built-up Roof”: We are not including in our sample projects the method of fastening. Price only the features of work in the sample projects. At the task order level, the fastening method will be in the specifications.

13. Question

Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding Asphalt Built-up Roofs. If the typical building construction has parapet walls, would we delete the Aluminum gravel stops and provide coping?

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “Asphalt Built-up Roof”: We are not including in our sample projects the parapet wall features. Price only the features of work in the sample projects. At the task order level, there may be parapet walls in the plans and specification.

14. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding Asphalt Built-up Roofs. Are these internal drains (ref: cast iron drain boots) or through wall scupper details (ref: downspouts)?

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “Asphalt Built-up Roof”: We are not including in our sample projects the additional drainage features.

Price only the features of work in the sample projects. At the task order level, there may be internal drains, scuppers or both in the plans and specification.

15. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding APP Modified Bitumen. The three insulation line items all exclude fastening. Are we to mechanically attach, fully adhere (what method), or provide a combination of these for the insulation layers?

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “APP Modified Bitumen”: We are not including in our sample projects the method of fastening. Price only the features of work in the sample projects. At the task order level, the fastening method will be in the specifications.

16. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding APP Modified Bitumen. The smooth surface cap sheet is called out to be "torch" applied v. hot applied as is called out for the base layer and walk pads. Please confirm this is the intent?

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “APP Modified Bitumen”: Yes. We wanted all the Offerors to bid on the same features in the sample projects. At the task order level, the application method will be in the specifications and may vary.

17. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding APP Modified Bitumen. Is a final surface to be installed over the smooth surface cap sheet (i.e. Aluminum Coating, Elastomeric Coating, Asphalt Coating with broadcast granules, etc.)?

Answer:

Reference Attachment 3 - Roofing Typical and Most Difficult Project Description, worksheet titled, “APP Modified Bitumen”: No. The cap sheet is the wearing surface. There were no additional features called out above the cap sheet in the sample project.

18. Question Please clarify this Unit Cost Estimate Roof System question; Regarding APP Modified Bitumen.