Roofing_RFP_QandA_January_31_2014.pdf

Enterprise Roof Replacement and Repair RFP

FA8056-14-R-0001

RFP Questions & Answers January 31, 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 3

C. Bonding and Warranties 4

D. Roof Types 5

E. Regional Breakdown / Limits on Proposing 7

F. Joint Venture 7

G. Subcontracting 8

H. Contractor Responsibility 9

I. 25% Mandatory Prime Contractor Performance 9

J. 80% Task Order Participation 10

K. Pricing 10

L. Technical Requirements 11

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)?

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.

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.

mailto:luke.schultz@us.af.mil

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?

Answer:

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.

5. Question:

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.

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.

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.

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?

Answer:

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.

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 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

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.