NOTICE_TO_ALL_OFFERORS(2).pdf

28 July 2015

NOTICE TO ALL OFFERORS

AFSC/PZIOC OPERATIONAL CONTRACTING

The Government team is posting the following information to ensure all offerors have the same information:

Q&A #1

a. SF1442 requests “sealed offers in original and 4 copies,” and makes no mention of electronic copies. However, Section L pages 3-4 provides a table with the following

· Technical Volume: 4 hard copies; 1 disc copy

· Past Performance Volume: 4 hard copies; 1 disc copy

· Price Volume: 2 hard copies; 2 disc copies

· Contract Documentation Volume: 2 hard copies; 1 disc copy

Please provide clarification: should offerors submit original + 4 copies of each volume (as per

SF1442) or should we follow the table in Section L?

b. Further, a note to the table in Section L (page 5) states that the hard copies for each volume must include “one copy marked as original.” That implies that, for the Technical

Volume for example, offerors should submit 1 original + 3 copies = 4 hard copies total. That contradicts the SF1442, which asks for 1 original + 4 copies = 5 hard copies total.

Please provide clarification. How many hard and electronic copies of each volume should be submitted?

a. Government Response: The SF1442 does not allow me to break out the technical volumes as required in Section L. The intent of the Original (+) 4 copies was to bring to light the 4 Hard copies+1 CD. PLEASE FOLLOW THE TABLE IN SECTION L:

· Technical Volume: 4 hard copies; 1 disc copy

· Past Performance Volume: 4 hard copies; 1 disc copy

· Price Volume: 2 hard copies; 2 disc copies

· Contract Documentation Volume: 2 hard copies; 1 disc copy

b. Government Response: The SF1442 does not allow me to break out the volumes as required in Section L. The intent of the Original (+) 4 copies was to bring to light the 4 Hard copies+1 CD. PLEASE FOLLOW THE TABLE IN SECTION L AND VOLUME SUBMISSIONS AS

STATED ABOVE.

Q&A #2

If my company wasn’t present for the site visit on June 04, 2015 are we excluded from submitting an RFP?

Government Response: NO… your company will not be excluded from the competition. Please see the slides and Q&A session from the Pre-Solicitation Conference posted on FedBizOpps

Q&A #3

Is it a requirement for licensing to be provided for each of the functions diciplines identified in the section L and M (Special Standards of Responsibility)?

Government Response: YES…. Please submit a license, certification, resume, Satffing Letter of

Intent (If not currently staffed with the Prime or Primary A-E Firm) or (combination of each) as required by Section L & Section M.

Q&A #4

Will there be a site visit to a specific project for the proposal?

Government Response: A specific project site visit will not occur for the basic contract. The minimum guarantee (initial delivery order) is a Post Award Orientation… see attachment INT-1.

Q&A #6

Per Section L, the ITO, page 4 outline section IV 2.11.1 Title Page, it identifies SF33 as the Title Page. As

SF33 is a contracting, not a contractor, generated document, will this be provided to us for fill in?

Government Response: The referenced document (SF33) is in ERROR. The document provided should be a “title page” as directed in each of the other volumes.

Q&A #7

Per Section M, 3.1, A/E Firm Staffing is the intent of this requirement to provide each discipline team member and his/her Oklahoma License Registration Number or do you want copies of each disciplines

State of Oklahoma Registration “Plaque”?

Government Response: The intent of this requirment is for contractors to provide a copy of the

CURRENT certificate/license/plaque (synonymous) with all pertinent information (Name , license/registration # etc..) for each discipline called out in Section M, 3.1.

The license does not necessarily need to be from the State of Oklahoma as stated in the NOTE section directly below Section M, 3.1

Q&A #8

The SF1442 block 13B. indicates that a bid gurantee is required. Is there a specific project being proposed on to provide this bid gurantee, our bonding company is confused?

Government Response: No there is not a specific project that will be bid and require a bid guarantee… However, the (AM Best –“A” rated) bonding surety letter is acting as the bid guarantee for this requirement see section L (3.2.3) & M(3.2).

Q&A #9

Does the bonding surety letter need to be sealed/notarized?

Government Response: Yes… the letter should contain a seal from the bonding surety company.

Q&A #10

We have identified a calculation errors in the “ITO Attachment 1.6 NTE Coefficient Pricing Matrix” in the tabulation of TEP: Cells C49 and C50

Government Response: The Government has reviewed this issue and corrected the spreadsheet. Please use ITO (Revised) 1.6 NTE Coefficient Pricing Matrix posted in the document package section of FBO. Please note that contractors are still responsible to ensure that all calculations are correct within their submission.

Q&A #11

Section L, Paragraph 2.11.12 Electronic offers indicates that the CD-ROM provided shall have the files readable in the following formats: Microsoft (MS) Word 2007/2010, MS Excel 2007/2010, MS-Project

2007/2010, and MS-Power Point 2007/2010, or Microsoft Office XP. Would it be acceptable to provide files in PDF format instead? Please confirm.

Government Response: NO... PDF format is not acceptable.Please follow the directions in

Section L paragraph 2.11.12

Q&A #12

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2, Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility states “The apparent successful offeror(s) must provide current licensed and certified professionals in the following disciplines: Architect, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Fire

Protection Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Interior Designer and Land

Surveyor; and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional (AP)

Certificate of a certified individual; and a licensed Design Program Manager with ten (10) years of experience. The disciplines must be currently on staff of the prime contractor, or currently on staff of the primary A/E Firm subcontractor (Staffing Letter of Intent is acceptable but, must be provided with applicable license/certification.)”

Question: Certain design disciplines, such as geotechnical, structural, fire protection and environmental are specialty design disciplines that are rarely, if ever, offered all within one design firm. Would the government consider allowing multiple primary A/E firms as part of our team to ensure full scope coverage?

If so, are we required to submit project past performance examples for each designer that is part of our team?

Government Response: For the purpose of the “Basic” Contract Award the Government wants the required disciplines to be part of the Prime contractor or Primary A-E Firms team. If the personnel are not currently staffed the Government is looking for a Staffing Letter of Intent outlined in Section M, 3.1. However, the Government will not be able to direct any Prime contractor in which firm must be utilized during the course of the MACC contract. It may be different from one FON proposal to the next depending on the disciplines needed.

Your company may submit any past performance you consider relevant. However, it is not required for every designer that is part of your team.

Q&A #13

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2, Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility states “The apparent successful offeror(s) must provide current licensed and certified professionals in the following disciplines: Architect, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Fire

Protection Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Interior Designer and Land

Surveyor; and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional (AP)

Certificate of a certified individual; and a licensed Design Program Manager with ten (10) years of experience. The disciplines must be currently on staff of the prime contractor, or currently on staff of the primary A/E Firm subcontractor (Staffing Letter of Intent is acceptable but, must be provided with applicable license/certification.)”

Question: Is the government’s intent to eliminate second tier subcontracting? If so, would the government consider allowing multiple A/E firms so that we are able to provide full scope coverage, so long as the reporting structure is that all design disciplines report directly to the Offeror firm?

If so, are we required to submit project past performance examples for each designer that is part of our team?

Government Response: It is not the Governments intent to eliminate tertiary subcontrcting, The “Basic Contract“ Award criteria requests that the Prime choose a Primary A-E firm and collect license/ certificates/ or resumes and provide IAW with Section M,3.1 (requirement hyphenated after each discipline ex. Architect- License). However, the Government will not be able to direct any Prime contractor in which firm must be utilized during the course of the

MACC contract. It may be different from one FON proposal to the next depending on the disciplines needed.

If the personnel are not currently on staff provide a (Staffing Letter of Intent). This is for the purpose of the “Basic Contract” award. It is to shed light on the fact the disciplines may be required for individual delivery orders.

Past Performance should only be submitted for the information requested in Section L&M Past

Performance Volume.

Q&A #14

The Solicitation was released on a Friday, and is due on a Monday. This essentially reduces the proposal production time significantly (4 days). This proposal requires a large effort and significant coordination to ensure full scope coverage. Would the government consider extending the proposal due date to allow enough time to provide a thorough proposal response?

Government Response: The solicitation will be extended due to time needed to

Q&A #15

In regards to ITO Attachment 1.7, Cross Reference Matrix, please clarify the instruction for filling it out.

Government Response: Please fill-out “column E“according to the location of the information in your proposal refernced on the applicable row.

Q&A #16

The document titled “Contract Statement of Work (SOW) for Multiple Award Construction Contract” includes sections that elude to proposal submission requirements, such as Section B, Contract Requirements (Management Plan and Personnel Requirements).

Question 1 : Please confirm that the proposal submission evaluation criteria only consist of the requirements and evaluation criteria outlined in Section L and Section M, inclusive of:

2.1.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility (SSR) Subfactor 2: Bonding Capability Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Question 2: Based on the way Section L and M are worded, are we simply providing copies of licenses and registrations to be compliant with the submission and evaluation criteria of Subfactor 1? Or are we providing resumes for the 12 positions? Please Clarify the requirements for submission for Subfactor 1.

Government Response: The SOW provides details for Delivery Order proposals during the course of the MACC contarct.

Government Response: Basic contract proposal requirements are found in Section L&M

Q&A #17

According to Section L, Table 2.11.3 Proposal Organization, Subfactor 1 – Special Standards of

Responsibility has a 34 page limit. Section L, Instructions to Offerors states:

“3.2.2 Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility

IAW FAR 9.104-2, there are twelve (12) Special Standards of Responsibility (SSR) required by this RFP.

The apparent successful offeror(s) must provide current licensed and certified professionals in the following disciplines: Architect, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural

Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Interior Designer, and Land Surveyor; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional (AP)

Certificate of a certified individual; and a licensed Design Program Manager with ten (10) years of experience. These disciplines must be currently on staff of the prime contractor, or currently on staff of the primary A-E Firm subcontractor (Staffing Letter of Intent is acceptable but, must be provided with applicable license/certification).

Note: It is acceptable to provide current out of state (U.S and territories) licenses for each Special

Standard of Responsibility. However, in accordance with SOW paragraph 2.2.5 and subparagraphs, all professional disciplines must be licensed in the State of Oklahoma to be considered for each delivery order award.”

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award states:

“3.1 Subfactor 1: Special Standard(s) of Responsibility

IAW FAR 9.104-2, there are twelve (12) Special Standards of Responsibility (SSR) required by this RFP. To be acceptable, the offerors must provide current Licenses and Accredited Professional (AP) Certificates of certified individual currently on staff of the prime contractor, or currently on staff of the primary A-E

Firm subcontractor (Staffing Letter of Intent is acceptable but, must be provided with applicable license/certification) for the following disciplines:

1. Architect- License

2. Civil Engineer- License

3. Mechanical Engineer- License

4. Electrical Engineer- License

5. Structural Engineer- License

6. Fire Protection Engineer- License

7. Geotechnical Engineer- License

8. Environmental Engineer- License

9. Interior Designer- License

10. LEED Professional- Certification

11. Land Surveyor- License

12. Design Program Manager- License, and Resume proving 10 years of experience”

Question: The submission requirements appear to be missing and/or unclear. What are the submission and evaluation requirements for this subfactor. What is to be included in the allotted 34 pages?

Government Response: For each of the 12 special standards of responsibility the proposal should include a CURRENT (license/certification/Resume, or combination of each as indicated in

Section M 3.1 by the hyphenated requirement (EX. Architect-License). Please also provide

Staffing Letter of intent is the personnel provide are not currently on staff of the prime contractor or the primary A-E Firm subcontractor).

Q&A #18

Based on the fact that there are significant RFIs that affect the structure of the proposal, the teaming, and our ability to proceed and adjust timely to possible responses to RFIs, would the government consider an extension?

Government Response: YES

Q&A #19

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award states:

“3.1 Subfactor 1: Special Standard(s) of Responsibility

IAW FAR 9.104-2, there are twelve (12) Special Standards of Responsibility (SSR) required by this RFP. To be acceptable, the offerors must provide current Licenses and Accredited Professional (AP) Certificates of certified individual currently on staff of the prime contractor, or currently on staff of the primary A-E

Firm subcontractor (Staffing Letter of Intent is acceptable but, must be provided with applicable license/certification) for the following disciplines:

1. Architect- License

2. Civil Engineer- License

3. Mechanical Engineer- License

4. Electrical Engineer- License

5. Structural Engineer- License

6. Fire Protection Engineer- License

7. Geotechnical Engineer- License

8. Environmental Engineer- License

9. Interior Designer- License

10. LEED Professional- Certification

11. Land Surveyor- License

12. Design Program Manager- License, and Resume proving 10 years of experience”

Question: Please confirm that the only resume requested is the Design Program Manager.

Government Response: Yes- Section M 3.1, shows exactly what should be provided for each discipline. The Proposal should include a copy of CURRENT license, and a resume proving 10 years experience.

Q&A #20

Section L, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 6.4 – Initial Delivery Order SOW Requirements states:

“Offerors shall furnish a conference agenda for requirements in paragraph 2.0 of Attachment INT-1

Initial DO Statement of Work (SOW)”.

Question: Please clarify the submission requirements for this section. Are we simply providing a detail agenda to be in compliance with the requirements? Please confirm that the government is not looking for items listed in Subparagraphs 2.1-2.7 of Attachment INT-1

Government Response: For the purposes of the Basic Contract Award the Government is simply looking for an agenda. The basic contract awardees will provide the contents of the

Attachment INT-1 in their personal Post Award Orientation Conference as part of the minimum order.

Q&A #21

REF Table 2.11.3. Proposal Organization. Listed under Volume IV is the Title Page with reference to

“SF33”. We were not able to locate the SF33 in the solicitation. There is an SF1442 provided as Section A of the ITO 6.1 Model Contract.

Question: Please confirm that we should provide the SF1442 provided as Section A of the ITO 6.1 Model

Contract and that the Title Page should be as per ITO Paragraph 2.11.1 Title Page

Government Response: Please refer to Q&A # 6, SF1442 should be provided as part Section A

Q&A #22

REF 3.2.2 Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility. Small business construction contractors are not set up to provide professional design services as they do not typically carry the required insurance and licenses. Hiring architects and engineers as employees would also require a construction firm to restructure its organization and rethink its business model. In addition, most A/E firms will not have all listed disciplines on staff, e.g., the land surveyor and geotechnical disciplines often perform as separate specialized firms.

Question: Please consider removing the requirement for all A/E disciplines to be employed by the prime contractor or the primary design firm, and instead allow the small business construction firm to strategically partner with various multidisciplinary and specialized design firms as needed to provide the full scope of design-build services.

Government Response: Refer to Q&A 12 &13

Q&A #23

MACC Contract SOW, Paragraph 2.2.5.1 Design Program Manager: The requirements for the

Contractor’s Design Program Manager include “a license from the State of Oklahoma as a Professional

Engineer or Registered Architect” and 10 years work experience in design project management. In addition, this individual is to be the “primary POC for the CO for all contractual issues and is responsible for the overall management of this contract” to include meeting contract objectives, quality work, schedule, qualified personnel, and subcontractors assigned to the DO.

Question: Please clarify these requirements as the responsibilities appear to be those of a Program

Manager who would be employed by the Prime Contractor (a construction firm), while the qualifications are for a Design Manager who would be a professional engineer or registered architect at a design firm.

Please also consider removing the requirement for a “Professional Engineer or Registered Architect license” as the small business construction firms proposing on this contract would typically have on-staff seasoned construction professionals in lieu of registered architects and professional engineers.

Government Response: The Design Program Manager is required to have a State License and will be required during the course of any Design-Build project. This role is not the same function as a Program Manager. ( A Design Program Manager can act as a Program Manager but, a (non-licensed) Program Manager is not to allowed to be the Design Program Manager).

Q&A #24

REF 6.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications: We located Section A (SF 1442) and Sections

B, E, F, G, I, J, and K. We did not find Sections C, D, and H.

Question: Please clarify the contents of the Model Contract, Sections A through K.

Government Response: Sections C, D and H are not applicable to the solicitation. To clarify the

“Model” contract should be the entire solicitation printed and filled out appropriately.

Q&A #25

REF 2.11.7 Table of Contents/Indexing: Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Include an indexed list of tables and figures.

Question: Table 2.11.3. Proposal Organization does not list a “Table of Contents” or a “List of Tables and

Figures” for each Volume. Please confirm that each volume should include a “Table of Contents” and a

“List of Tables and Figures”, and that they can be provided with the other reference documents, e.g. the

Glossary, Cross Reference Matrix, and Team List.

Government Response: Yes they should be provided and can be placed with other reference documents in accordance with (IAW) Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #26

2.11.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

Question: Table 2.11.3. Proposal Organization does not list a “Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms” for each Volume. Please confirm that each volume should include a “Glossary of Abbreviations and

Acronyms” and that it can be provided with the other reference documents, e.g. the Table of Contents, List of Figures, Cross Reference Matrix, and Team List.

Government Response: Yes they should be provided. If not previously identified in table

Section L, 2.11.3. It can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW

Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #27

2.11.6 Cross Referencing: The offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in

Attachment ITO 1.7 that will indicate the corresponding proposal volume and paragraph in which addresses the referenced item.

Question: Table 2.11.3. Proposal Organization does not list a “Cross Reference Matrix

(Attachment ITO – 1.7)” for each Volume. Please confirm that each volume should include a

“Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment ITO – 1.7)” and that it can be provided with the other reference documents, e.g. the Table of Contents, List of Figures, Glossary, and Team List.

Government Response: Yes they should be provided. If not previously identified in table

Section L, 2.11.3. It can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW

Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #28

2.11.2 Team List: A team list of the offeror’s primary point of contacts (POC) shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment ITO – 1.0 of the ITO.

Question: Table 2.11.3. Proposal Organization does not list a “Team List (Attachment ITO – 1.0)” for each Volume. Please confirm that each volume should include a “Team List (Attachment ITO

– 1.0)” and that it can be provided following the Title Page.

Government Response: Yes they should be provided. If not previously identified in table

Section L, 2.11.3. It can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW

Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #29

ITO Attachment 1.2, Page 3, Special Standards of Responsibility/Bonding Item P1 requests the evaluator to rate the “Contractor ability to provide Work Plan and associated drawings for evaluation and execution of a paving project.”

Question: Please confirm that contracts provided for ITO Attachment 1.2 can be any relevant construction project, not only a paving project.

Government Response: This Attachment has been corrected to state “Work Plan and associated drawings for evaluation and execution of a design-build project.” and has been posted to FedBizOpps.

Q&A #30

REF Section L 4.3.2 Specific Content: Offerors shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. The offeror shall provide a description of projects in which all or a mixture of the required Special Standards of Responsibilities in paragraph 3.2.2 (above) were utilized to complete a successful design-build effort.

REF Section M 4.2 Evaluation Process: Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance. The contractor shall focus on performance that is relevant to construction projects in which all or a mixture of the required technical licenses in paragraph 3.1 (above) were utilized to complete a successful design-build effort.

Question: The Special Standards of Responsibilities call for licensed and certified architect and engineers. Please confirm that contracts provided for the PPIT (Attachment ITO – 1.1) and Past

Performance Questionnaire (Attachment ITO – 1.2) may either be:

a) Design-Build construction project involving the licensed and certified architects or engineers listed under in Section L Paragraph 3.2.2 and Section M Paragraph 3.1., or

b) Bid-Build construction project involving professional construction trades related to the disciplines listed under in Section L Paragraph 3.2.2 and Section M Paragraph 3.1.

Government Response: The contractor may submit past performance that best represents their company “design-build or bid-build”.

Q&A #31

REF Section M 4.2 Evaluation Process. The contractor shall focus on performance that is relevant to construction projects in which all or a mixture of the required technical licenses in paragraph 3.1 (above) were utilized to complete a successful design-build effort.

Question: Will design-build projects be considered more relevant than a bid-build project?

Government Response: No, but Design-build shows a larger range of scope, which could have greater impact on performance confidence rating

Q&A #31

REF Section M 4.2.4 Assigning Ratings.

Question: Will a design-build project have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment?

Government Response: YES

Q&A #32

REF Section M 4.2 Evaluation Process. The contractor shall focus on performance that is relevant to construction projects in which all or a mixture of the required technical licenses in paragraph 3.1 (above) were utilized to complete a successful design-build effort.

Question: Please confirm it would be possible for projects that are not design-build to be rated

“Relevant”, versus being rated only “Somewhat Relevant” or “Not Relevant”.

Government Response: YES

Q&A #33

MACC Contract 1.8.4.7 page 13- In the Mean’s book for City Cost index for Oklahoma City (2015 page

1417) shows a weighted average for material at 100.3 and for labor at 65.7 for a total of 85.2.

Please confirm that the weighted average to be used in proposals is the 85.2 figure?

Government Response: Yes.. it will be the total weighted average.

Q&A #34

MACC Contract 1.8.4.4 page 13- RS Means Price Book-What happens when the 2015 Means book cost does not cover the cost of an item, i.e. Page 100 code 03 31 13.35 0300 4000 PSI Concrete material shows material cost of $ 107.00 X City Cost index 85.2 = Concrete price of $ 91.16 a CY. Metheny

Concrete is currently charging $ 103.00 per cy for concrete delivered to Tinker AFB

How does the Contractor make up the difference?

Government Response: The contractor’s coefficient is inclusive of profit. “Profit is directly associated with risk”.

Additionally, The RS Means guide provides multiple line items for each function proposed the contractor may select a different line item, or find a subcontractor to provide concrete at more desirable price.

Q&A #35

Why must the MACC contractors be required to bid every FON issued?

Government Response: The Government wants 100% participation from each vendor on every

FON

Q&A #36

MACC Contract 2.2.4.3 Contractor’s Project Superintendent page 17- Please confirm that the

Contractor’s Project Superintendent can supervise numerous projects at the same time as long as an alternate superintendent is on-site at all times?

Government Response: A superintendent, primary or alternate, is required on each project site when construction is occurring. Per SOW paragraph 2.2.4.3, Either the PS or alternate shall be at each active project site during scheduled work hours.

Q&A #37

MACC Contract 2.3.3 Construction Fencing page 22- Please confirm that all construction fencing costs are to be covered by the contractor’s Coefficient?

Government Response: Yes

Q&A #38

Are the awarded (4) MACC contractors responsible for providing RS Means books and/or software to the Government for their use?

Government Response: NO

Q&A #39

Once awarded one of the four MACC contracts, can a contractor change their Coefficients according to a specific FON issued?

Government Response: The Coefficients utilized in the basic contract will be the contractors

“Not to Exceed” coefficient utilized on each FON. The contractor may propose different coefficients based on the requirement of each FON but, may not exceed the basic contract coefficient proposed for that type of work (ie. Normal Work Hours, etc…)

Q&A #40

Section L, Paragraph 4.2: In order to minimize the administrative burden to our clients, we request the

Government accept existing CPARS, CCASS, or ACASS ratings in lieu of PPQs for past performance projects. It has, in fact, been our experience that many clients will not complete a PPQ if they have already invested the time to complete a CPARS/CCASS/ACASS.

Government Response: The Government will also pull CCASS, CPARS etc.. for each project provided as past performance. Please submit the PPQ to your customers for completion and the Government will follow up with said PPQs.

Q&A #41

Section L, Paragraph 4.2: In order to minimize the administrative burden to our clients, we request the

Government accept an existing PPQ for a project if the Offeror has it available.

Government Response: No.. the PPQ is specific to this requirement. Note: an edited version has been posted with this Notice to Offerors

Q&A #42

Section L, Paragraph 6.4: Please confirm that a conference agenda is the only deliverable requirement for this section of the proposal and not the individual plans and processes listed in Paragraph 2.0 of the

Attachment INT-1 Initial DO Statement of Work.

Government Response: Yes the conference agenda is the only deliverable for the basic contract award. For more detail please see Q&A #20

Q&A #43

We understand the maximum individual delivery order value for this contract is $10M. For Section M, Paragraph 4.2.2, specifically the past performance project magnitude and price relevancy evaluation, can a submitted project exceed $10M? Is there a threshold dollar value where the submitted project will no longer be considered relevant in terms or magnitude/price?

Government Response: No, magnitude/price may be assessed based on individual projects or on the aggregate (collectively) incorporating all project prices combined.

Q&A #44

Section L, Paragraph 4.3.2, Relevant Contract Narrative: Table 2.11.3 Proposal Organization has this item as a separate proposal deliverable from the PPIT (Paragraph 4.3.1). Are these 5 page contract narratives different than the PPIT project reports in Paragraph 4.3.1? If different, is there a format specified for the content of the narratives?

Government Response: The Relevant Contract Narratives should be provided separate from the PPI tool there is not a specified format.

Q&A #45

Section L, Paragraph 4.0, Past Performance we are requesting that the Government define “contract.”

There is language in Section M, Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.2 that suggests that the Government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to individual projects. We are unsure if

“aggregate” (i.e., IDIQ contracts) can be entered into PPIT and how to handle PPQ(s). Please clarify.

Government Response: The Government is looking for specific design-build, minimal design-build or construction only projects to evaluate. IDIQ can be listed but may not provide enough detail to discern specific experience/project execution. “Aggregate” means we may collectively consider all projects provided to us for determination of Performance Confidence

Q&A #46

Section L, Paragraph 2.11.7 indicates each volume should have a Table of Contents (and assuming by extension a list of tables, figures, and exhibits). However, Table 2.11.3 Proposal Organization does not indicate where this should be placed in Volumes II and III. Please clarify.

Government Response: Yes it should be provided. if not previously identified in table Section L,

2.11.3. it can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #47

Section L, Paragraph 2.11.8 indicates each volume should have a Glossary. However, Table 2.11.3

Proposal Organization does not indicate where this should be placed in Volumes II and III. Please clarify

Government Response: Yes it should be provided. if not previously identified in table Section L,

2.11.3. it can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #48

Is the Team List (Attachment 1.0) required in Volume III Price?

Government Response: Yes it should be provided. if not previously identified in table Section L,

2.11.3. it can be placed with other reference documents (wherever practical) IAW Section L, 2.11.10.

Q&A #49

Section L, Table 2.11.3: Does the number of hardcopies indicated include the original?

Government Response: YES

Q&A #50

Regarding Questionnaire Cover Letter

Last paragraph, who is Stephen Palmer and should we have a contact number or email for him as the contacting officer?

Government Response: Please be advised you are referencing the draft documents. Please ensure all document downloads come from the Solicitaion 1 package on FedBizOpps or from any subsequent packages dated after 10 July 2015.

NOTICE TO ALL OFFERORS

AFSC/PZIOC OPERATIONAL CONTRACTING

The Government team is posting the following information to ensure all offerors have the same