23_Oct_2015_CE_Engineering_Q A.pdf

CE Services-Engineering Management

FA8101-15-R-0006

Questions and Answers 23 October 2015

Note for all questions regarding the past performance volume: As there may be offerors that have already prepared their past performance volumes, the Government will evaluate all information provided in the past performance volume, whether it be in the PPI tool, the Specific Content section, or both.

1) In reference to Addendum 1 - 3.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE is the PPI tool print out intended to be submitted with the ITO Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire, to the project’s client owner or only to be included in the proposal?

The PPI tool print out is intended to be part of the past performance volume IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 para 1.11.3 Proposal Organization.

The ITO Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire by itself is required to be sent to the project’s client owner (POC). Then, the completed questionnaire will be sent directly from the POC to the CO (Kimberly.delong.2@us.af.mil) and Contract Specialist (emily.mccollaum@us.af.mil) IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 para 3.2.

2) As a follow up to the previous question the language in this section states “Printed hard copies of the pages generated from the PPI tool are subject to the limitations outlined in this paragraph.” Please clarify the page limit as no page limit is included in this section?

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 will be revised to delete this misleading sentence. There is no page limit for the PPI tool printout. Additionally, IAW para 3.3.1, we request up to three past performance information (contracts/efforts) for the prime contractor and any significant subcontractors/teaming partners. As noted in the following paragraph, the requested number is a preference, not a requirement.

3) Will the PPI sheets in the Past Performance Volume be “scored” by the Tinker reviewers or is their primary purpose just to accompany the PPQ, to give the reference filling out the PPQ information on the project?

Yes, the PPI sheets/Attachment 1 shall be included in the past performance volume and will primarily assist the past performance evaluation team (PPET) in determining relevancy for the past efforts. Then, for those efforts determined at least SOMEWHAT RELEVANT, the PPET will evaluate the quality of the performance. The past performance questionnaire (PPQ) will assist the team in determining the appropriate quality ratings. The team will also use other sources, including, but not limited to: PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) and interviews with clients (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 para 4.2.3).

4) In section, 3.0 Past Performance Volume, are you expecting an executive summary or are you going to use the PPI and 3.3.2 Specific Content only to score?

mailto:Kimberly.delong.2@us.af.mil mailto:emily.mccollaum@us.af.mil

The Government is not expecting an executive summary to assist in evaluation of past performance, nor would one be necessary. See revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 that provides revisions to clarify that the

3.3.2 Specific Content is intended to be included as part of the PPI (Attachment 1). The PPI should provide sufficient discussion of the past efforts to assist the PPET in performing their evaluation (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 para 3.3.2).

5) As a follow up to this question will executive summaries be permitted and scored in each Volume’s first section: 2.0 Technical Volume, 3.0 Past Performance Volume, 4.0 Price Volume, and 5.0 Contract Documentation?

An executive summary is permitted in each volume but will count into the volume page limitation, if applicable.

6) Is it intended to include the Addendum 1 - 2.0 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL 2.2.2: Subfactor 1 Transition, Subfactor 2 Program Management, Subfactor 3 Personnel Management as well as the Addendum 2 - 4.0.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE 4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment: Scope, Magnitude, Complexity, and Price Assessment in both the PPI and 3.3.2 Specific Content section?

See revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 that clarifies the specific content shall be provided in the PPI tool/printout.

7) The PWS lists several different ranges of construction value and maximum quantities for 100% designs for the Core Non DMAG workload. CLIN 007AA is an example of this work item (100% design <$500,000) and it lists max quantity of 8. There is a column for Unit Price and Max Amount. Since this is a FFP line item, and this is considered core workload, barring the 8% holdback, is the intent for the contractor to bill 1/22 of the max amount (22 months in the base period) each month and recover 100% of the line item at the end of the base period?

§ CLIN007AA: What if only 7 designs out of 8 designs in this size range are requested by the AF?

§ CLIN007AA: Will the unit rate be used for change orders if the AF requests additional designs above and beyond the eight (8) 100% design listed as the quantity?

First, Core Design Workload (non-DMAG) is found on CLIN 0005, not CLIN 0007. For all of the FFP monthly CLIN, yes, the contractor would invoice for the monthly unit price amount (less the 8% QPI).

CLIN0007 is NOT part of the core workload, see PWS Table 1.1.3 for quantities for the non-DMAG core workload. The quantities listed for CLIN 0007 (and all other CLIN) are estimates that we’re utilizing only for evaluation purposes, to develop the total evaluated price (TEP). Therefore, yes, the unit rate would be used for orders that exceed the estimated quantity.

The contractual limitations for orders and the contract as a whole are found in the section titled “Contract Minimum/Maximum Quantity and Contract Value” and the fill-ins in FAR 52.216-19.

8) In section L 3.3.1 the last paragraph lists that a page limit applies for the PPIs, but it does not specify what that page limit is. What is the page limit for the PPIs after being loaded into the PPI tool?

The page limit for the PPI tool print out is unlimited.

9) The AF provided workload data for designs from 2008 to 2012, but no data for the last three years. Is it correct for the contractor to assume the design workload for the contract period being solicited is similar to that of 2008-2012?

Additional design workload data is being provided.

10) What is the intent of CLIN 0007 Design (Non-Core design Work)?

The intent of CLIN 0007 is to provide project ordering flexibility to tenant units on Tinker AFB.

11) Approximately what % of the contractor’s staff needs a Secret security clearances?

Approximately 10% of contractor staff will need secret clearances.

12) CLIN 0007AE requests a Firm Fixed Price for a 100% design for a project that has >$2M construction value. This leaves the upper end of the construction value completely uncapped. Would the AF please clarify what “range of construction” (e.g. $2M to $4M) we should base our pricing on?

Offerors are encouraged to use the historical data provided as a basis to determine how to adequate price this

CLIN. Non-DMAG project design scope is limited to Table 1.1.3 (Non-DMAG Core Design Workload). All

MILCON designs will go to the USACE.

13) Within a 100% design effort there are sometimes subcontracted activities for geotechnical and topographic surveying. However, on a SRM renovation they likely would not apply. For the FFP 100% designs, should the contractor include geotechnical drilling, and topographic surveying costs, or will they be paid for separately?

Contractor is responsible for all surveying required to execute project designs. Vast majority of designs will not require geotechnical work, as most new facility construction is accomplished by MILCON designed by others.

14) Reference PWS para. 1.2.9 Information Management and 1.2.9.6 Computer Compatibility: 1.) Since it is the government’s expectation that the contractor will provide all ADPE (hardware, software, licenses, etc.)

required in performance of this contract, is a consolidate list of Tinker AFB-preferred AFWay products and prices available so that we can adequately calculate ADPE costs for our proposal? Or, does the Civil Engineer Squadron IT professional have a similar list of AFWay products and prices for ADPE already in use in the CE Engineering flight? 2.) How far in advance will TAFB Form 3215-2’s need to be submitted for ADPE to be useable on day 1 of the contract?

Processing a 3214 typically takes a day or two. After placing an order in AFWay, it takes several weeks before equipment arrives. Contractors that are approved by local command can use AFWay to purchase computers.

AFWay product and pricing are currently as follows:

Office Desktop: ELITEDESK 705 G1: AMD A10 PRO-7800B 3.5/3.9GHZ, 4GB DDR3

1DM, 500GB 7200RPM SATA HDD, SUPER MULTI-DVD, AMD RADEON R7 INTEGRATED

GRAPHICS W/ 2 DP CONNECTORS, 2 DP TO DVI ADAPTERS INCLUDED, GIG ETHERNET, 2

USB 3.0, 4 USB 2.0, USB FIPS 201 CAC KEYBOARD, USB MOUSE, WIN 7 PRO 64-BIT

(SDC 3.X), TPM 1.2, 4-YEAR NBD ON-SITE WARRANTY W/HDD RETENTION.

Cost: $453.00

Performance Desktop: T1700 WORKSTATION: XEON E3-1226V3 3.3GHZ, 8GB

DDR3-1600MHZ, INTEGRATED INTEL HD 4600 GRAPHICS W/ 1 VGA AND 2 DP W/

ADAPTERS, GB NIC, 6 USB 2.0, 4 USB 3.0, 1TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD, 16X DVD+/-RW

DUAL LAYER-SATA, USB 104-KEY CAC KEYBOARD, USB OPTICAL MOUSE, TPM 1.2, WIN 7

PRO 64-BIT (SDC 3.X), 4-YR NBD ON-SITE WARRANTY W/ HDD RETENTION.

Cost: $719.00

Laptop: HP PROBOOK 640 G1 INTEL CORE I5-4210M 2.40/3.1GHZ, 14.0" HD+

1600X900 DISPLAY, 4GB DDR3-1600MHZ SDRAM, SATA SUPER MULTI DL DRIVE, INTEL

HD 4600 W/VGA/DP (DP ADAPTER), GIGABIT NIC, 3 USB 3.0, 802.11ABGN WIFI,

INTERNAL CAC READER, 500GB 5400RPM SED, TPM 1.2, WIN7 PRO 64-BIT (SDC 3.X);

4-YR ONSITE NBD W/HDD RETENTION.

Cost: $720.00

Office Display Monitor: 21.5`` MONITOR, SAMSUNG S22C450B: 1920X1080, DUAL

VOLTAGE, VGA + DVI-I INPUTS, HEIGHT, PIVOT, TILT, AND SWIVEL ADJUSTABLE,

EPEAT GOLD, 3 YEAR MAIL-BACK.

Cost: $128.45

Premium Display Monitor: 24`` MONITOR, SAMSUNG S24C450D: 1920X1080, DUAL

VOLTAGE, DP VGA + DVI-I INPUTS, HEIGHT, PIVOT, TILT, AND SWIVEL ADJUSTABLE,

EPEAT GOLD, 3 YEAR MAIL-BACK.

Cost: $157.84

15) Reference PWS para. 1.2 Required General Services: Will any government owned vehicles be provided for performance of this contract?

No

16) In reference to Addendum 1, 1.11.12 Electronic Offers “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007/2010, MS Excel 2007/2010, MS-Project

2007/2010, and MS-Power Point 2007/2010, or Microsoft Office XP as applicable”, we would like to recommend adding Adobe PDF to the electronic submission format requirements.

Added Adobe PDF in revised Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

17) For CLIN 0002, can a workload be provided for survey services?

The only workload data available for the Drafting, Surveying, Mapping and Engineering Technical Services is provided in Appendix 4.5.2 Technical Engineering Support Workload

18) In Appendix 4.5.6 Real Property Listing Workload, the appendix gives workloads for DMAG, Navy and DLA Facilities and Real Property Buildings “All Other”. CLIN 0010 Operation Engineering Management does not include a line item for “All Other” Buildings. Should “All Other” Buildings be included in another line item or are they not to be considered for this cost proposal?

“All Other” facilities are not included in CLIN 0010 Operation Engineering Management and should not be included in Contractor’s proposal. In-house government staff performs Operation Engineering Management services for these other facilities.

19) Does the Government have a list of designated Key Personnel or is it up to the Contractor to identify which staff are Key Personnel in the proposal?

On-site contract manager and alternate(s), engineering services managers, and supervisors, and lead engineers/architects are deemed to be key personnel for this contract, as stated in PWS paragraph 1.5.2.7

20) Does the Government have updated workload data for estimating purposed? The last year provided in the solicitation is 2012.

See updated workload data.

21) In Section 1.1.3, Project Management, the solicitation has the requirements for two separate project management and design team (DMAG and non-DMAG). In Section 1.1.3.1.5, the solicitation states that the Contractor shall provide a core number of state licensed professionals. Is this team separate from the two teams stated in the previous section? Please clarify.

The core state licensed professionals are allowed to make up portions of the two separate project management and design teams.

22) Can you provide a brief description as to the price evaluation that the Price Proposal will undergo after submittal? How binding is the cost number provided in the price submittal to the contract?

The price evaluation will be in accordance with Addendums to FAR 52.212-1 and 2. The total evaluated price is not “binding” and is used for evaluation purposes, with estimated, not contractually limiting quantities. The unit prices are binding and orders will be placed throughout the contract period at the competitively established unit prices.

23) The Pricing Matrix has 3 CLINS for Operations Engineering, but only for DMAG (10AA), Navy (10AB), and DLA (10AC) facilities. Is the contractor to assume that no Operational Engineering (PWS 1.1.7) is needed for other facilities on Tinker AFB?

"All Other" facilities are not included in CLIN 0010 Operation Engineering Management and should not be included in Contractor's proposal. In-house government staff performs Operation Engineering Management services for these other facilities.

24) When were the 13 Bridge's last inspected? Can you please provide a copy of the last inspection.

The bridges were last inspected in November 2014; however, we have not received the final report. The last inspection was performed by the Federal Highway Administration.

25) In PWS section for Drafting, Surveying, Mapping and Engineering Technical Services section 1.1.2.4 it indicates that the Contractor shall provide land survey support for base activities. Then at the end of the paragraph it says "Surveys shall meet commercial standards for land surveying and mapping." Is the intent of this section for the Contractor to provide "support" for an off base surveyor working on another contract (e.g.

give them existing data, show them the area and existing benchmarks to be surveyed). Or is the intent that we need to keep a full time licensed survey crew on base to "do" the surveys?

We realize that we will be responsible for the surveys for our 100% designs.

Paragraph 1.1.2.4 is not intended for the Contractor to provide "support" for an off base surveyor working on another contracts. It is the Contractor's option to maintain a full-time licensed land surveyor or sub the work out.

26) What is the difference between CLIN 0006 Construction Management Non-DMAG PWS 1.1.5 - 1.1.5.16 and Full Contract and Construction Management (Non-MILCON) PWS 1.1.5 - 1.1.5.15?

CLIN 0006 Construction Management (Non-DMAG) is a firm-fixed-price monthly CLIN for managing construction inspections for all Non-DMAG projects. Whereas, CLIN 0008AA Full Contract & Construction Mgmt (Non-MILCON) is priced as a percentage of the construction dollar amount, priced in each individual delivery orders for all DMAG construction projects awarded.

27) GFP Furniture lists for Bldg 400 and 414 were provided. However, there is no Furniture GFP list for Bldg 3001. Are we to assume that the offices and cubicles designated for this contract in Bldg 3001, contain similar furniture, desks, cabinets, etc as the other work areas?

Furniture is provided for designated offices in B3001 that are identified in Appendix 4.6.2 Government Furnished Facilities 7 Apr 15.

28) CLIN 008 says Construction Management DMAG (for information only) and has no price. CLIN 008AA is Full Contract and Construction Management Non-MILCON and CLIN008AB is Liaison Contract and Construction. Neither CLIN 8AA or 8AB mentions "DMAG." Is it correct to assume that since 8AA and 8AB are subset of CLIN 008 that 8AA and 8AB are meant exclusively for DMAG Facilities? If not, please clarify.

Yes, CLINs 0008AA and 0008AB are subsets of CLIN 0008 "Construction Management DMAG" and are established for construction management of DMAG facilities.