Q A_Solicitation_4.xls
XLS spreadsheet 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8201-10-R-0025
About this file
The fourth Q A posting concerning the SABER Solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| SABER SOLICITATION Q & A | ||
| Note: The most current questions and answers are highlighted in green | ||
| DATE | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 7-Jun-11 | Page 9 of Section L requires a Signed Copy of Model Contract, yet we cannot locate a model contract. Where is it located within solicitation? | The model contract is the solicitation. The blocks you need to fill in are 30A, 30B and 30C. |
In addition, you will need to send back signed copies of the Amendment. The required blocks are 15A, 15B, and 15C.
| 6/1/2011 (Re-Post w/ Lengthier Answer) | Will the government increase the 40 page, 12 font, double space limitations on the Technical Capability to adequately explain and detail a response for the Sample Task SOW factors and subfactors? Can the Government clarify if the offeror is to put in writing a response in the in the 40 page double spaced 12 font limit for each item listed in the RFP for the Technical Section outlined below? | There is no plan to increase the 40 page limit on Subfactor 1 of Volume II (Technical Capability) at this time, but it should be noted that material submittals and drawings do not count towards this page limit. Read Section L - 4.1 & 4.2 for more information on what is required of contractors for the Technical Capability Volume, specifically the Sample Task SOW. Section L/Volume II - Technical Capability/4.1-4.2: "...describe how you will accomplish/satisfy the requirements and specifically how that capability will be used for this effort. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the Sample Task SOW." Also, "The volume should amplify the Government Sample Task SOW by describing how the requirements will be accomplished. In the Technical Volume, address your proposed approach to meeting EACH of the requirements of the Sample Task SOW..." It is necessary for contractors to propose on "each" and every requirement listed in the Sample Task SOW. |
| 6/1/2011 (Re-Post w/ Lengthier Answer) | Is the Government interested in the evaluation of key management, and/or subcontractors experience, and education as part of the evaluation for the successful execution of the Seed Task Order and future task orders issued under this SABER contract? | Key management and subcontractor personnel are not part of the evaluation criteria, but they may very well indirectly effect the past performance for those who have worked with the Government before. It is the intent of the sample task to see the experience and education of bidding contractors reflected in the overall quality of the required volumes, especially the Technical Volume. Future task orders are also competed, so experience and education should help the winning contractors in the bidding process in this respect as well. Section L covers everything that needs to be submitted by contractors to be evaluated by the Government IAW Section M. Key management, and/or subcontractors experience, and education DO NOT need to be submitted as part of a contractors' proposals, as they are not called out in Section L. |
| 3-Jun-11 | Page 33, SOW/Appendix C, 6.b states there is a template to use, yet I can't locate one anywhere, only the list of elements? Can you please direct me to it? | SOW/Appendix C/Part II is the template that should be followed when detailing the contractor's Safety and Health Plan. Follow the instruction given in page 33 of the SOW in 6 (b) and also at the beginning of Part II, also page 33. Note: notice some of the sections do not require a contractor submission for the Safety and Health Plan [i.e. (s.) Respiratory Protection Program Elements, denoted by "No, does not apply to this contract"]. Contractors only need to reply to those sections preceded by a "Yes", which means they are applicable requirements to your Safety and Health Plan. |
| 3-Jun-11 | There is a column in the Cross Matrix for CDRL's; what do you want us to reference to in our Cross Matrix for this column? | A reference is not necessary nor required for this column. |
| 3-Jun-11 | How do the CLINS correlate with the CDRL's (as show in the Cross Reference Matrix Table)? | CLIN 0002 DATA is the CLIN associated with all data. As stated, data shall be provided IAW the DD1423s. The CDRL column does not have to be filled out (see question above) in the Cross Reference Matrix. |
| 3-Jun-11 | Do you want us to simply accept the CDRL docs for use as part of our contract, which appears to be associated with Health & Safety, for post award? | The CDRLs will be part of the contract award and as such are required for performance. |
| 3-Jun-11 | As for the CLINS, you have stated for CLIN #1, the minimum and maximum amounts are filled, so are we to assume there is nothing to fill in on CLIN #1? | Section B of the Solicitation, which has the CLINs is not to be filled out by the contractors. The TEP Worksheet is the only pricing the contractors need to complete. |
| 3-Jun-11 | CLIN #2 refers to data. What do you want us to fill in for this CLIN? | Section B of the Solicitation, which has the CLINs is not to be filled out by the contractors. The TEP Worksheet is the only pricing the contractors need to complete. CLIN 0002 is a Not Separately Priced CLIN. |
| 3-Jun-11 | Can we assume we fill in "NTE $60,000" on CLIN #3, correct? | Section B of the Solicitation, which has the CLINs is not to be filled out by the contractors. The TEP Worksheet is the only pricing the contractors need to complete. |
| 1-Jun-11 | Part of the AFMAN would not apply was a response for AFMAN. Can you clarify by stating the sections that are to be excluded or to be included? | The construction of the new "Missile room" is only being prepped for future conversion into a calibration room as stated in the Government Statement of Work, section 3.2, para-E. All construction that is actually being requested needs to follow the construction criteria outlined in AFMAN 32-1094. If the government statement of work does not call for something to be constructed the AFMAN does not apply. For example; air locks are not being constructed so the AFMAN does not apply. Walls will be constructed following the AFMAN. The AFMAN calls for no windows in a calibration room, but the government statement of work states that the windows are to be left open. This area will be enclosed in the future when the room is re-designated as a calibration area. The grounding system, anti-static flooring, ceiling, lighting, nitrogen and compressed air are all identified in the government statement of work so the AFMAN should be followed. |
| 1-Jun-11 | Will the Government consider adding a Past Performance section to consider the past performance of offerors that do not have completed projects with official CCASS or PPIRS issued ratings to evaluate successful project execution? | Section M states that the lowest priced offeror will be looked at first for past performance . If there is none, then they will be given a neutral and then awarded to if they are also technically acceptable. If they are in the top 2-3 then there is no perceived trade-off and they will be given the award based on the neutral rating and other factors already discussed. The FAR requires that Past Performance be addressed in all acquisitions. However, we cannot give a more favorable evaluation to a contractor who has worked with the Government than one that has not in a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable selection. The Government may gather past performance information from both Government and commercial sources (see Section M - 3.1), so a contractor may be negatively impacted from their past performance if found from the above sources by receiving a "Fail" for this Factor. Therefore, we are required to look at past performance, but only after looking at price first and then if the past performance is neutral or higher we would award based on that and simultaneously looking at Technical Acceptability. A pass is a pass in this instance under a pass/fail basis, where a contractor passes if they are found to be responsible by the Government. |
| 1-Jun-11 | Is the Government interested in the evaluation of key management, and/or subcontractors experience, and education as part of the evaluation for the successful execution of the Seed Task Order and future task orders issued under this SABER contract? | Key management and subcontractor personnel are not part of the evaluation criteria, but they may very well indirectly effect the past performance for those who have worked with the Government before. It is the intent of the sample task to see the experience and education of bidding contractors reflected in the overall quality of the required volumes, especially the Technical Volume. Future task orders are also competed, so experience and education should help the winning contractors in the bidding process in this respect as well. |
| 1-Jun-11 | Will the government increase the 40 page, 12 font, double space limitations on the Technical Capability to adequately explain and detail a response for the Sample Task SOW factors and subfactors? Can the Government clarify if the offeror is to put in writing a response in the in the 40 page double spaced 12 font limit for each item listed in the RFP for the Technical Section outlined below? | There is no plan to increase the 40 page limit on Subfactor 1 of Volume II (Technical Capability) at this time, but it should be noted that material submittals and drawings do not count towards this page limit. Read Section L - 4.1 & 4.2 for more information on what is required of contractors for the Technical Capability Volume, specifically the Sample Task SOW. |
| 31-May-11 | If Past Performance that is satisfactory equals a neutral rating, and the Government is not going to give the offerors an opportunity to submit any relevant past performance , then why have past performance as an evaluation factor? Will the Government remove the evaluation factor for past performance and let the proposals demonstrate the offerors experience and capability? | Section M states that the lowest priced offeror will be looked at first for past performance . If there is none, then they will be given a neutral and then awarded to if they are also technically acceptable. If they are in the top 2-3 then there is no perceived trade-off and they will be given the award based on the neutral rating and other factors already discussed. The FAR requires that Past Performance be addressed in all acquisitions. However, we cannot give a more favorable evaluation to a contractor who has worked with the Government than one that has not in a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable selection. The Government may gather past performance information from both Government and commercial sources (see Section M - 3.1), so a contractor may be negatively impacted from their past performance if found from the above sources by receiving a "Fail" for this Factor. Therefore, we are required to look at past performance, but only after looking at price first and then if the past performance is neutral or higher we would award based on that and simultaneously looking at Technical Acceptability. A pass is a pass in this instance under a pass/fail basis, where a contractor passes if they are found to be responsible by the Government. |
| 31-May-11 | For the convenience of the Government's reading of the proposals, would the Government allow Offerors to place the submittals and drawings as Appendix A and B at the end of the written proposal in Volume II. | That should not be a problem so long as the drawings or material submittals are labeled as well (i.e. Mechanical plan, floor plan, etc). |
| 25-May-11 | Section L - 5.1.4 requires we submit "Section K - Representatives, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors." I did not see a Section K in the issued RFP, so is it reasonable to assume that we are to include "52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (Jan 2011)" to satisfy this requirement? | IAW Section L - 5.1.4 Offeror must have filled out an online provision 52.204-08 Annual Representations and Certifications (JAN 2005), Online Reps and Certs (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov |
| 25-May-11 | The Table 2 - Sample Cross Reference Matrix includes a column for the SOW. Can you please confirm this is for the Sample Task Order SOW and not the entire SABER SOW? | Section L has been changed to read "Sample Task SOW" within the Sample Cross Reference Matrix. See the revised Section L - Table 2. |
| 25-May-11 | Would the government consider excluding the Sample Task Order drawings from the 40-page limit in subfactor One? | Drawings will not count towards page limitations. See the revised Section L - 2.14 & Table 1. |
| 25-May-11 | Section L - 3.1.5 says "When responding to the Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated subcontractors shall use generally accepted construction estimating techniques, such as RS Means or equivalent to develop their estimates on the sample task." Can you please clarify what software is acceptable as an equivalent to RS Means? | Other software suites may be available, such as WinEstimator Inc®, Timberline Software®, or follow these web addresses for other possible estimating software options. (http://www.contractor-books.com or http://craftsman-book.com) |
| 24-May-11 | The asbestos report calls out for room numbers that do not match up with the government drawings. Can the government clarify the room numbers on the asbestos report for rooms 15, 17, 109, and 125 with the government prints? | As mentioned in the asbestos inspection report, the materials are homogenous throughout the building and has been identified as such. Just because the rooms numbers may not match up doesn't mean that the materials haven't been identified. Contractors need to read the inspection report and assume all flooring throughout this renovation area is an asbestos containing material |
| 24-May-11 | Will the black mastic on the walls be impacted in the rooms 109 & 125? | It's possible that the black wall adhesive could be impacted. Right now the ACM is above the dropped-in ceiling and in various locations. It shouldn't be impacted by any new construction (i.e. cutting in the new doors or re-hanging the drop-in ceiling), but needs to be identified as ACM and cannot be disturbed by hanging/attaching conduit, HVAC ductwork, ceiling grid, etc to this material. |
| 24-May-11 | The asbestos report stated the CMU walls may have asbestos insulation. Can the government have these areas tested? If not are we to assume all walls have asbestos? If so are we going to be required to have the insulation tested? | The shop has knocked some holes into other CMU wall(s) and didn't find any suspect materials at this time. However, if any suspect materials are identified during the demolition phase of the project, then as per State/Federal regulations, all work must stop immediately and our shop will sample/test any suspect materials at no cost to the contractor. |
| 23-May-11 | Is there a chance to have a short walk through with our "Engineers" to give our engineers a better idea of the project and existing conditions? | There will not be another walk through; the time required to set one up is extensive, which is why it was done prior to RFP release. Contractors were informed that the 6 April Site Visit would be the only Site Visit held. |
| 23-May-11 | In the RFP Section "K" "Certifications & Representatives" seem to be missing, will this be out soon? | IAW Section L - 5.1.4 Offeror must have filled out an online provision 52.204-08 Annual Representations and Certifications (JAN 2005), Online Reps and Certs (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov |
| 23-May-11 | The AF 3052 supplied does not transfer the number to the summary page, and there is no place to put percentages for OH & Profit, or bond cost. | The TEP Worksheet provided will be all the contractor needs to complete for price. An AF 3052 was not supplied with the solicitation. |
| 23-May-11 | Can you please clarify if I should submit the Bid Bond in Volume I or Volume III? Also, where within the volume should it be located? | The Bid Bond should be submitted in Volume III, Contract Documentation. |
| 23-May-11 | Section L - 5.1.3 states we should include Section I - Contract Clauses. Can you please clarify what information should be submitted in this section? | Section I is completed by the Government. This section within the solicitation includes all the clauses the Government deemed necessary for the SABER program. Contractors will be held to these clauses and they will also be included in the award document. |
| 23-May-11 | Referencing the Q&A dated 05/09/11, it states that "Past Performance information may be gathered by the Government." Section M - 3.1 says that "Past Performance will either be satisfactory, neutral, or unsatisfactory…" Can you please confirm that offerors who receive a satisfactory or neutral past performance will be rated equally? | Offerors who receive a satisfactory or neutral past performance will be determined responsible, or in other words be given a passing rating. There will be no ratings of past performance beyond pass/fail, so no trade-offs will be made for past performance. |
| 23-May-11 | Referencing Section M - 3.1. Can you please explain what MOCAS stands for? | It stands for Mechanization Of Contract Administration Services and is a database that serves to facilitate contract administration for DoD. |
| 17-May-11 | Are the following drawings available in Auto Cad: Bldg 214, 1st floor existing, Comm Layout, Old Tire Shop Layout - Ansi, New Layout, New Layout & People, and the Power Station Layout? | Auto Cad drawings are not available. |
| 16-May-11 | As section M details the evaluation factor assigned to contractor past performance, how will that information be gathered? Is there a specific amount of information requested, such as references or contract numbers? Or will the Government conduct the research on this factor? | This is not a Past Performance Tradeoff (PPT); therefore, the contractors are not required to provide contracts for review. Past performance will be evaluated as set forth in Section M, paragraph 3.1. The Government will conduct the research on this factor. |
| 16-May-11 | Section L, 4.4 Subfactor 2 references Appendix C for the minimum requirements of the Safety and Health plan. Appendix C is not provided with the solicitation. | Appendix C is included in the Statement of Work; it starts on page 31. |
| 16-May-11 | Past performance was not included as a requirement for the offeror to address in section L, yet is it included in Section M as an evaluation criteria. This approach favors offeror’s with previous experience that would be captured in CCAS, CPARS or PPIRS while other 8(a) organizations would not be able to showcase their relevant experience on similar commercial projects. Would the government include a requirement for offeror’s to present a minimum of three past performance examples. | This is not a Past Performance Tradeoff (PPT); therefore, the contractors are not required to provide contracts for review. Past performance will be evaluated as set forth in Section M, paragraph 3.1. As stated, “Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available.” |
| 16-May-11 | Section L 4.2 states that the technical volume shall be organized to follow the sample SOW outline and represent the methodology to meet all requirements. The Sample SOW has 14 pages of potential areas that require addressing per the RFP. Are we to understand that our response is to the general, or higher level paragraph topics as opposed to the subparagraphs (ex: a-h.)? | Proposals should include the contractor's approach down to the sublevel paragraph requirements. |
| 16-May-11 | Detailed drawings will most likely be 11X17’s and the government requires a minimum of 6. Depending on the number of drawings necessary to provide a compliant response, it seems an inordinate amount of pages will be taken by drawings. Will the Government not count drawings as part of the 40 page limit for the technical volume. | Drawings will not be counted as part of the 40 page limit for the technical volume. |
| 14-May-11 | The RFP states local 8(a) companies in Salt Lake City, Utah. Does it mean 8(a) companies with bonafide place of business in Salt Lake City Utah? | The solicitation language means Utah 8(a) firms with a bonafide place of business in Utah and a NAICS code of 236220 may bid on the SABER contract. Contact your local Small Business Development Specialist. They can tell you what needs to be done to have a "bona fide place of business" in Utah IAW 13 CFR 124.3. Your status will be verified through the SBA of Salt Lake City. It would be helpful if you submitted the letter you receive from the SBA with your SABER proposal. |
| 12-May-11 | The Standard Form 1442 states, "This is a competitive set-aside and will be awarded to approximately three local 8(a) concerns in the SBA of Salt Lake City, UT." Is it reasonable to assume that this requirement means that any 8(a) company with a bona fide office in the entire State of Utah (not only Salt Lake City) is eligible to bid on SABER? | The solicitation language means Utah 8(a) firms with a bonafide place of business in Utah and a NAICS code of 236220 may bid on the SABER contract. Contact your local Small Business Development Specialist. They can tell you what needs to be done to have a "bona fide place of business" in Utah IAW 13 CFR 124.3. Your status will be verified through the SBA of Salt Lake City. It would be helpful if you submitted the letter you receive from the SBA with your SABER proposal. |
| 11-Apr-11 | Every company has different costs for supervision/management. Will there be a "Davis Bacon" wage determination for Project Managers, Environmental/Safety Officer and Quality Control Officer posed to the web site (Section L - 3.1.8)? | Construction divisions shall include all applicable direct and indirect costs (OH, G & A, etc) and profit (TEP Worksheet Instructions). The cost that will be incurred by the Offeror for the management/supervision of the professionals/laborers, who will work under this contract, will be recovered by the Offeror indirectly through overhead account costs included in the TEP for the sample task (Section L - 3.1.8). |
| 9-May-11 | Past performance was left out of the draft L & M documents. Was this intentional? | Past performance was left out of Section L because contractors do not need to provide past performance information as part of their proposals. Past performance is found in Section M as Factor 3 under Evaluation Criteria. "Past performance information may be gathered by the Government..."(Section M - 3.1). |
| 11-May-11 | We are 8(a) certified and have an SBA certified office in Clearfield, Utah. The solicitation states, "This is a competitive set-aside and will be awarded to approximately three local 8(a) concerns in the SBA of Salt Lake City, UT." does the Government intend to limit this solicitation to firms from "Salt Lake City" only? May we bid this contract? | The solicitation language means Utah 8(a) firms with a bonafide place of business in Utah and a NAICS code of 236220 may bid on the SABER contract. Contact your local Small Business Development Specialist. They can tell you what needs to be done to have a "bona fide place of business" in Utah IAW 13 CFR 124.3. Your status will be verified through the SBA of Salt Lake City. It would be helpful if you submitted the letter you receive from the SBA with your SABER proposal. |
| 11-May-11 | Section L indicates Proposal Volume II, Subfactor 1 is limited to 40 pages. As the Seed Project requests more than 15 submittals (each of which are typically multiple pages), will the Government consider deleting the material submittal information from the page count limitation? | Material submittals will not count towards page limitations. See the revised Section L - 2.14 & Table 1. |
| 11-May-11 | Section L at 2.20. Electronic Offers indicates PDF files will not be accepted. Will the Government consider accepting drawings and submittals in PDF format? | Yes, the drawings and submittals can be provided in PDF format. |
| 11-May-11 | Please confirm, CLIN items 0001 & 0002 do not require a bid price, CLIN item 0003 does require a bid price. Also, where do we submit an offer (price) for CLIN item 0003? | Contractors will not price CLIN 0003. It is a Cost Reimbursable No-Fee CLIN with a Not to Exceed amount of $60,000 |
| 11-May-11 | CLIN item 0003 states "This cost reimbursable no fee CLIN is for the purpose of material purchases IAW the Statement of Work dated 27 April 2011." Please explain "no fee." | When CLIN 0003 is awarded the contractor will be reimbursed for actual costs of providing the software, code books, etc. "No fee" indicates that there will not be profit associated with this CLIN. |
| 11-May-11 | As this contract is for a 60 month duration and we are to offer a price for CLIN item 0003, should CLIN 0003 be a price for one set of the items listed IAW the SOW or should it be for the entire contract duration (i.e.. providing software at initial award (November 2011) and when updates are available (i.e. January 2012, January 2013, January 2014, January 2015, January 2016, January 2017)? How is the contractor to consider potential price escalation for these items? | Contractors will not price CLIN 0003. It is a Cost Reimbursable No-Fee CLIN with a Not to Exceed amount of $60,000. The awards for CLIN 0003 will be for a 12-month duration, so it will be competed annually. |
| 11-May-11 | The Minimum Order value is identified as $250.00. Is it the Government's intent to competitively bid projects valued as low as $250.00? If not, what is the minimum task order value anticipated? | The minimum guarantee for the entire IDIQ contract is $250.00. The minimum task order for projects will be $2000.00. |
| 11-May-11 | What is the purpose of or when will RS Means unit prices be used for bidding (there does not appear to be any ordering procedures to put this in context)? | Ordering procedures will be discussed at the post-award conference. RS Means unit prices will not be used for award of the Basic Contract. |
| 11-May-11 | Section L Page 4 Paragraph 2.17.2 states "Tables and Figures do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes." However contradicting that is Section L Page 5 Paragraph 2.18.2 which states "Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, be printed only on one side, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics;..." Will tables and figures be counted as one page when presented on an 11x17, or not count against the page limitations? | Paragraph 2.17.2 specifically refers to the indexed list of Tables and Figures. This indexed list will not count against the page limitations. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .