MACC II Questions and Answers updated 17 April 2012.pdf

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) II

RFP No. FA8201-11-R-0008

Contractor Questions

Updated: 17 April 2012

1. Page 65 of the RFP states, "Submit an Occupational Safety and Health Plan in accordance with Appendix B Industrial Safety and Health Requirements, of the Statement of Work (SOW)."

It appears that Appendix A of Attachment 1 - SOW is the Occupational Safety and Health Plan.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Occupational and Health Plan required in Subfactor Three should be in accordance with Appendix A, rather than Appendix B?

ANSWER: Yes, it can be assumed that the Occupational and Health Plan required in Subfactor

Three should be in accordance with Appendix A. An amendment to the solicitation will be issued to correct this issue.

2. Page 67 of the RFP references Volume IV - Past Performance; however, Volume IV is not shown in Table 1 - Proposal Organization on Page 61 of the RFP. Can you please confirm whether or not we are required to submit Volume IV - Past Performance as part of our proposal?

ANSWER: Section L instructs that offerors MAY submit recent, relevant contracts as defined in

Section M. Submission of past performance information is strictly voluntary; however, whether or not an offeror chooses to submit past performance information, the Government intends to retrieve past performance information from available Government sources (Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.).

3. Page 67 of the RFP states, "Offerors may submit recent, relevant contracts as defined in

Section M. The government will consider this information, along with information obtained from other sources (e.g. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.)" Can you please clarify the following?

a. Are we to submit recent, relevant contracts (i.e. IDIQ- and MACC-type contracts) or projects (i.e. task orders under an IDIQ-type contract)?

ANSWER: The Government’s primary concern regarding this matter is that an offeror can demonstrate the capability to perform work that requires skill sets that are similar to those required by the drawings and specifications associated with this request for proposal. The contract vehicle associated with a particular submission of past performance is irrelevant.

b. How many recent, relevant contracts are we to provide with our proposal?

ANSWER: An offeror may submit as many contracts/projects that can fit within the 50 page limitation (an amendment will be issued to clarify the page limitation).

4. Page 63 of the RFP states, "Submit the price proposal (Contract Cost Estimate worksheet, Pricing Assumptions, Estimating Techniques, etc.) in Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel worksheets as appropriate." Can you confirm if the Contract Cost Estimate is the same as

Attachment 11 - Contractor Cost Schedule?

ANSWER: Yes, the Contract Cost Estimate is the same as Attachment 11 – Contractor Cost

Schedule.

5. Page 66 of the lists Section I - Contract Clauses as part of Volume III - Contract

Documentation. Are we required to submit the entire Section I - Contract Clauses (Pages 13 - 38 of the RFP) with our Volume III proposal?

ANSWER: Yes. Per the instructions in Section L, “The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Sections A through K.”

6. The SF 1442, Block 10 states, "All questions concerning this RFP must be submitted not later than 15 days prior to the RFP closing date". Is this business days or calendar days?

ANSWER: Calendar days. See Amendment 01 for further clarification.

7. Would the Government consider restricting this MACC to small-business concerns with a bona fide office in Utah?

ANSWER: No.

8. Page 22 of the RFP references a bid guarantee and states that, "The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price". Is this for the seed project? Also, is it reasonable to assume that the bid guarantee should be included directly after the the prequalification bonding letter in Subfactactor Six?

ANSWER: There are two deliverables that are related to bonding. The first deliverable relates to

Volume II, Technical Subfactor Six. The intent of Technical Subfactor Six is to assess an offeror’s ability to be bonded for an aggregate amount of $10 million. In the event multiple task orders with overlapping periods of performance are awarded to one contractor, it is possible that the contractor may need bonding to cover $10 million worth of work. The second deliverable is the bid guarantee for the seed project, which should be included in Volume III – Contract

Documentation in accordance with Clause 52.228-1 (Located in Section I of the SF1442).

9. Is there a bidder key on Projnet for this project? If not, are questions emailed directly to you? Will you share other proposer’s questions / answers?

ANSWER: There is no bidder key on Projnet for this project. All questions are to be emailed directly to the contracting officer. Answers to all questions will be posted along with the solicitation on FedBizOpps.

10. Table 1 – Proposal Organization of the RFP states there are three volumes. However, the

RFP also asks for volume IV Past Performance. Are we to submit a Volume IV? If so, how many copies and is there a page limitation?

ANSWER: Offerors MAY submit recent, relevant contracts as defined in Section M. Volume IV is subject to a 50 page limit. An original plus four hardcopies of Volume IV shall be submitted.

An amendment will be issued to clarify this concern.

11. Is the offeror to provide firm qualifications similar to what the A-E team is to submit?

ANSWER: The Standard Form (SF) 330 is a form that is specific to A&E firms. There is no

Standard Form for the offeror to submit; however, the offeror may use Volume IV (Past

Performance) as a means to demonstrate its qualifications for the MACC contract.

12. Is a bid bond required for the seed project or the MACC overall project? Portions of the

RFP state a 20% NTE $3 Million bid bond is required. Other sections state a letter of bondability is required. Please confirm.

ANSWER: In accordance with Section L, Subfactor Six, each offeror must demonstrate a bonding capability of $10M via a prequalification letter from an A.M. Best “A” Rated Surety

(not a bonding agent). This requirement applies to the overall MACC contract. At the task order level (to include the seed project), a bid bond in the amount of 20% of the bid price (not to exceed $3 Million) is required for each project competed under the MACC II IDIQ.

13. Sections L & M Factors and Subfactors are not aligning. Where does contract documentation belong?

ANSWER: Contract documentation belongs in Volume III.

14. Paragraphs 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 of section L are referenced throughout the solicitation. I cannot see where these paragraphs are located in section L. There does not seem to be a consistent paragraph numbering system.

ANSWER: Paragraph 3.0 of Section L is “Volume I – Price,” Paragraph 4.0 of Section L is

“Volume II – Technical Acceptability,” and Paragraph 5.0 of Section L is “Volume III –

Contract Documentation.”

15. Regarding Subfactor 2 – A-E Qualifications of Volume II, are we to submit three projects per design discipline (three for architect, three for civil, three for mechanical, etc.)?

ANSWER: Yes.

16. Are we to submit Past Performance for the offeror only in volume IV – or A-E team as well? Is this the volume for Attachment 15?

ANSWER: Past performance for the prime contractor (offeror) will be submitted using

Attachment 15. Past performance for the A-E team will be submitted as a part of Technical

Subfactor Two via the Standard Form (SF) 330.

17. How many projects is the government expecting to see in Volume IV?

ANSWER: There is no project limit, however, offerors must abide by the 50 page limit.

18. Attachment #5 – Contractor Quality Control, Paragraph 3.4.3 indicates the Prime

Contractor is required to have on staff four graduate level engineers. This requirement seems onerous due to (1) this is a small business set-aside, (2) it’s unknown what work (type, size, complexity) may be issued under the contract and (3) it’s a multiple award with no guarantee of award.

a. Clarify if this requirement is correct. If so, will the Air Force consider this requirement may be met through the use of consultants and/or subcontractors?

ANSWER: This requirement is correct and the Air Force supports that it may be met through the use of consultants and/or subcontractors.

19. Solicitation at Page 61, Table 1 – Proposal Organization identifies Volumes 1, 2 & 3 and associated copies and page limits. Section L (Page 67) & Section M (Page 71) also indicate there is a Volume 4 – Past Performance.

a. Is there a limit of the number of Past Performance Contracts which may be submitted? Is there a limit to the number of pages in Volume 4?

ANSWER: There is no limit of the number of Past Performance Contracts which may be submitted, however, there is a limit of 50 pages for Volume IV.

20. FAR Clause 52.232-13 Notice of Progress Payments (Page 54) and 52.232-16 Progress

Payments (Page 15) are included by reference in the Solicitation. These clauses are not, typically, used for construction contracts and conflict with FAR Clause 52.232-5 Payments

Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts and 52.232-27 Prompt Payment Due Construction

Contracts, which are included by reference also (Page 15).

a. Please clarify the conflict between the payment clauses.

ANSWER: Clauses 52.232-13 and 52.232-16 will be deleted via a solicitation amendment.

21. Attachment 1 – MACC II SOW includes the statement at Paragraph 1.5.5.2 (Page 8): “As imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) and 41 U.S.C. 254(b) IAW FAR 15.404-4(c)(4), for those TOs requiring design effort (i.e., design-build), the Contracting Officer is restricted from negotiating a price or fee for the production and delivery of designs, plans, and drawings exceeding 6 percent of the estimated cost of construction.”

a. FAR 15.404-4(c)(4) applies to cost-plus type contracts, this is a firm-fixed price type contract. Task orders will be competed, not negotiated. Please clarify if the Air Force is limiting design services to 6% or less of the construction value of the task orders.

ANSWER: FAR 15.404-4(c )4(i)(B) applies specifically to A&E requirements.

22. Page 58: Please confirm that questions are due on April 24, 2012, at 14:00.

ANSWER: Confirmed. Questions are due on April 24, 2012 at 1400 MST.

23. Section L, Page 70: Subfactor Three “is met when the Offeror’s Occupational Safety and

Health Plan is approved by the Hill AFB Safety Office.” Do we need to obtain approval by the

Hill AFB Safety Office prior to proposal submission?

ANSWER: No. Subfactor Three will be evaluated and approved based on the criteria identified in the RFP.

24. Page 61 of the RFP, Table 1, shows we are required to provide 2 CDs of Volume I - Price.

Since the majority of subcontractor and supplier pricing comes at the last minute, would the

Government consider deleting the requirements for CDs for Volume I - Price?

ANSWER: No.

25. What are the Liquidated damages for the seed project TO?

ANSWER: $184.07. See Amendment 2 for an update to Clause 52.211-12.

26. Attachment 1 – MACC II SOW identifies the Contractor Personnel (page 3).

a. Please clarify the difference between a “Project Manager” and a “Contract Manager”.

This seems to be the same individual.

ANSWER: A Contract Manager is an individual who has the authority to enter into agreements with the Government on behalf of their organization. A Project Manager is an individual who manages workload at the task order level.

b. In other words, can these roles be the same individual?

ANSWER: An offeror’s Project Manager and Contract Manager could be the same individual.

27. What is the purpose of the “Sample Cross Reference Matrix”?

ANSWER: The purpose of the Cross Reference Matrix is to help streamline the evaluation process. Essentially what the Government is asking for is a table of contents which shows the specific location of each offeror’s response to the requirements of the RFP. For example, if Page 2 of an offeror’s proposal addresses Section L Paragraph 4.2. (Volume II, Subfactor One), the offeror would cite on the cross reference matrix that Page 2 of their proposal is the proper location for the Government to review the offeror’s response to Section L

Paragraph 4.2. This same process is to be applied throughout the offeror’s entire proposal.

28. What type of information does the Government want us to include in the Cross Reference

Matrix?

ANSWER: The Government expects each cross reference matrix to articulate the location in the proposal that corresponds to its respective requirement or subfactor.

29. The first paragraph under “Cross Referencing” states, “Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal.” The second paragraph states that the Cross Reference Matrix “shall be included in the Technical Volume” only. Does this mean that only information contained in the Technical

Volume will be cross-referenced in the Cross Reference Matrix?

ANSWER: Yes

30. If the Cross Reference Matrix is supposed to cross-reference to other volumes, then the

Technical Volume would necessarily cross-reference to “other volumes of the proposal.” If this is the Government’s intent, please resolve this contradiction.

ANSWER: It is not the Government’s intent for the Technical Volume to cross-reference to other volumes of the proposal.

31. Do the “Para. X.x” references in the Sample Cross Reference Matrix relate to paragraph designations in the solicitation or in an offeror’s proposal?

ANSWER: The “Para. X.x” references in the Sample Cross Reference Matrix relate to the documents identified in each column heading.

32. If the “Para. X.x” references in the Sample Cross Reference Matrix are meant to relate to the paragraphs of the solicitation, how is that possible when Sections L and M of the solicitation do not contain paragraph designations?

ANSWER: Amendment 01 of the Solicitation incorporated paragraph designations into

Sections L and M.

33. Page 66 of the RFP states, "The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model

Contract and Sections A through K." The RFP then goes on to outline Sections A, B, I and K;

however, does not include Sections E, F, G or J. Can you please clarify whether or not we are to include Sections E, F, G and J with our submission? If so, where should they go?

ANSWER: All sections of the model contract (Sections A through K) shall be submitted in Volume III in the order presented on the SF 1442.

34. Page 61 of the RFP states we are to fill out a "cross reference matrix" in the same format as

Table 2 - Sample Cross Reference Matrix as it relates to Sections L and M of the RFP. In examining Sections L and M, I do not see Paragraph numbers or subparagraph numbers in either section. Would the Government consider deleting Sections L and M from the cross reference matrix requirements?

ANSWER: Amendment 01 incorporated paragraph numbers into Sections L and M.

35. The response to question #15 on 12 April indicates that each discipline is to submit 3 projects. Separate submission by all disciplines of 3 projects each will expend 15 pages of the 50 available. In cases where the Architect and sub-disciplines performed work together on submitted projects, is it the government’s intent that each discipline submit separately on the same project? Or, can the Architect’s submission on shared projects be referenced by the other disciplines in order to reduce paper and make more economical use of the available page limit, while still meeting the proposal requirement?

ANSWER: The Architect’s submission on shared projects can be referenced by the other disciplines in order to make more economical use of the available page limit while still meeting the proposal requirement. The Government does NOT desire information that goes above and beyond the minimum requirements identified in the RFP.

36. For Volume IV - Past performance - can key subcontractors also submit recent, relevant contracts?

ANSWER: No. The Government is primarily concerned solely with the past performance of prime contractors.

37. Can we receive the As Built Drawings for Building 517 and 518. We will need the "as built" plans to be able to adequately evaluate progressive collapse of the structure. Can these be provided now, prior to bid, or later – assuming the Task Order is awarded?

ANSWER: The As Built Drawings for Building 517 were attached to the Draft RFP, and are now referenced in Section J, See Amendment 02. As Built Drawings are not available for

Bldg 518.

38. Superintendent: The solicitation makes it clear that task orders will require a Contractor

Quality Control Manager (CQCM) who may act as the Site Safety & Health Officer. However, the requirements for task order superintendent are not clear.

ANSWER: See FAR Clause 52.236-6 of the RFP, entitled “Superintendence by the

Contractor,” which requires the contractor to directly superintend the work or assign and have on the worksite a competent superintendent. This is required during contract performance, which includes each individual task order.

39. Should each task order have a separate superintendent? Can the superintendent be a working individual or should he/she “have no other duties”? Can the CQCM also act as the superintendent?

ANSWER: See FAR Clause 52.236-6 of the RFP, entitled “Superintendence by the

Contractor,” which requires the contractor to directly superintend the work or assign and have on the worksite a competent superintendent. This is required during contract performance, which would include each individual task order. It is up to the contractor to assign the superintendent in order to comply with this clause. The government does not determine who this individual will be, as long as a superintendent is at the worksite at all times during contractor performance.