MACC II Questions and Answers updated 3 May 2012.pdf

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) II

RFP No. FA8201-11-R-0008

Contractor Questions

Updated: 3 May 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.

40. Q&A #2 states that submission of past performance information is strictly voluntary.

Assuming, we elect NOT to submit Volume IV - Past Performance; however, we have outstanding evaluations on the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), will we receive an "Acceptable" rating in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, Paragraph 2.5?

ANSWER: Keep in mind that only recent, relevant past performance (as defined in

Section M) gathered from PPIRS, CPARS, etc. will be evaluated. With that in mind, it is possible to receive an acceptable rating based solely on evaluation of past performance information available through Government sources, however, if there is any doubt that available past performance information is not recent and/or relevant to the subject RFP, it may behoove the contractor to submit additional past performance documentation in Volume IV.

41. Regarding the SOW, Task Order Description, Item 2, Electrical Work:

There is no WH-1, water heater that requires a fused disconnect on the B518 drawings, or, would be required for the B517 project. The hot water for the building is currently specified as a water to water heat pump “WWP-1”. Please advise as to the requested “WH-1” electrical characteristics.

ANSWER: WH-1 may be ignored. See Amendment 4 for a revised Statement of Work that eliminates reference to WH-1.

42. Section L, Page 64 (sub-factor one): The solicitation requires submittal of “A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations…” The required analyses of all disciplines, including all basis-of-design assumptions, input data, and calculated output, will far exceed the page limits imposed for the technical narrative. In order to accommodate the required information, please revise the requirement to allow provision of full calculations as attachments not subject to page limits, with a synopsis of findings and requirements to be included within the narrative which is subject to the page limit.

ANSWER: Calculations may be submitted without page limitation.

43. Section L, Page 64: In order to perform the requested, detailed analysis the original as-built construction drawings must be provided. As-built information required for this analysis is not shown on the construction set for Bldg 518, for example: reinforcing and thickness of the original concrete walls, reinforcing and lap locations of the reinforcing in the suspended concrete slabs at each of the suspended levels (2nd, 3rd and roof levels), column size and reinforcing and footing sizes. Without this information it is impossible to perform and provide the analysis as requested by the Solicitation.

ANSWER: The structural drawings show the location and size of rebar and concrete.

44. Section L, Page 64: The Basis of Design for Bldg 518 as stated on sheet SE001 as the 2009

IBC. We believe that it would be more appropriate for this structure to be analyzed and retrofitted in accordance with ASCE 41-06. UFC 3-310-04 (2010) references ASCE 31-03 and

FEMA 356 (which has been superseded by ASCE 41-06) as the appropriate design standards for existing buildings while the 2009 IBC is appropriate for new construction. It is anticipated the building was originally constructed with non-ductile concrete structural elements, such as the concrete columns (note that non-ductile concrete columns were allowed up to the 1973 UBC).

According to the 2009 IBC these non-ductile concrete columns would be non-compliant and would need to be retrofitted to be fully compliant with this code. We see no evidence that the concrete columns for Bldg 518 were retrofitted. By using ASCE 41-06 as referenced from UFC

3-310-04 it is possible to show, by design analysis, that these columns do not need to be retrofitted. This could benefit the project by not requiring the columns to be retrofitted. Please confirm that use of ASEC41-06 is acceptable for structural engineering analysis of Building 517.

If not, please stipulate that the building must be engineered to meet current Code requirements.

ANSWER: Use UFC 1-200-01 change 2, 28 Nov 2011, Design Requirements to determine what part of the 2009 IBC applies and how the 2009 IBC is modified for DOD.

Follow UFC and IBC as Modified.

45. Section L, Page 64: Requires "Submit a basis of design for the seed project in accordance with Seed Project SOW" and provide "engineering calculations for ... structural to include seismic analysis". The Seed Project SOW requires a progressive collapse design. For the submittal for the MACC contract is it a) sufficient to provide detailed structural calculations for the seismic analysis alone with a description of the progressive collapse procedure or b) are detailed calculations required for both the seismic and progressive collapse design?

ANSWER: Yes, detailed structural calculations for both submissions are required.

46. Section L, Page 64: Was a progressive collapse analysis part of the requirements for Building

518, as there is no indication on the Design Criteria on sheet SE001 of the Bldg 518 drawing set that progressive collapse design was provided for this renovation?

ANSWER: Yes, progressive collapse analysis was included in the Bldg 518 design criteria. The AT/FP UFC 04-010-01 9 Feb 2012 refers to UFC 04-023-03 for progressive collapse.

47. Seed Project: Please provide site plan information for Building 517 in order to facilitate development of site-specific design requirements. Please include the following information:

- Location of the building in relation to roadways, parking lots, and adjacent structures.

- Existing site utilities.

- Preferred connection points for new utilities.

- Existing utilities to be demolished.

- Any existing exterior features which are required to be preserved, including but not limited to landscaping.

ANSWER: A site map including known utilities has been posted in building 518 and made available within the RFP. See Amendment 02.

48. B-517 SOW – AT/FP: Please confirm the distance of the building from roadways or parking lots for calculation of blast overpressure. Or, stipulate a blast overpressure for use in scoping or pricing modifications required to meet AT/FP requirements, independent of actual site conditions.

ANSWER: The AT/FP UFC 04-010-01 9 Feb 2012 specifies the distances and UFC 04-

010-02 9 Feb 2012 provides the required information to calculate the over pressures. UFC 04-

010-02 is available online at https://pdc.usace.army.mil/.

49. B-517 SOW – AT/FP: Is the scope of work intended to include reinforcement of existing exterior walls so as to withstand blast overpressure loads? If so, is this intended to be for the entire wall area, or just those portions of the walls which support blast-resistant windows? Please note that full compliance with the AT/FP standard will require reinforcement of all walls and their supporting structures to withstand blast loads, and not just doors and windows.

ANSWER: The AT/FP UFC 04-010-01 9 Feb 2012 specifies the distances and UFC 04-

010-02 9 Feb 2012 provides the required information to calculate the over pressures. UFC 04-

010-02 is available online at https://pdc.usace.army.mil/.

50. Page 64 of the RFP requires we submit both a Construction Quality Control Plan and a

Safety Plan for the Seed Project. Due to the magnitude of these documents, would the

Government consider excluding these Plans from the 100-page limit?

ANSWER: Yes. See Amendment 4 for updated page limitations.

51. Page 64 of the RFP requires we submit both a Construction Quality Control Plan and a

Safety Plan for the Seed Project. Due to the magnitude of these documents, would the

Government consider letting us submit these Plans single spaced, rather than double spaced?

https://pdc.usace.army.mil/ https://pdc.usace.army.mil/

ANSWER: No. An amendment will be issued to change the page limitation for these documents to „Unlimited.‟ The double spacing requirement will remain.

52. Attachment #5 – Contractor Quality Control and Attachment 14 – Quality Control reference the same requirement (i.e. the Contractor Quality Control Program and CQC Staffing).

Attachment 14 is the basic, unedited specification from the Unified Facilities Guide

Specifications (UFGS) which includes a range of options. There are conflicts between

Attachment 5 and Attachment 14 requirements.

a. Will the Air Force require the use of one Quality Control specification (i.e. delete attachment 5 or 14)?

b. If not will the Air Force edit Attachment 14 to limit the range of options required under this specification?

c. If not, who decides which options apply to a particular project? In other words, will the

Air Force provide an edited Attachment 14 with each task order Request for Proposal so all bidders can understand the proposal requirements?

ANSWER: Attachment 5 is a tailored version of UFGS - 01 45 00.00 10 for building

518‟s QC plan and should be referenced as “example only”. The general contract SOW defines this QC plan requirement and follows UFGS – 01 45 00.00 10 in its entirety. However, for each project, a specific QC plan shall be submitted and follow the same format contained in UFGS 01

45 00.00 10.

Attachment 14, UFGS 01 45 00.00 20 should not be referenced within this RFP, it is for Design-

Bid-Build execution and should be replace with UFGS 01 45 00.00 10 as referenced in section L and M of solicitation. See Amendment 4, which replaces UFGS 01 45 00.00 20 with UFGS 01

45 00.00 10 as Attachment 14.

53. Attachment #5 – Contractor Quality Control indicates the CQC Manager “shall be a construction person, with a 4 year degree in Construction Management or Engineering, plus a minimum of 5 years construction experience on construction similar to this contract.”

Attachment 14 – Quality Control, paragraph 1.5.1.2 Qualifications indicates various levels of experience depending on the size or complexity of the project(s).

a. Will the Air Force consider changing the qualifications in Attachment 5, paragraph 3.4.2 for the CQC Manager to match the first bracketed specification in Attachment 14, paragraph 1.5.1.2 which states: “An individual with a minimum of [5][10] years combined experience in the following positions: Project Superintendent, QC Manager, Project Manager, Project Engineer or Construction Manager on similar size and type construction contracts which included the major trades that are part of this Contract. The individual must have at least two years’ experience as a QC Manager. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1, and have experience in the areas of hazard identification, safety compliance, and sustainability.”

ANSWER: UFGS 01 45 00.00 10 should be used in place of UFGS 01 45 00.00 20.

Attachment 5 is an example QC plan and not to be confused with a requirement for any specific task order awarded. See Amendment 4, which replaces UFGS 01 45 00.00 20 with UFGS 01 45

00.00 10 as Attachment 14.

54. On Page 70, Section M, Subfactor One: Seed Project: it states,” Basis of design is detailed and includes: A comprehensive set of engineering calculations for the electrical, mechanical, structural and fire protection requirements stamped by a registered engineer.”

This requirement of the seed project will require a significant amount of the design team resources with the prospect of return very low. There is also not enough time to complete the extensive structural seismic evaluation that is required to submit “stamped” calculations for

Building 517. We estimate this effort alone to require 215 hours, or 5.3 man-weeks. This is an onerous requirement on the design teams as we are limited to Design Fees of 6% on task orders.

Past experience is that even if selected, we would never be able to recoup from the amount of effort this seed project requires. The way that the solicitation is structured it automatically shows a preference to the design team that completed the Building 518 project included in the

Solicitation.

May we suggest an addition to this requirement that can fulfill the objective of the solicitation without placing an undue financial burden on the design teams that did not work on Bldg. 518:

“Stamped Engineering calculations for projects of similar, if not greater complexity may be substituted to demonstrate technical expertise. Include floor plans, sections, schedules, and/or riser diagrams as needed from these other projects to illustrate the engineering solutions presented.”.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ANSWER: In the opinion of the Government, no preference has been given to any bidder within the scope of this RFP. Technical evaluation of the seed project requires seed project specific conditions.

55. In regards to Solicitation No. FA8201-11-R-0008, we understand that A-E firms are required to provide at least one example project with LEED®-Silver Certification as part of Subfactor

Two: A-E Qualifications. Can you please clarify if the Contractor/Prime Offeror is also required to demonstrate knowledge of and/or provide past performance examples that included LEED®-

Certification?

ANSWER: The general contractor is not required to have experience building LEED certified buildings; however, in the event the general contractor does not have LEED experience, the offeror must demonstrate the capability to partner with an A-E firm that does possess LEED experience.

56. In Sheets SF101, SF102 and SF103 there is a note that reads: "EXISTING 6" CONCRETE

SUSPENDED SLAB W/ NEW FRP REINFORCING DESIGN BY OTHERS, SEE

SPECIFICATIONS, TYP"

In the specifications Section 03 39 00 states that: "The contractor is to provide the design and installation of an FRP system to resist a minimum upward force of 1.0 x Dead Load + 0.5 x Live

Load on suspended concrete decks Level 2, Level 3, and Roof."

Note that there is a requirement in the 2005 of UFC 4-023-03 on progressive collapse Section 2-

2.2 which the above requirements would satisfy. Note that this requirement has been deleted in the current January 2010 version of this UFC. The deletion of this requirement is highlighted on page 4 of the pdf version of this document.

Based on this information, does this project (Bldg 517) still require the use of the uplift forces as specified for the Bldg 518 project?

ANSWER: Reference RFP and SOW. The SOW states to design B-517 as an equivalent to B-518. Which means it is not identical, it is similar. Also attachment 2 to the RFP states use the current edition of the code or UFC unless otherwise specified.

57. This question pertains to the content of the “Basis of Design” required for the submittal. Is the design basis to be in accordance with Section L, or the „Statement of Work B 517‟?

The basis of design is described by Section L:

Section L - Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 4.2.1 “Submit a basis of design” and 4.2.2 “The basis of design shall include” . . . . . and thereafter the requirements for the „basis of design‟ are stated:

4.2.2.1 – Electrical calculations

4.2.2.2 – Sustainable Design (SDD)

4.2.2.3 – Base Facility Design Standard

4.2.2.4 – Compliance with UFC

ANSWER: Although there may be some repetition between documents, both must be met. Sections L of solicitation (instructions to offeror's ) defines what to submit in order to meet the scope of the project (B517 SOW). Compliance with all submissions will be evaluated with

Section M of solicitation.

58. Some of the requirements in the specification for the Building 517 MACC project appear to be out of date and do not reflect current technology or best practices. Will there be an opportunity to edit the specification for this project or is it a set document?

ANSWER: The specifications of the seed project must be met and cannot be altered

(UFGS); however, the Government does encourage utilization of innovative practices in order to meet the specifications.

59. Should we assume the roofing type specified on Building 518 is indicative of the

Government's requirement for Building 517? The modified SBS roof specified on Building 518 required no VOCs, recycle content, tensile and tear strength, warranty term and quality assurance inspections. What are the requirements for the 517 project?

ANSWER: In speaking with the architect and Program Manager for the Bldg 518 project, the Government intends to include the same roof requirements as B518 for B517 and future building requirements.

60. Can you please provide the Asbestos Abatement Report for Building 517?

ANSWER: The Government has not completed the asbestos report for B517 per abatement shop. It is, however, similar to building 518 with the same expected report results and will be abated to similar pre-construction conditions as B518 prior to construction work.

61. Are we required to submit a structural analysis with our proposal?

ANSWER: Yes, a structural analysis is required with the proposal.

62. Will the level of demolition for Building 517 be similar to the Building 518 drawings that were provided in the RFP?

ANSWER: Yes, the level of demolition for Building 517 will be similar to Building 518.

63. Spec Section 01 11 00 - General Requirements, Part I (Page 2 of 29) includes instructions to provide the following separate bid line items:

A. Gas line on exterior infrastructure

B. Copper wire and fiber inside the communication duct

C. Exterior communication conduit and manholes

D. Ground source heat pump system with well field

E. Access control system with card readers (option 1)

We understand this is for Building 518; however, is there a similar requirement for Building

517?

ANSWER: Yes, individual breakout costs for these items will be required.

64. The RFP reads that we are required to double-space and use Aerial size 12 font on the A/E‟s

SF330 Forms as well; can we change this to single space and 10 font on the SF330 forms please?

ANSWER: Yes. See Amendment 5.

65. At this time no additional site visits for the seed project have been identified. We believe this creates a significant advantage for contractors who have previously priced this project. Due to the amount of detailed technical engineering information required for Subfactor II, our engineers and subcontractors are requesting a site visit. Will the government be conducting another site visit for the seed project?

ANSWER: No. An organized site visit was conducted on 16 April 2012. Fair opportunity to attend the site visit was given to all interested parties.

66. The larger context of the submittal requires Arial, minimum 11 point font, double spaced, with 1” margins. This requirement does not carry over well to the SF 330 Form. Is it permissible to use Arial, minimum 9 point font size, single-spaced, with .5” margins for all required sections of the 330 form?

ANSWER: See response to Question 64.

67. In Volume II – Technical Acceptability, Subfactor One requires submittal of a detailed analysis to include engineering calculations for electrical, mechanical, structural and fire protection. There are an exorbitant amount of costs involved with these analyses, which typically are not required during the proposal stage of a project. Due to the fact that the pricing of this seed project is LPTA, would it make sense to include the pricing for these analyses in the seed project and the successful candidate would provide these services upon award of the project? Since it is also required in the technical section to provide A&E qualifications, we feel this should provide adequate information to evaluate the proposed team. We respectfully request the Government considers deleting the requirement to providing the actual detailed analyses while still including them as part of our pricing component.

ANSWER: The Government does not intend to modify its request for the referenced detailed anslyses.

68. We are interested in acquiring access to plans and specifications for the referenced project in order to prepare a bid for provision of equipment under spec section 11400, food service equipment. Thank you for your assistance.

ANSWER: Food service equipment is not included in the seed project. There are break rooms included in the project and the references refer to electrical flexible connectors and insulating felt tape for food service equipment.

69. Can the “Attachment 11 - B-517 Contractor Cost Schedule” Line Items be modified to accommodate the project pricing as needed?

ANSWER: Additional sub Line Items may be added in order to provide a more detailed cost estimate; however, all of the line items in each division must be completed. Ommissions from the Detail Cost Estimate are not acceptable. Furthermore, in the event sub line items are added, the total cost of each line item shall equal the sum of all sub line items.

70. Volume II section 4.2.2.1 states "A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical (Short Circuit Ground Fault Analysis..." This calculation is not possible to complete at a proposal stage. In order to complete a short circuit ground fault analysis the design needs to be 100% complete and available fault current from the serving facility needs to be provided. Can preliminary calculations be provided?

ANSWER: Preliminary calculations are acceptable

71. Volume II section 4.2.2.1 states "A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical ... Circuit Breaker Coordination Study..." The calculations are not possible to complete at a proposal stage. In order to complete a circuit breaker coordination study the design needs to be 100% complete. Can preliminary calculations be provided?

72. Volume II section 4.2.2.1 states "A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical ....Voltage Drop Calculations..." The calculations are not possible to complete at a proposal stage. In order to complete a voltage drop calculation the length of conductors needs to be know which is not possible until the design is complete. Can preliminary calculations be provided?

73. Volume II - Technical Acceptability, Subfactor One: Seed Project - Renovation of Building

517 (KRSM 112011) states

Submit a basis of design and the basis of design shall include:

A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical

(Short Circuit Ground Fault Analysis, Circuit Breaker Coordination Study, and Voltage Drop

Calculations), mechanical to include calculations for loads and equipment sizing, structural to include seismic analysis and fire protection disciplines.

Under

EVALUATION CRITERIA , Subfactor One: states

Basis of design is detailed and includes:

A comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical, mechanical, structural and fire protection requirements stamped by a registered engineer.

Our designers are unable to stamp calculations for a preliminary proposal design. They will be able to stamp calculations for 100% design calculations after the project is awarded.

Are stamped designed calculations to be provided with the proposal?

ANSWER: Preliminary calculations are acceptable, except for stamped structural calculations, which are required at the time of proposal submission.

74. Please clarify the scope of mechanical calculations required, paragraph 4.2.2.1 states... A detailed analysis which includes a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical

(Short Circuit Ground Fault Analysis, Circuit Breaker Coordination Study, and Voltage Drop

Calculations), mechanical to include calculations for loads and equipment sizing, structural to include seismic analysis and fire protection disciplines.

Are ground loop heat calculations required and if so what are the thermal properties for ground loop design?

Is an 8,760 hour simulation required?

Are life cycle costs in design calculations required?

Are energy performance calculations required?

Are LEED energy calculations required?

Are LEED plumbing calculations required?

ANSWER: A test borehole drilling log and conductivity report has been posted for information only. The Air Force cannot guarantee nearby boreholes will perform identically.

Mechanical calculations for thermal loads and equipment sizing are required. LEED energy calculations and other applicable LEED calculations are required as necessary to conform with

Air Force Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) Implementing Guidance, dated 2 Jun

2011.

75. Under Volume II - Technical Acceptability: Subfactor One: Seed Project - Renovation of

Building 517 (KRSM 112011) There is a requirement for the Basis of Design to provide a comprehensive set of engineering calculations for electrical, mechanical, structural and fire protection requirements stamped by a registered engineer. A comprehensive set of calculations for these disciplines is typically done after award and requires a significant amount of investigation, time and due diligence from an engineering perspective. There is also professional liability in release sealed calculations prior to designing the project. Is this really the intent for the technical requirements or will design assumptions based off the information in the RFP suffice?

ANSWER: Preliminary calculations are acceptable for mechanical and electrical, but stamped structural calculations are required.

76. Seed Project Utility Connection: With respect to the utility connections for the seed project, including water, sewer, electrical power, and communications, are we to use the nearest utility source as indicated by the utility maps of Hill provided by the solicitation? Or, does the government have a preferred location or point of connection for any or all of these utilities? If there is to be a required point of connection, please indicate the utility and the connection point.

ANSWER: The government does not have preferred connection locations at this time.

The contractor shall optimize the connection points using the utility map provided.

77. Please provide the occupancy category of Bldg 517. The occupancy category is the risk category of the building. This is needed so we can choose the appropriate analysis method per

UFC 4-023-03 Table 2-2. HAFB needs to provide the occupancy category of Bldg 517 following Table 1 in UFC 3-310-01 before we can do a collapse prevention analysis. Example:

Occupancy Category I, II, III, IV, V.

ANSWER: Type II risk category.

78. UFGS 23 09 23 Paragraph 2.4.2.1 - Power Line Surge Protection – The required Silicon

Avalanche Diode based Surge Protection Devices for AC power are no longer available from any manufacturer and have been superseded by devices using 100% Metal Oxide Varistor technology. All-MOV SPDs are widely used in this type of application on Hill AFB with hundreds of existing installations. However, all-MOV devices do not meet items e, f and i of

2.4.2.1. Will all-MOV SPDs be allowed?

ANSWER: Silicone Avalanche Diode based Surge Protection Devices are not required.

Surge Protection Devices may be based on an equivalent performing technology.

79. UFGS 23 09 23 Paragraph 2.4.2.1 - Wiring - This paragraph indicates that plenum rated cable may be run without conduit above suspended ceilings and in other plenum spaces for low voltage systems. Despite this, our experience with ACOE projects has been that all DDC wiring must be installed in conduit or it will be rejected by the government. This will have a large impact on control system installation costs. Will this project allow plenum rated cable to be run without conduit in plenum spaces?

ANSWER: For bldg 517, DDC wiring shall be in conduit or raceways.

80. UFGS 23 09 23 Paragraph 2.4.3.2 - Analog Signal Wiring - "Field-installed analog signal wiring shall be 18 AWG single or multiple twisted pair. Each cable shall be 100 percent shielded and have a 20 AWG drain wire. Each wire shall have insulation rated for 300 VAC service. Cables shall have an overall aluminum-polyester or tinned-copper cable-shield tape."

Wire meeting this specification is not commercially available and must be custom manufactured, incurring needless costs and lead time. Wire is readily available meeting all of these specifications except that it will have a slightly smaller 22 or 24 gauge drain wire. Will this be an acceptable substitute?

ANSWER: The current UFGS 23 09 23 paragraph 2.4.3 specifies Router requirements.

USGS 23 09 54 specifies analog signal wiring in 2.4.3.2. The contractor may tailor the UFGS specifications specifically for bldg 517 during the design process.

81. Hill AFB typically requires all DDC systems to be pre-approved, (i.e. Dorsett or Alerton only) LAN connected, (i.e. NIPRNET approved with existing CNA or exemption) and centrally monitored (i.e. Connected to building 593 EMCS office). However, this does not appear to be specifically stated in any of the project documents, base facility design standard, etc. Is the above required for this project? Depending on the answer, some parts of the BACnet specification are not applicable to Dorsett and/or Alerton products and the requirements in UFGS

23 09 23 would be superseded by the available features and capabilities of Dorsett and Alerton products.

ANSWER: EMCS connectivity is required. The contractor may tailor the UFGS specifications specifically for bldg 517 during the design process.

82. Can we print single-sided? In our experience, we waste far more paper reprinting double-sided documents to fix bad page and section breaks and to redo page numbering than we ever save by double-siding, not to mention all the extra time it takes and the fact that page numbering and the table of contents almost inevitably get messed up.

ANSWER: Please adhere to instructions set forth in Section L.

83. Do we need to purchase Attachment 13, NFPA 13 Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems 2010? The link in the FBO notice, www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/13/13A2012-ROP.pdf, does not work.

ANSWER: The link that was posted originally was not a correct path to NFPA 13. It is the offeror‟s responsibility to procure a copy of NFPA 13. Free versions may exist online;

however, it may be necessary to purcahse a copy of NFPA 13 from www.nfpa.org.

84. Section L, Subfactor 3, allows 50 pages for the Basic Contract Occupational Safety and

Health Plan. Our basic plan is 675 pages single-spaced. We‟re not sure how to completely rewrite it to reduce it to 50 double-spaced pages (the equivalent of 25 single-spaced pages) while still properly addressing all of the items required in Appendix A. Could you provide an example of an acceptable plan or give us some further guidance?

ANSWER: See Amendment 4. There is no longer a page limit for the Safety and Health

Plan.

85. What are the CQC system manager qualifications required for our site-specific QC plan?

The answer to Question 53 says not to use Attachment 5, which requires a 4-year construction management or engineering degree for both the manager and the alternate. Answer 53 refers us to Attachment 14, UFGS 01 45 00.00 10, but Section 3.4.2 of the revised Attachment 14 only lists options, not specific requirements.

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/13/13A2012-ROP.pdf

We would urge an experience-based requirement. Some of our best, most experienced QC managers do not meet the degree requirement. Requiring both the QC manager and an alternate to possess one of those degrees plus the years of experience would be onerous for small businesses.

ANSWER; Based on the complexities of various projects, as well as the total contract value of MACC II, the government has determined degree requirements for QC managers are not unreasonable. This requirement will remain unchanged.

86. Section L, Paragraph 2.21, refers to mail or hand delivery of the proposal. Is a courier like Fedex acceptable?

ANSWER: Each offeror may use any courier they wish as long as the proposal is received prior to the established deadline.

87. We‟re having trouble understanding how many separate layers of project management the Air Force is requiring under this MACC.

In Attachment 1, MACC SOW, Section 1.3.1.1 Project Manager, is the project manager the person who is over all task orders issued under the MACC (what we refer to in-house as the program manager)?