FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix - 18 Sep 2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8201-20-D-MACC
About this file
This document provides information regarding a draft request for proposal (RFP) for the Hill Air Force Base Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC IV). The MACC IV is intended to establish multiple indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity construction contracts for a base-wide design-build program. Work will include maintenance, repair, alteration, and new construction projects across various disciplines such as utilities, structures, electrical, mechanical and architectural. Task orders will be competed amongst successful offerors.
The draft RFP seeks proposals from small businesses, including 8(a), service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, and women-owned firms. The NAICS code is 236220 with a size standard of $36.5 million. An industry day will be held in November at Hill Air Force Base to provide an introduction and allow for one-on-one sessions. Responses to the draft RFP questions are requested by October 23rd to assist market research and acquisition planning.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
Basic SOW
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Draft Basic SOW: section, 1.5.1.3 | Project Superintendent, it states, “The designated superintendent or delegated representative shall be on individual TO construction site anytime construction work is performed.” | 1. Does this mean that every TO under the MACC must have its own unique superintendent? | Yes, every TO will have it's own superintendent. |
| 2. Is this individual required to be onsite any and all times work is happening on site? | Yes, in order for any work to be completed on site, the superintendent must be present. | |||
| 2 | Draft Basic SOW: section, 1.5.1.4. | Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager, it states, “The Lead CQC System Manager is required to be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 10 years construction experience on construction similar to this Contract. This CQC System Manager is on the site at all times during construction and is employed by the prime Contractor. | Is Hill AFB requiring this specific Lead CQC manager to be on the project site for each individual TO each and every time work is progressing, similar to a USACE requirement? | Yes, the Lead CQC manager is expected to be on-site while work is performed in order to ensure quality. |
| If the answer is yes, this will significantly increase the cost to the government for each TO since this requirement is new to the Hill AFB MACC and not how past contracts were managed. Will each individual TO require a unique and separate CQC Manager onsite any and every time work is being done? Will each CQC Manager for each TO need to meet the same level of education and experience listed? | The CQC Manager for any individual task order needs to be onsite for when work is occurring onsite unless an exception is identified in the Task Order SOW. Yes, each CQC Manager will need the appropriate level of education and experience required in the Basic SOW. | |||
| 3 | Will awarded MACC contractor’s onsite employees and managers be given sponsoring privileges by base security for subcontracted labors to come on base to perform work? Or will each individual worker be required to be badged individually? | With approval from 75 SFS some Key Contractor individuals may be given sponsoring privileges; however, if workers are to be on-site on a regular basis, then they need to be badged individually. | ||
| 4 | Please explain the badging process and timeline on Hill AFB for contracted employees. | The badging process is identified in Attachment 32 - SP SOW Appendix 19 Spec 01 00 00 General Requirements. A tailored version of this document will be supplied with each TO SOW. |
Timelines for badging are constantly changing. More information will be discussed in the post award conference for MACC IV awardees.
Section L
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
1 Section L, various In section L the past performance project was extended from 5 years to 7 years, but section M 5 Volume III, on page 12 states, “For the purposes of this evaluation, relevancy is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three years from issuance date of this solicitation”. Can you adjust this to match the past performance in section L of 7 years? For Past Performance, the Government has decided to change from three (3) years to five (5) years for the recency of past projects.
Example projects used to determine technical capability need to be completed within less than seven (7) years from the issue date of the RFP. Sections L&M have been updated to reflect this.
For the Past Performance Volume, Projects only need to be active or completed within the past five (5) years from the issue date of the solicitation.
Five (5) years is sufficient to establish acceptable or unacceptable past performance, whereas, seven (7) years was determined necessary to determine adequate technical capability. Therefore, the definition of relevant for past performance requirements have been updated to five (5) years from the issue date of the solicitation.
| 2 | Section L, various | Would it be possible to schedule the seed project site walk in October and bid date in late October due to current fiscal year end government obligations? | Yes, the Government intends to have the site visit date and time scheduled shortly after the solicitation release date which is estimated for sometime in October. Due to the tight RFP schedule we will try to provide notice of the site visit date and time prior to the RFP release to allow interested vendors time to plan for it. | |
| 3 | Section L.3.3.2, page 14 of 30 | We are to include a SF 330 for each discipline: Architectural, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Mechanical, and Fire Protection Engineering in subfactor 2. SF 330 is 6 pages, so this would take up 36 of the 50 allotted pages in subfactor 2, on top of everything else we must include in subfactor 2. | Can the SF 330s be excluded from the 50 pages, or can we have 75 pages for subfactor 2? | Yes, we have increased the number of pages for Subfactor 2 from 50 to 75. See updated Section L. |
| 4 | Section L, Section L.3.3.2, page 15 of 30. | The TCIR and DART are required for subfactor 2 | 1. Do we need to submit OSHA Form 300A, or can we include this information in a table? | TCIR/DART information needs to be submitted on OSHA Form 300A. We have increased the number of pages for Subfactor 3 from 50 to 55 to help accommodate this. See updated Section L. |
| 2. If the forms are required, can we have this excluded from the page count since this will take up 6 pages for our joint venture? | ||||
| 5 | Section L, Section L.1.3.1 General, page 7 of 30 | Volume II Technical can be 200 pages, with 100 pages assigned to subfactor 1, 50 pages assigned to subfactor 2, and 50 pages assignment to subfactor 3. | This leaves zero pages for subfactor 4. How many pages can subfactor 4 be? | Please see response to Question 2 in the Section L Tab of FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix, posted on September 10, 2020. |
| 6 | Section L.4.1, page 17 of 30 | Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section L, Appendix A, Past Performance Questionnaire (maximum of three contracts, if available). | If we are submitting as a joint venture, is that 3 contracts total or 3 per joint venture partner? | The number of past performance contracts required is three (3) for the Offeror and three (3) for the joint venture member. The Government has removed the requirement for past performance from subcontractors. |
| 7 | Section L.4.1, page 17 of 30 | We are to submit past performance information for all critical subcontractors who are proposed to perform a significant portion of the effort (20% or more of contract effort). | Is it 20% or more of the overall contract or 20% or more of the sample project? | The requirement for past performance of critical subcontractors has been removed. The Government is only looking for the past performance of the Offeror/joint venture partner. See updated Sections L&M. |
| 8 | Section L, 3.3.1.2 | Construction Quality Control (CQC) Plan, we are to provide a full QCP that meets all the listed requirement. Doing so will require a plan that is multiple pages, similar to the required safety plan from section 3.3.1.1. | Can the QCP also be excluded from the page count in Volume II? | No, the Government fully expects Offerors to be able to submit both the Safety Plan and CQC Plan using no more than the allotted 30 pages for Subfactor 1. |
| 9 | Section L, various | Can the Prime Contractor on the MACC have more than one Designer/Architect partner as part of their team for design/build Task Orders under the MACC? Conversely, can one Architect or design team partner with multiple prime contractors pursuing and eventually awarded a MACC contract? | Yes, the Prime can have multiple Designer/Architect partner. Yes, the Government will not prohibit A-E firms from subcontracting to multiple vendors if they choose. That would be up the A-E firm to decide what they are capable of handling. | |
| 10 | Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements paragraph b |
Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, Technical Volume, Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements, Paragraph b This section requires submission of 3 project examples complete within less than 7 years from the issue date of the RFP.
This section states “example project shall be…less than five (7) years old from the issue date of the RFP”
| Please clarify how many years old from the issue date of the RFP example projects for this section are to be. | Example projects used to determine technical capability need to be completed within less than seven (7) years from the issue date of the RFP. Sections L&M have been updated to reflect this. |
| 11 | Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements paragraph c |
Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, Technical Volume, Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements, Paragraph c This section requires submission of 1-4 project examples complete within less than 7 years from the issue date of the RFP.
This section states “example project shall be…less than five (7) years old from the issue date of the RFP”
| Please clarify how many years old from the issue date of the RFP example projects for this section are to be. | Example projects used to determine technical capability need to be completed within less than seven (7) years from the issue date of the RFP. Sections L&M have been updated to reflect this. |
| 12 | Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 2: Architect-Engineer Qualifications |
Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements
Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, Past Performance Volume, page 3 This subfactor requires submission of a total of 5 project examples complete within less than 5 years from the issue date of the RFP.
This subfactor requires submission of a total of 4-7 project examples complete within less than 7 years from the issue date of the RFP.
This section states “…recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three years from the issuance date of this solicitation”.
| Please provide clarification regarding the submission of project examples and past performance information. Should the projects submitted for the Past Performance Volume be different than those submitted for the Technical Volume to ensure they meet the 3-year relevancy timeframe? | See response to Question 1 above. | |||
| 13 | Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Past Performance Volume | This volume requires submission of past performance information for 3 projects. This information is required for the offeror and all critical subcontractors, teaming partners, etc. | Please clarify if past performance information for three projects is needed for the offeror as well as each critical subcontractor/teaming partner (so that more than three total projects will be submitted under this section) or if the three projects should comprehensively demonstrate past performance information for each team member (so that only three total projects are submitted under this section). | Past performance information for three (3) projects is needed for the Offeror and/or joint venture partner. The requirement for subcontractor past performance information has been removed. |
Section L has been updated to help clarify this.
Section M
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Section M, 4.3 Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements (b). | We are requesting that the requirement for the design build portion be waived. Although there are many small businesses who can compete and bond these projects there are not many who have the design build past performance of a project this large. How many are anticipated over the $5M threshold? | We have only had two businesses express concerns over this threshold. An essential portion of this contract is design-build and we need to make sure the contractors are technically capable of executing requirements at this dollar value. The Government will not disclose at this time how many requirements are anticipated over $5M. |
| 2 | Section M, 4.3 Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements (b). | Will upcoming task orders under this solicitation be solicited as design build projects? | Yes. It is anticipated that the majority of upcoming task orders are expected to be design-build requirements. |
| 3 | Section M, 4.3 Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements (b). | The government mentions that the current small business contractors have been able to compete for the task orders. May we ask how many were design builds and also was this a requirement for the last MACC solicitation? | There have been several design-build task orders and it varies from year to year for the exact number required. It was a requirement of the MACC III; however we raised the value of the project examples requested due to inflation, increased bonding capacity requirement, and general construction price increases. |
TEP
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
Sample Task Order SOW
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
Draft Solicitation
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Draft Solicitation | Site Visit Clause | Would it be possible to schedule the seed project site walk in October and bid date in late October due to current fiscal year end government obligations? | Yes, the Government intends to have the site visit date and time scheduled shortly after the solicitation release date which is estimated for sometime in October. Due to the tight RFP schedule we will try to provide notice of the site visit date and time prior to the RFP release to allow interested vendors time to plan for it. |
| 2 | Draft Solicitation | Currently on beta.sam.gov there are several documents listed for the MACC IV project. Multiple documents says draft. The website states that this is a draft. The Q&A states that this is a draft. The catch is that the 1442 that is on the beta.sam.gov website states that this is a solicitation and that the bid date is October 14, 2020. This is leading to confusion about this project and what the government expectation is. | Knowing that the bid documents govern, currently it appears to me that this is a solicitation that is due on October 14, 2020. Is this correct? |
If this is an active solicitation please remove all reference to draft documents.
If this is a draft solicitation please mark the 1442 as draft and remove the due date.
If this is draft could the government please clarify what feedback the government is requesting?
Please see response to Question 4 in the Draft Solicitation Tab of FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix, posted on September 2, 2020, and Question 1 in the Draft Solicitation Tab of FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix, posted on September 10, 2020.
Due to the ongoing confusion regarding this, the initial solicitation containing the October date and any other initial documents that have been replaced by updated documents have been removed from this posting to help alleviate confusion.
The feedback the Government is requesting is for interested vendors to ask any questions they may have regarding proposal requirements, and ask questions about anything that seems confusing or restrictive.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .