FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix - 22 Sep 2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8201-20-D-MACC
About this file
This sources sought notice requests information from small businesses for the Hill Air Force Base Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC IV). The MACC IV will consist of multiple construction disciplines including maintenance, repair, alteration, and new construction of facilities at Hill AFB. Interested small businesses under NAICS code 236220 with a size standard of $36.5 million should respond with their small business status and descriptions of relevant past performance. The response deadline is not provided. The notice schedules an industry day the week of November 5th to provide an introduction and facilitate one-on-one sessions. Attendees are limited to three per company and must RSVP by October 23rd with contact information.
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 | Q&A Matrix from 9/18/2020, question #2 of the Basic SOW tab | On the Q&A Matrix from 9/18/2020, question #2 of the Basic SOW tab was asked: |
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?
The answer was given as:
Yes, the Lead CQC manager is expected to be on-site while work is performed in order to ensure quality.
Please respond to a follow up question for clarity:
If a QC manager is to be onsite whenever work is being performed (basically fulltime) and since a unique superintendent is required for each Task Order, is it the Air Force’s intent to require two unique, full-time management personnel onsite from the contractor for each task order?
This is a significant departure from the requirements of the previous 3 Hill AFB MACCs. While this staffing may be appropriate for the larger TOs, (say $5Million and above), some TOs for the MACC are quite small ($200,000-$300,000) and this level of staffing would not only be very redundant, but also significantly increase the cost to the Air Force.
| As to whether or not the QC Manager and Superintendent can be separate people, or if both roles can be filled by the same person, that will be specified at the Task Order level. It is anticipated for smaller dollar task orders that these roles could be combined; however, it depend on the Task Order requirements. | |||||
| Additional follow up question: | |||||
| If the individual QC managers for each TO are required to have the same level of education as the Lead CQC Manager, (it 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 would eliminate approximately 90% of the current management personnel who are onsite managing Hill AFB MACC contracts currently. For the On-site QC mangers for individual task orders, could a “years of experience” option be included as an alternate to a college degree in one of the listed fields. | Yes, the SOW language has been changed to the following: "The Lead CQC System Manager is required to either be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 5 years construction experience on construction similar to this Contract, OR be a technician with a minimum of 10 years of experience on construction similar to this Contract." | ||||
| 2 | Section 1.5.1.1 | Section 1.5.1.1 Contract Manager of the SOW indicates that the CM shall be located locally (within 50 miles) of HAFB. | Question: Can the proximity requirement for the CM be relaxed so long as the CM has the ability to be available on-site within (1) business day? | If there is a problem on a Task Order Project, the Government needs the Contract Manager (CM) to be able to quickly assess and address any issues. Due to this, the Government needs the CM to be near the base in order to make assessments and decisions. It is up to the Contractor, but there is nothing prohibiting the Contractor from delegating the CM responsibilities to a PM who is onsite/local. | |
| 3 | Section 1.5.1.4 | Section 1.5.1.4 Contractor Quality Control System Manager of the SOW indicates 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. | Question: Can this requirement be revised to read a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of (5) years construction experience on construction similar to this Contract OR a minimum of (10) years construction experience on construction similar to this contract without a degree? | Yes, See response to Question 1 above. | |
| 4 | It is anticipated the majority of the task orders for the MACC IV contract will be performed at Hill AFB and the Utah Air National Guard Base (UANGB). | Would the government consider including a requirement for the offeror to have a bona fide office located within 50 miles of Hill AFB or UANGB? | Only the CM is required to be within 50 miles of Hill AFB. There is no requirement for the Contractor to have a bona fide office space/location. The Government does not deem it necessary to require an actual office space, as long as the CM is located within 50 miles. |
Section L
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 2: Architect-Engineer Qualifications, paragraph b | This section requires submission of qualifications of each engineering discipline, including fire protection engineering. This section states “a minimum of 15 years of experience as a licensed Professional is required for each Engineer of Record for each discipline.” | Please clarify the number of years of experience required for the fire protection engineer | The years of experience required for the Fire Protection Engineer has been changed to five years for both Subfactor 2 elements (b & e). |
| Section L: Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Technical Volume, Subfactor 2: Architect-Engineer Qualifications, paragraph e | This section requires submission of a fire protection engineering plan that includes a qualified fire protection engineer. This section states “Five years of experience as a licensed Fire Protection Engineer is required”. | |||
| 2 | Section L Subfactor 2.c., Section M Subfactor 2.c. | Is it acceptable if the example projects for the LEED certification and the other three past projects come from individual A_E team members, or is it required to represent the experience provided by the entire A-E team as a group? | The example projects for the LEED certification and the other three past projects must come from the Architectural Firm. The verbiage of Section L 3.3.2.c. and M 4.2.c. has been updated to state this. | |
| 3 | Section L, Volume II, Factor 2, 3.3.3 Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements: B | Design-build experience as a Prime Contractor on military installation or design-build experience for both commercial aviation infrastructure within airport secured areas and industrial production facilities (see MACC IV SOW section 1.3.3) by submitting three (3) design-build example projects totaling at least $2M that were successfully completed. One project must be over $5M and the other two must be at least $2M. “Example projects shall be contractually complete and less than seven (7) years old from the issue date of the RFP. | If projects need to meet the same requirements as outlined in Section L, 3.3.3 Subfactor 3: Contractor requirements will the years be extended for the past performance projects from 5 to 7 years to match the technical requirement of 7 years? | The Government has determined that five (5) years for past performance projects is sufficient. See response for FA8201-20-4-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix - 18 Sep 2020, Section L Tab, Question 1. |
| 4 | Hill AFB MACC III | The Hill AFB MACC III contract included several design-build task orders with specific technical components such as paint booths, blast booths, and Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF)/Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 elements. It is anticipated many of these specific technical components will be included in design-build task orders for the MACC IV contract as well. | Due to the technical complexity of design-build projects with these components, would the government consider including prior experience with paint and blast booths and SCIF/ICD 705 elements as a requirement for the MACC IV past performance submission? | The design-build project examples provided in this question, have not specifically been excluded from what is relevant for past performance (See Section M 2.3.3) Any past performance efforts that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicitation are acceptable. Please note, In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” (See Section M 2.3.4). |
| 5 | Hill AFB MACC III | The Hill AFB MACC III contract was originally solicited using a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement method, with task orders awarded using the same process. Due to poor performance by some MACC III contractors on various task orders, the government elected to change to a Best-Value evaluation method and consider contractor past performance in addition to the technical and price factors. | Would the government consider using a Best-Value evaluation method for the MACC IV contract in line with the previous MACC III contract? | The Government determined the Best-Value evaluation method for the Basic MACC IV is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. For Task Orders, the Government has the ability to use LPTA, Tradeoff (Technical or Past Performance), or Low Price evaluation methodologies IAW Basic SOW 1.7.4. depending on what the Government decides will provide the Best-Value. |
Section M
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
1 Section M Question / Request - We are requesting the design build portion of 5M threshold be reduced to 4M this would allow for more competition among 8(a) small businesses who are not ANC. This is not an 8(a) set-aside, it is a total small business set-aside.
The Government's reasoning for requiring a $5M example project was answered in Q&A Response FA8201-20-R-0018 Draft RFP Q and A Matrix - 1 Sep 2020.
| 2 | Section M Subfactor 3 b and c | The proposal includes three (3) example projects that were successfully completed demonstrating design-build experience as a Prime Contractor per the requirements in MACC IV SOW section 1.3.3. One (1) example must be from a US military installation. The other two (2) examples can be in one of two ways: 1) on a US military installation or 2) on commercial or municipal aviation infrastructure within airport secured areas or industrial production facilities. One (1) project must be over $5M and the other two must be at least $2M. Example project shall be contractually complete (See Section L, Appendix C) and less than five (7) years old from the issue date of the RFP. | |||
| The proposal includes a maximum of three (3) example projects documenting the capability to design and build projects involving Architectural, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Fire Suppression, Structural, Security and Communication construction disciplines per the requirements in MACC IV Basic SOW Section(s) 1.3.3 & 1.5.1.5. Each example project does not have to be inclusive of all disciplines, but the combination of all example projects must demonstrate experience in each of the disciplines above. Submission of multiple examples will not be considered any more favorable than a single project submission. Example project shall be contractually complete (See Section L, Appendix C) and less than five (7) years old from the issue date of the RFP. | Question: Can this requirement be revised to read (3) examples of design-build experience on military installations or commercial/municipal facilities or $2M? | No, the Government needs to ensure offerors are capable of handling the restrictions and complexities that would be required to work on Hill AFB. The requirement will remain unchanged. | |||
| 3 | We understand the essence of MACC encompasses design build projects. Meeting the 3 projects above 2 Million of design build completed with the additional requirements of one being on a Military Base and one being above 5 Million in value is extremely difficult for the company of a TSB size. | Given that comment I ask the following: If the exiting critical management staff of the company meets those qualifications; will that experience with resume’s and examples be sufficient to qualify the company as the Prime for purposes of this proposal? | With the information the Government acquired during Market Research, the Government fully expects Offerors to be able to meet this requirement, either on their own or through partnership agreements. |
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 |
| 1 | Are as-builts of B2113 available? | Yes, the As-Builts are available as Attachment 16 - SP SOW Appendix 03. This attachment is part of the Bidder's Library and must be requested from the Contracting Specialists and CO in order to receive them. |
Draft Solicitation
| MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC IV) FA8201-20-D-MACC Sept. 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Industry day was held when the entire MACC was anticipated to be an 8(a) set aside. Now that it is a (TSB) will another industry day be held? | The MACC has always a total small business set aside, not an 8(a). The MACC was accidently marked as 8(a) in the posting, but was quickly corrected to a total small business set-aside. |
| 2 | Will a site walk of the seed or (test) project be held some time soon for the TSB participants in the proposal? | Yes, the Government has included Attachment 41 which details the site visit information. |
| 3 | Do you know if the contractor is responsible for all testing and inspection work during construction? | Yes, Generally the Contractor is responsible for all testing and inspection work during construction; however, the Government reserves the right to also perform Quality Assurance testing and inspections. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .