SABER II RFI 1.pdf

RFI #1

Project 1092955

SABER II

As a general note, the SOW appears to be written to supplement/replicate the Civil Engineering Service

Desk/Work Order/GIS functions with the addition of the ability to perform construction projects (and maybe even design). The document is well written for this requirement but for up to five companies to provide this redundant capability is not economically feasible. The sunk costs necessary to meet the minimum and exclusive SOW requirements would be difficult to recoup for a single vendor and impossible for 5. Instead of the desired goal of price competition; quibbling, short cuts and inferior materials/workmanship will be the most likely outcome.

This SOW reminds me of the past requirements presented when CE was threatened with being

“contracted out”. For those proposals, the minimum contract requirements were overwhelming (like this SOW) for the prospective bidders when the government had no intention to and never did perform those minimum requirements. The government won the “competition” but never met the stated requirements.

The overriding question is: Does the government intend to and will it enforce the SOW as written? Yes

1. The “in‐house” work force requirements are first identified in Section 1.1. The actual requirements are presented in Section 4. The minimum and exclusive requirement is presented in Section 5. Seven (7) exclusive employees are specified in Section 5. Additionally, substantial drafting support is required by Section 5.2.

Will the government require the establishment of a SABER II organization as specified? Nothing in SABER SOW identifies a SABER organization. If your question about establishing a SABER organization is referring to the in‐house workforce, the next part of the paragraph addresses this.

Section 5 does not require the different exclusive employees be different employees. Based on volume of work, in the beginning one person can accomplish multiple positions that are required in section 5, as workload increases, multiple people can be used to fulfill this requirement. Also, one individual can be performing the same disciplines for multiple projects. In addition, the site superintendents can be working superintendents on most T.O’s.

2. Section 3.3 provides specific as‐built requirements. Section 5.2 expounds upon the requirement.

Does the government intend to require this level of drafting support? Not all T.O.’s will require this level of support, but some will have this level.

If so, does the government expect the contractor to develop record drawings/as‐builts when CAD files are not available from the government? This would only be applicable on a project that designed prior to construction award as a T.O. for SABER II work accomplishment. The government would have CAD files to provide.

3. Section 6 requires payment to subcontractors in 30 days. It is a great proposal however:

Will the government require prompt WAWF processing? Maybe requiring payment within a shorter period after government payment would be more feasible. WAWF prompt payment will be included.

4. Section 8.1 provides response time requirements. The times are only achievable with a pre‐ existing response structure. Additionally, Section 14.3 requires a 24hr contact.

Does the government intend to enforce the response times? Yes, in an emergency situation the contractor shall be available to respond within 24 hours.

5. Section 8.3 establishes the reporting and meeting requirements.

Does the government intend to enforce the meeting/status update requirements? Yes, meeting/status updates are required.

6. Section 10 provides the technical references. Basically, every code is referenced with the Robins

BFS overriding all others, Section 10.3. Then Section 10.4 seems to contradict Section 10.3 by requiring the most stringent. Both of these conflict with Section 3.2 which calls for “use of recognized industry standard practices…unless otherwise specified by the government”. For those of us old enough to remember, over 20 years ago there was a push to ELIMINATE government over‐specification (and associated cost) through use of industry standards unless the requirement was unique to the government. To expect the contractor to become a subject matter expert on the BFS, when no one within the government is, is unreasonable.

Is it the government’s intent for the BFS to be the design basis and industry standard to apply if the subject is not addressed in the BFS? The contractors are expected to use recognized industry standard practices in determining his/her proposed materials and methods, unless otherwise specified by the Government. And after submittal, review and approval of the TO proposal by the government is the requirement then considered complete and accurate?

Contractor must meet all requirements identified in the SOW. Not all work process will identified thru submittal review process.

7. Section 3.2 identifies the minimum requirements for the construction package, as applicable. As the stated minimum requirement will potentially require a substantial effort, Please define what and who will determine when a plan is applicable? The Government. Example:

if demolition is part of the TO SOW, then the demolition plan is required. If demolition is not part of the SOW, then the demolition plan is not required. Individual plans are required or dismissed based on the SOW for each individual project.

8. Section 14 addresses communications requirements.

Are radio communication devices and training required? The contractors shall provide and maintain a complete operable voice, two‐way radio/telephone communication for the personnel listed.

9. Section 18 basically states the existing record drawings are suspect at best. The time requirements for proposals will, in many cases, require extended access to the areas of work to verify measurements. Section 18.1 places the planning of the TO prior to proposal without cost reimbursement.

What format will the one copy, Section 18.2.1, of the appropriate record drawings be provided?

Typically PDF but may be CAD

If not available, will the contractor be required to create a record drawing and in what format?

This would be identified in the individual T. O. SOW

In section 18.2.2, who and what will determine the applicable requirement and when will the requirement be identified? Contractor and this will always be applicable if utility systems are part of the project.

Is the contractor expected to create CAD as‐built drawings where none existed before the work?

This would be identified in the individual T. O. SOW

10. Section 42 addresses contractor parking which, along with laydown areas, can be a problem in many areas on RAFB.

Can this item be given special emphasis? Contractors and his/her employees, suppliers and subcontractor’s shall not be parked on the grass. If an exception is needed, contact shall be made to CE/contracting officer for approval.

11. Section 45 addresses Unauthorized Reconnaissance which is an unrecognized term. While government security and contractor trade secrets and practices should be protected, the interpretation of this Section could go much further.

Does this mean a contractor cannot identify blatant non‐compliance with the contract requirements by an awardee? If so, who is responsible and accountable for insuring all the minimum requirements for the SABER II are complied with? Contractors are expected to remain within their own work space. The assigned inspectors are required to monitor projects for compliance.