Question__Response__4-6.pdf

VENDOR QUESTIONS/GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

DRAFT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

FA8601-14-R-0007

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

2 December 2013

QUESTION #4

Page 40 of 74 - 252.219-7009 SECTION 8(A) DIRECT AWARD (SEP 2007) states, (a) This contract is issued as a direct award between the contracting office and the 8(a) Contractor pursuant to the Partnership Agreement between the Small business Administration (SBA) and the Department of Defense.

The average 8(a) contractor contract/program manager does not hold a bachelor’s degree in civil or structural engineering, or architecture. These are positions normally found in engineering firms or with large business contractors. If we were to subcontract out the management duties of our projects, we would be in direct violation of SBA rules regarding 8(a) companies serving as pass-through organizations for large businesses. If we were to go out and hire for these positions this would add a substantial cost burden, and in turn would impact our costs to perform the required services. We are requesting that the Government reconsider the degree requirements for the contract manager, quality control manager, and site safety and health officer in order that we may provide our qualified personnel to perform these duties as they have on many of our previous DoD and commercial projects.

Government Response: Due to the complexity and size of the potential task orders, the education requirements listed in the MACC statement of Work (SOW) needs to remain. During the development of the MACC SOW, the Government looked at a number of other small business Air Force MACC contracts around the country and they contained similar requirements. Likewise the Wright-Patterson Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract had the same language for the Contract Manager that was used for the MACC.

QUESTION #5

Page 59 of 74 – 2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (para. 4) states, “The proposal acceptance period is specified on SF 1442, block 13, para. D. The offer shall make a clear statement on block 17 of the SF 1442 that the proposal is valid until this date.” The SF 1442, block 13, para. D states, “Offers providing less than 200 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected.”

Is it the government’s intent to allow an adjustment of pricing upon award of the seed project? This is an exceptionally long period to hold pricing, as most vendor prices are on average only good for 60-120 days at most.

Government Response:

- The specified acceptance period is based on the estimated award date. We fully intend to utilize any efficiencies that would foster an expedited award.

- The most current Wage Determination shall be included with the seed task award. The awardee has the right to utilize the procedures in DFARS 252.243-7002 Requests for Equitable Adjustment if they believe a price adjustment is warranted as a result.

QUESTION #6

Although not listed in Table 1 – Proposal Organization (Page 61 of 74), there is a Volume IV – Contract Documentation requirement on Page 65 of 74 (Sec. 5.3). Does the Government want Sections A through K submitted in their entirety, or should we be submitting Section A, Section B, Section I and Section K only?

Government Response: The information cited in Table 1 is correct. The reference to Volume IV – Contract Documentation is being removed. The required Contract Documentation information should be included in Volume III as stated in Table 1. This will be corrected prior to release of the actual RFP. Offerors should submit Sections A through K in their entirety. (Reference Page 65, Para 5.3.1, Model Contract/Representation and Certifications…”The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, and Sections A through K. This includes all amendments thereof.”)