WEC_Contractor_Question_Comments_Pre-final_06_Apr_15.pdf

Worldwide Engineering & Construction (WE & C)

Final RFP - FA8903-15-R-0001

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

1 Section M

Table 4 - Past

Performance

Relevancy

Ratings and

Attachment L-

4 item 11

Please confirm that a project meeting Option 1 criteria but which also includes other construction exceeding $12 million that meets the Option 2 definition should have the appropriate Category 3 Specialized Construction boxes checked as well as the Category 5 box on Attachment L-4, item 11.

Confirmed that the Offeror should check all boxes on

Attachment L-4, item 11 that apply to the particular project being submitted.

2 Section L

5.3.2.2, item B

Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted. Q: Please consider previously submitted PPQs as acceptable, rather than requiring clients to complete all new PPQs. This alleviates the workload we are placing upon Government personnel and our clients.

Non-concur, each contract stands on it's own and previously submitted PPQ's are not allowed since this PPQ has been tailored to fit our requirement.

3 Section L

5.3.2.2, item B

Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted. Q: Please reconsider and change this request to one PPQ instead of three. This alleviates the workload we are placing upon Government personnel and our clients.

A PPQ is only required when an interim and/or final CPARS report is not available for a project. For projects without a

CPARS report, the government is requesting three (3) PPQs per project in order to ensure we receive different perspectives from various POCs; this is standard practice on major IDIQs executed by 772 ESS and AFCEC. It is the offeror's responsibility to send PPQ to thee (3) POCs and provide their contact information (via PPQ POC Summary Sheet) to allow the government to follow-up directly with POC if necessary.

4 FBO Posting According to the "Schedule" section of the RFP posting, formal questions are due

March 27, 2015. We ask that bidders be given an opportunity period to ask clarifications after the Government has answered all questions.

Non-concur, unfortunately this requirement has allowed for a question/answer period for the Draft and Final RFP and due to time restraints we are unable to extend. However, if an offeror has a major concern - they should contact the CO via afcec.we_c.contract@us.af.mil.

5 Section L, paragraph

2.3.10.3

Reference Section L, paragraph 2.3.10.3 Electronic Copies. Please confirm that, other than the electronic copy of the PPI database in Volume

III and pricing table attachments L-11 and L-12 in Volume IV, only searchable text format .pdf files are required on the CD-ROMs and that each CD-ROM is to contain only one complete .pdf for each volume (i.e.

no MSWord files are required).

Confirmed, that is correct.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

6 Section L, paragraph 4.6

Reference Section L, paragraph 4.6 Subfactor 1.2 Small Business

Participation. The Small Business goal is to be based on Total Contract

Value. Will the USG provide a CONUS and Outlying Areas Total

Contract Value for use by the Offerors in the Subcontracting Plan?

For proposal purposes only, assume the total anticipated awarded dollars (for CONUS and Outlying Areas) to be

$10,000,000. Wording will be added to Sections L and M for clarity.”

7 ATCH L-9 Are we to showcase only prime contractor projects in Attachment L-9 or can we include team member projects?

Only prime contractor projects should be included in

Attachment L-9 since the Government is evaluating the risk mitigation represented by the aggregate experience for the prime contractor in managing multiple concurrent projects.

8 ATT L-9 Must we follow the example table and Gantt Chart formats on Attachment L-9 exactly or can we modify the presentation of the table and concurrent projects data to show more than 10 projects occuring concurrently?

It is highly recommended that you use the table and Gantt

Chart format provided but you may modify as needed in an effort to include more projects as long as all of same information in table and Gantt chart are included in proposal submission.

9 Section L -

Page 19 ATT

L-7

Please clarify that all teaming partners do not need to complete the client authorization letter (Attachment L-7) unless a commercial present/past performance effort has been identified in our proposal.

In regards to L-7: If a teaming partner identifies present/past performance efforts performed for a commercial customer, then each teaming partner shall submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on their respective performance using the format provided at Attachment L-7, Example Format for Client

Authorization Letter.

Therefore, L-6 is required for all proposed teaming partners and L-7 is only required as applicable.

10 ATTs L-11 and L-12

Are Teaming Partners required to offer any rates at all, as long as the Prime offers on all the rates?

As stated in Section L, paragraph 6.2(b), "All labor categories identified in the Labor Rate Tables and corresponding Pricing

Model shall be covered and proposed collectively by the prime and/or teaming partners…" All categories must be covered. Whether covered by the prime or a teaming partner or both, is up to the prime.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

11 ATTs L-11 and L-12

Can all the rates be offered by the prime contractor only? As long as the prime contractor and Teaming Partners abide by the contract requirements and rates during subsequent contract award and Task Order awards?

For part #1 of question, see answer to #10 above. For part #2 of question, ensure proposal is IAW Section L of the RFP. If prime intends to provide one set of rates for all team members, include an explanation in the narrative. Without explanation, the proposal may appear incomplete.

12 ATTs L-11 and L-12

In contractual practice, Teaming Partners are subcontractors to the Prime

Contractors, generally. As such, their pricing (such as labor rates) will be treated as subcontracted costs. Can prime contractors, alone, complete all the rates for all the categories and incorporate Teaming Partner rates into the Prime Contractors rate schedules and include whatever markups built into the rates as the Prime and

Teaming Partners deem reasonable?

See answers to #10 and #11 above.

13 ATTs L-11 and L-12

In practice, Teaming Partners are subcontractors to the Prime contractor. As such, teaming partners will be providing lump sum (LS) pricing to the Prime for their defined services, as needed, on a TO-by-TO basis. The Prime is, in turn, competing against other Prime awardees for each TO. What is the purpose of the

Teaming Partner’s individual labor rates? This seems to pose an evaluation disadvantage to Prime Contractors in that the pricing will be evaluated incorporating rates that the Prime may never accept under most contractual circumstances.

The Teaming Partner rates are NTE for the life of the contract by contract year. They are to be used for proposal purposes at the TO level and for single source task orders or modifications, if any.

14 ATTs L-11 and L-12

If the Task Orders are overwhelmingly anticipated to be competitive LS solicitations, amongst Prime awardees, why are the labor rates even necessary as a contract mechanism?

They are to be used for proposal purposes at the TO level and for single source task orders or modifications, if any.

15 ATTs L-11 and L-12

If the offerer’s customary formats and calculations do not differentiate between

Home and Field offices, will this practice be unfavorably evaluated?

As stated in Section L, paragraph 6.2 (b), "All labor categories identified in the Labor Rate Tables and corresponding Pricing

Model shall be covered and proposed collectively by the prime and/or teaming partners…" All categories in both

Home and Field must be covered. Whether covered by the prime or a teaming partner or both, and what rates are proposed is up to the prime. The pricing evaluation is based on reasonableness, balance and completeness, as stated in the

RFP.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

16 ATTs L-11 and L-12

Is the price volume evaluation strictly price, notwithstanding the offerer’s customary formats and calculations?

Yes. Per Section M, paragraph 5.0, "(a). Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness. (b).

The Final TEP will be the price submitted by the Offeror in response to the Pricing Model. The TEP will be the only discriminator among Offerors for the Price Factor."

17 ATTs L-11 and L-12

Can offerers propose on labor categories that they intend to hire upon award of a contract? That is, can offerers propose on positions that the offerer does not currently have on staff?

Yes.

18 SF 33 Who is the Contracting Specialist for the WE&C? The SF 33 indicates Diane T.

Sanchez. Elsewhere in the RFP, example Section L.2.1.1, and in the FBO announcement, it denotes Danielle Johnson is the Contract Specialist. Please advise.

Both Diane T. Sanchez and Danielle Johnson will be working on this acquisition. Danielle Johnson will be the primary

Contract Specialist.

19 Section

L.2.1.4

Teaming paragraph a (i) and (ii) and

Section

M.5.3.1 a

Section L states that team members (1) perform more than 20% of all work construction on the contract OR (2) ensure coverage of SOW scope.

Section M. 5.3.1.a uses the words "critical to overall successful performance".

Please revise Section M to reflect the words in Section L or define what the government considers a critical function.

Wording will be changed for consistency.

20 Attachments L-

11 and L-12

Pricing Model

The labor categories contained in the “Home” pricing models for Attachments L-

11 and L-12 do not match, for example: Home Attachment L-12 contains Reg

Communications Dist Designer (Jr, Mid, Sr) but Attachment L-11 does not have these categories. “Would you please give guidance as to the reconciliation of labor positions in Section L-11 and Attach L-12

Attachment L-11 Home labor categories match Attachment L-

12 Home labor categories.

Attachment L-11 Field labor categories match Attachment L-

12 Field labor categories.

Attachments L-

11 and L-12

Pricing Model

All of the Key Personnel categories described in Section L-1.0 and in attachment

L-1 are not found as labor positions titles in Attachments L-11 and L-12. For instance, the Project Design Manager is designated as a key person but this position does not appear in either Attachment L-11 or L-12. How do we provide labor rates for these Key Personnel?

The Design manager is not a labor category. The design manager assigned will be a disciplined Architect/engineer relevant to the scope of the task order involved, as such we would use the senior level of the appropriate engineering discipline for the labor rates.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

22 L.2.2, Table

2.2, L.2.3.6

Section L 2.3.6 Tab Indexing specifies: "b. Tabs for items identified in the Title column of Table 2.2 Proposal Organization shall be utilized." Are tabs required for

"3.0 Volume Organization," "4.0 Volume Organization," "5.0 Volume

Organization," and "6.0 Volume Organization"? If so, what content should be included in those tabs since the items listed under each of those sections are also separately tabbed?

These are header tabs ( 3.0, 4.0, etc) and don’t require content behind these tabs since all requested information shall be tabbed in accordance with tabs requested in Table 2.2.

23 L.6.0 Section 6.0 Volume organization lists "d. Exceptions, Assumptions, and

Rationale"; however, no further instructions are provided for what to include for this item. Are assumptions and rationale to be provided in relation to pricing only?

And are "Exceptions" to be a duplication of section "3.8 Exceptions to Terms and

Conditions" to be provided in Volume I, or only exceptions related to pricing, if applicable?

RFP, Section L, paragraph 6.0 is under "Volume IV - Factor 3 -

Price" and further instructions are provided in paragraph 6.1 i., j., and k. Paragraph 3.8 is under Volume I - Contract

Documentation". They are distinct.

24 L.4.6, M001.B.3.3.1

Section L.4.6, Subfactor 1.2, Small Business Participation: Please confirm if both a Small Business Participation Plan and a Subcontracting Plan per FAR 19.704 is required. Section L.4.6 starts out “If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR

19.7…” Our read of FAR 19.702 Statutory requirements seems to indicate that submittal of an acceptable subcontracting plan is a requirement for the apparently successful offeror, which suggests this is a post award requirement. However, Section M states "d. The Subcontracting Plan submitted by the Offeror, though not evaluated as part of the Subfactor, must provide goals as required above and must adhere to requirements listed in FAR 52.219-9 with its Alternate II, DFARS

52.219-7003 and AFFARS 5319.704 to meet contract requirements. The Offeror’s subcontracting plan meets the requirements of FAR 19.7. This is not an evaluation criterion; it is a basic contract requirement."

An Acceptable subcontracting plan is required prior to award of the basic contract.

Both the Subcontracting Plan and Small Business

Participation plan are required with your submission. Along with Attachment L-15, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Checklist. Language will be added for clarity.

25 L.4.6, para (i) Section L.4.6, Subfactor 1.2, paragraph (i) states "For Small Business

Participation, the Offeror must demonstrate adherence to the goals established in

Section L, 4.5 (i) for Subfactor 1.2 (Attachment L-15 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan Checklist)." There is no paragraph (i) in Section L, 4.5. Please clarify if this is meant to reference the goals stated above paragraph (i) in Section

L.4.6.

Section will be corrected. Reference goals stated above paragraph (i) in Section L 4.6

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

26 L.3.9 Per Section L.3.9, paragraph b, "The Model Contract consists of Sections A through J. The offeror shall submit the “original” signed copy of the Model

Contract. Signature by the offeror on the Standard Form (SF) 33 constitutes an offer." Per paragraph 3.9.1.1, Exhibits A, B & C and Attachments 1 & 2 are requirements documents and will be standardized for all awardees, no submission is required. The CONWRITE file, Sections A through J, includes the CDRLs and

Statement of Work. Are we to delete the CDRLs and SOW from the submitted file, or should we submit the entire CONWRITE file Sections A through J with the

CDRLs and SOW? And since Sections B-J are also standardized for all awardees, is submittal by the offeror of just a signed Standard Form (SF) 33 sufficient to meet this requirement?

The government will utilize the submitted documents for this section. Duplicate submissions are not required.

Submissions of a signed SF33 will suffice to meet this requirement. However, please note that Section L, paragraph

3.9.1 contains additional submission requirements.

27 L.3.9.2 Section L.3.9.2, paragraph g(1) states "Each firm making up the Joint Venture shall accomplish a Pre-Award Audit Registration." If a Joint Venture entity has a

DCAA-approved accounting system, and both JV partners have DCAA-approved accounting systems, must both partners still complete and submit the "Preaward

Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist" to DCAA?

Yes. All offerors must complete Pre-Award Audit

Registration regardless of whether it has an approved accounting system. Language has been added for clarity

28 PPI Tool In the Business Relationships screen in the PPI Tool, one of the data entry fields is

"Role of Contractor in the Current Acquisition" with choices such as Prime, Sub, Joint Venture, and Other. For a Joint Venture Offeror, should "Prime" be selected?

And if projects were performed by one of the Joint Venture participants (not the separate JV entity), should "Joint Venture" be selected?

1) You are to select the role the firm played in the Past

Performance project being submitted.

2) You would select JV if that was the role for the Past

Performance project you are submitting or you could select

Other and fill out the explanation box.

29 PPI Tool

Instructions

Please confirm that per the PPI Tool Instructions, we are to leave the following fields blank: (1) Compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns, (2) Subcontracting Plan, and (3) Key Individuals.

Confirmed these sections are to be left blank: Subcontracting

Plan

Key Individuals

Utilization of Small Business Concerns

30 CONWRITE

Section L

In the CONWRITE file, Section L, it incorporates "252.215-7009 PROPOSAL

ADEQUACY CHECKLIST" by reference. Is this to be included with this proposal, or does it only apply to specific task orders? If it is to be provided with this submittal, please advise which Volume/Tab it should be included.

This clause is task order specific and not a submission requirement for this proposal.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

31 L.4.5 Section L, Page 14, Section 4.5, Technical Risk, The last sentence of the first paragraph of this section states, “Concurrent projects information as described in

4.4(d) above shall be submitted in accordance with the format provided in

Attachment L-9.” This sentence seems out of place since we are asked to describe our technical approach for managing concurrent projects in the previous section,

4.4 Subfactor 1.1 - Management Effectiveness & Capabilities, item d. Is it the government’s intent to have Attachment L-9 in the Technical Risk Section or in the Management and Effectiveness & Capabilities Section under item d?

It is the government's intention to have the concurrent projects in Attachment L-9 submitted in the Technical Risk Section.

The requirements for the submission under Section L - 4.4

Subfactor 1.1 - Management Effectiveness & Capabilities, item d are described in that section.

32 L.5.5 Section L, Page 19, Section 5.5, Client Authorization Letters (Attachment L-7).

The first paragraph of this section reads “If a teaming partner identifies present/past performance efforts performed for a commercial customer, then each teaming partner shall submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the

Government of requested information on their respective performance using the format provided at Attachment L-7, Example Format for Client Authorization

Letter.” We feel the word “each” in the above sentence should be changed to

“that”, indicating that this requirement only applies to teaming partners that identify past performance for a commercial customer.

Please clarify that only team members identifying past performance for commercial clients need to submit a client Authorization Letter.

Concur, revision will be made for clarification. Reference response to Question #9.

33 M0001.A.4(vii

Section M, A. Basis for Contract Award, 4. Evaluation, Item (vii), This item refers to a “goal above” but there doesn’t appear to be a goal in the previous parts of the section, please clarify what goal is being referred to.

"Goal above" is referring to Section L, specific point of reference will be added for clarity.

34 L.5.3.2.2.b Section 5.3.2.2, paragraph b states "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted." This requirement will likely preclude many offerors from being able to include projects in contingent environments, as government

POCs on those projects are often temporarily assigned from multiple government agencies. This not only causes difficulty in locating individuals due to contact information being different that their deployed information, but due to rotational policy, there are often multiple POCs through the different phases of the project, which will not provide a holistic evaluation of performance. Please consider relaxing this requirement to state "may" instead of shall, therefore allowing fewer than 3 PPQs if not feasible.

Reference response to Question #3.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

SOW

6.1.2/para 2 and 3

Section 6.1 regards the Design Build (D-B) project delivery method, however, language in 6.1.2 seems to require 100% complete and sealed design documents before the government would issue NTP for construction. For example, paragraph

2 states "The contractor shall design and detail a complete and usable facility before construction begins." and paragraph 3 says, "The Certified Final Design shall be submitted only when ALL review comments have been addressed, incorporated into the design, and the final design has been accepted, and is ready for construction. It shall include signatures on each sheet and professional stamps from each DOR." Please clarify in the context of D-B.

The requirements in Section 6.1.2 apply to normal D-B projects. Only if fast tracking is approved will the contractor be allowed to begin construction early, and then only when complete design of the initial project design packages are approved e.g. "Site Work" package, "Site Utilities" package, "Foundation" package, etc.

36 Section L, Table 2.2

The footer reads: 1Joint Venture Agreement Summary only - full Joint Venture

Agreement should be provided in Volume 1 only. Seeking clarification: In the first part of this footer it states Joint Venture Agreement Summary only which is identified in Volume 1 ITO Paragraph Number 3.6 Titled Joint Ventures, Teaming Arrangemments, and/or Letters of Intent. Immediately preceding "Joint

Venture Agreement Summary Only - it states "full Joint Venture Agreement should be provided in Volume I only. Does this mean that there is another section in the Table 2.2 Proposal Organization where the government is requesting for the offeror to provide the Joint Venture Agreement Summary.

This section will be corrected to reflect that a full Joint

Venture Agreement should be provided in Volume I only.

37 Section L, 4.5 Can you please provide insights as to how we should provide quantitative (versus qualitative) estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance for general risks related to the various construction delivery methods and specialized construction areas, i.e., risks that are not specific to a project and provide no actual basis for developing quantitative estimates?

The Technical Risk Ratings from Table 2 of Section M are to be used to classify the risks associated with the offeror's proposed technical approach in the Technical Management

Plan. The offeror's experience in delivering construction projects should provide sufficient background to evaluate the impacts of the identified risks and to propose risk mitigations.

38 Section L, 5.3.1

In this section, the RFP requires the Offeror to describe the role and efforts of each sub/teaming partner/joint venture partner for which past performance is provided.

However, a joint venture, by definition, combines and merges the resources of two or more companies within a single organization. As such, we will draw resources from each JV partner to perform work across the SOW based upon TO requirements to deliver best-value solutions to AFCEC, so it will be difficult to define individual JV partner's roles. Please consider deleting the reference to JV partners.

This reference is describing past performance submissions, and as such, unless the JV has been in existence for some period, and has performed past performance projects as a JV, then the individual firms involved in the JV would be submitting projects for consideration under past performance.

Therefore, the role the firm played in the project is connected to the evaluation of the relevance of that effort.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

39 Section L, 5.5 Section 5.5 reads: If a teaming partner identifies present/past performance efforts performed for a commercial customer, then each teaming partner shall submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on their respective performance using the format provided at

Attachment L-7, Example Format for Client Authorization Letter. Question:

What is the government's definition of a commercial customer, is it defined as the end-user to be a commercial entity and/or would a Prime/Subcontractor relationship also be considered a commercial customer at is relates to Section L, 5.5.

Efforts performed for a commercial customer’ means work where the end-user was a commercial entity.

40 RFP

Attch L-1;

Item 1(b)

Will you allow Professional Certifiations like Program/Project Management

Professional (PMP) and/or Construction Management (CM), as was allowed for the RE&C, in lieu of architect and engineer registrations?

While the cited certifications are important accomplishments, they cannot take the place of professional registration for architects and/or engineers. This requirement is independent of RE&C; however, this requirement is consistent with

RE&C.

41 N/A The WE&C plans to utilize Cost Plus contracts for some projects, yet the RFP does not request an indirect rate breakdown from offerers. Is there a requirement to submit a current indirect rate breakdown, or will that be requested for an individual Task Order if offered Cost Plus?

CPFF CLINs (OCONUS only) will be established in the basic contract. Accordingly, CPFF type proposals (OCONUS only) will be requested and evaluated as necessary at the Task Order level in further competitions. No CPFF pricing is required at this time.

42 L.3.9.1.1 Please confirm that there is no Exhibit C to be made part of the WE&C contract. There is an Exhibit C (CDRLS). Language in the solicitation has been corrected.

43 L.2.2.b Please confirm that, if a CPARS evaluation is not available, PPQs from three separate people will be required for each project

Confirmed. That is correct.

44 L/4.4

Subfactor 1.1

There is no mention of any requirements for key personnel such as names, resumes, and letters of commitment. Please advise as to what is required for evalutation of key personnel.

Key Personnel data is not required to be submitted with the proposal. Key Personnel data will be required at the time of award of a task order. The inclusion of Key Personnel

Qualifications is advisory in the IDIQ solicitation so that when a task order is solicited, the qualifications are already known.

However, qualifications for key personnel may be tailored at task order level.

45 Section L

Paragraph 4.5

Reference Section L, paragraph 4.5 Technical Risk. Please consider increasing page limit to 25 pages.

The government has considered your request, however, the page limitation will remain unchanged.

46 Section L

Paragraph

5.3.1

Reference Section L, paragraph 5.3.1 Past Performance Summary. Please consider increasing page limit to 20 pages.

The government has considered your request, however, the page limitation will remain unchanged.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

47 Section L

2.1.4

We are 8(a) contractor and we are planning to submit a proposal to compete in small business reserve competition only. Can we make teaming agreement with

Large businesses who are bidding to complete in Large Business only?

Small Businesses may include a Large Business as a teaming partner. Also, as stated in Section L 2.1.4(j). Offerors are limited to one offer as a Prime contractor and one additional teaming arrangement; excludes specialty team partners (UXO and Fuels).

48 Section L

2.1.4

Since this project is for worldwide construction, can we make teaming agreement with foreign entity companies who have no local branches in US?

Yes. However if the nature of the teaming arrangement would result in the award of a prime contract to the foreign entity, a

DUNS number and SAMS registration are required.

49 L/2.1.4 Are Offerors who qualify as a small business and elect to propose in a JV to pursue one of the unrestricted Full and Open awards permitted to submit a separate proposal independent from the JV for one of the Small Business awards?

No, reference Section L 2.1.4(i):Offerors who propose as a

Joint Venture (JV) are not permitted to submit a separate proposal independent of the JV.

50 L-11 and L-12 Please confirm that the FFP Labor rates in L-11 and L-12 exclude uplifts for

OCONUS project locations and that these uplifts, as applicable, will be proposed on a task order specific basis in accordance with Department of State published rates by country or other acceptable basis.”

Confirmed. FFP Labor rates in L-11 and L-12 are to exclude uplifts for OCONUS projects.

51 Section M, pg

4 of 12, item

3.1.c., and pg.

8 of 12, Table

There is a new relevancy factor added to Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy

Ratings -- "5. New construction (not a renovation), multiple-story building

(defined as four or more stories), with at least 200,000 square feet gross building area and of the Construction Type I-A, Type I-B, Type II-A, or Type II-B2 ." This table is now referenced in Section M, B. Evaluation Criteria for 3.1 Subfactor 1.1 -

Management Effectiveness and Capabilities, item c. Technical approach for managing critical areas of specialized construction. Instructions in Section L do not reference this topic for Subfactor 1.1, only the original four critical areas that were stated in the draft. Does the government expect bidders to add this topic to the technical approach discussion?

No. The items in Section L are related to the technical management plan, whereas Section M, Table 4 relates to past performance relevancy.

52 Section L, pg.

12 of 21, item

3.9

Section L instructions have added "Contract Award Document" to the Model

Contract tab in Volume I, with instructions divided into a. and b. -- a. being

Contract Award Document and b. being Model Contract. Does the government want Sections A through J of the RFP to appear twice in the proposal, once as

Contract Award Document and then again as Model Contract? Table 2.2 Proposal

Organization on page 5 of 21 appears to imply that one set of documents will suffice. Please clarify.

The Model Contract consist of Sections A thru J. However, the offeror only needs to submit the "orginal" signed copy of the Standard Form (SF) 33 to consitute an offer. All attachments to the basic contract (with exception of CDRLS, SOW, and Key Personnel Qualifications - Attach L-1) will be from the proposal submission, duplicate copies are not required. Section L will be revised for clarity.

Question/Comment Matrix

Dated 06 April 2015

QUESTION

Reference

Section/Para

QUESTION / COMMENT

Government Response

53 L Section 4.6, (Page 15 of 21) CONUS and its outlying areas only. Does this include purchases made in CONUS and its outlying areas for work executed OCONUS?

countries”. Therefore only the CONUS portions of the Total Contract and

Subcontract Values should be considered when determining how much small business participation will be required to meet the SB goals in accordance with

RFP requirements. Being that project locations are intended to be CONUS and

OCONUS, please advise what methodology should be applied to determine only the CONUS values of the contract

1) Yes, any purchase made in CONUS and its outlying areas for work excecuted OCONUS is subject to the

Subcontracting Plan/goals.

2) Please refer to question #6 for information regarding SB goals and methodology.

Language has been added for clarity.

54 M Section

3.3.1 (Page 5 of 12)

Is the Government’s intent to have the Offeror provide a Small Business

Participation Plan for Subfactor 1.2 that will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable and separately provide a Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 as an attachment that will not be evaluated; OR is the intent to have the Offeror provide only one plan, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 as Subfactor 1.2 that will be rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable but is not considered to be an evaluation factor?

Reference response to Question #24.

55 Other DFARS 252.219-7003 requires the Small Disadvantaged Business supplementary report. Final Rule FED REG - 10 U.S.C. 2323 (Rothe v. DoD) effective Oct 14, 2014, removes the requirement for this reporting. Which will be applicable to this contract?

The Government is utilizing the revised version of DFARS

252.219-7003, dated Oct 2014.

In addition, you are correct that the requirement for the Year

End Supplementary Report for Small Disadvantaged

Businesses and the Small Disadvantaged Business

Participation report have been removed, since both requirements stemmed from 10 U.S.C. 2323.