| This implies that this paragraph is applicable to Design-Build task orders only since there is no design effort required for the Design-Bid-Build task orders. Is that correct? | Yes, your response is correct. | | | | |
| 39 | L | 4.5 | The chart highlighted in blue requires that “35% of the awarded dollars” be obligated to small business. Understanding and considering the types and location of projects AFCEC intends on executing through the WE&C, it may be difficult to meet this percentage. Further considering that AFCEC is planning on awarding RE&C contracts to small businesses, please consider changing the WE&C percentage to “35% of subcontracted dollars” be obligated to small business. | The goal for small business being based on total obligated dollars has been used successfully on previous acquisitions and will remain as stated in the Draft RFP. |
| 40 | I | 46 of 72 | FAR 52.203-15 "Whistleblower Protections Under The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". We suggest this clause be reviewed for deletion since the ARRA program (2009) has ended. | Clauses will be reviewed and any non applicable clauses will be removed. |
| 41 | I | 54 of 72 | DFARS 252.246-7002 "Warranty of Construction (Germany)" this clause is duplicated (twice). | Duplicate clause has been removed. |
| 42 | L | 4 of 21 | 2.1.4.(i) Can you define "critical function" as used in the "Teaming" section (2.1.4) | This section has been revised and the words "critical function" have been deleted from this section. |
| 43 | | | To decrease the risks associated with foreign currency fluctuations when using OCONUS based subcontractors, will AFCEC consider awarding WE&C task orders in foreign currencies as do other agencies? | The contract will be awarded in English. If needed at task order level, we will enter the information as comments with the conversion rate and computed amounts will be fixed for the entire year. |
| 44 | A | | Block 24 of SF33, will this contract be self-administered by the 772nd? | Yes, this contract will be administered by 772 ESS. |
| 45 | L | 10 of 21, par 3.1 | In the Executive Summary, where asked to show the delivery schedule or period of performance, are bidders to provide the overall contract period of performance of the IDIQ? If not, please clarify what schedule information is requested here. | Although the Government sets the requirement for delivery schedule it is the offerors responsibility to address their understanding of this requirement. |
| 46 | L | 12 of 21, par. 3.7.4.1.a | Please clarify the requirement to submit the Technical Management Plan referenced as Attachment 3 of the Model Contract. Is this item a copy of the Management Plan section from L.4.3? | Yes, this is the management plan submitted under Technical Management Effectiveness and Capabilities which will be made a part of the contract. The government will use the plan submitted as part of Factor 1, duplicate copy is not required. |
| 47 | L | 12 of 21, par. 3.7.4.1.d | Please provide a list of the Technical Management Plans to be included as Attachment 3 to the Model Contract. | The management plan submitted under Technical Management Effectiveness and Capabilities is the only plan to be included and will be made a part of the contract. The government will use the plan submitted as part of Factor 1, duplicate copy is not required. |
| 48 | L | 11 of 21, par. 3.7.3 | Please confirm that the Model Contract consists of the Reps & Certs per L.3.7.4, plus the Attachments per L.3.7.4.1. Are any other items to be included in the Model Contract? | The model contract is the entire Section A-K and Attachments as identified in Section L. All attachments to the basic contract will be from the proposal submission, duplicate copies are not required to be provided for Model Contract. For instance, the Fully Burdened Labor rates attachment will be modified version of L-11 to remove average column since just for evaluation purposes at IDIQ level. |
| 49 | L | 14 of 21, par. 4.4 | By "quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance," we understand that the Government is asking for a relative assessment such as low, medium, or high impact. Will a low/medium/high assessment be an acceptable approach for providing the quantitative estimate? | Yes, a low, moderate or high impact will be acceptable, please see Section M Table 2 and Section L, 4.4 for further guidance. |
| 50 | L | 14 of 21, par. 4.4 | Please confirm that we may present additional projects on Attachment L-9 other than our 10 past performance projects to show our concurrent project experience. | Confirmed. There is no requirement to include all or any of the 10 past performance projects in the concurrent projects list. |
| 51 | ATCH L-9 | | Are the start and end dates to be provided on Attachment L-9 the construction start and end dates, or the overall project period of performance dates? | The construction start and end dates are required to determine concurrency with seven days of construction activities overlapping. L-9 form has been updated for clarity. |
| 52 | L | 16 of 21, par. 5.0(ii).2 | The PPI tool instructions say you can enter relevant contract past performance for key personnel. Please confirm that information is at bidder's discretion and not a required submittal for each key personnel. Also, please confirm that projects provided for key personnel are in addition to the projects presented on the PPIs. | Key personnel resumes are not required for this proposal submission, therefore, this portion of the PPI tool is not applicable. Attachment L-5, PPI Tool Instructions will be revised. |
| 53 | L | 18 of 21, par. 5.3.2.2.a | If a CPARs exists for a PPI project, where is that information to be provided in lieu of a PPQ? | Section L , Volume III, under 5.0 (c) (ii) (3). Revision made in Section L for clarity. |
| 54 | L | 18 of 21, par. 5.3.2.2.a | Please confirm that where CCASS ratings exist, they may be provided in lieu of a PPQ. | Confirmed. Where CPARS ratings exist, they may be provided in lieu of a PPQ. Note: The CPARS, ACASS, and CCASS modules have been merged into a single application under the CPARS name. |
| 55 | L | 4 of 21, par. 2.1.4 a and g | L.2.1.4.g states that Primes can team with no more than 5 partners to meet requirements of the RFP. Please confirm that this refers to the provision of Past Performance projects -- i.e., Primes may use Past Performance Projects from no more than 5 teaming partners to meet the 10 projects and FFP labor pricing requirements of the RFP. | Primes can team with no more than five (5) partners to meet requirements of the RFP (Specialty UXO and Fuels teaming partner will be excluded from the Prime’s limit, e.g.…potentially a Prime may have a maximum of seven (7) teaming partners); Proposals will be evaluated based on the team, not just the Prime. |
| 56 | L | 4 of 21, par. 2.1.4 a and g | L.2.1.4.a(ii) states that Primes may include as team members first-tier subcontractors that are projected to perform less than 20% of the work. Are we correct in understanding that our team may include more than 5 partners, but that projects and labor rates from no more than 5 partners may be used to meet requirements of the RFP per L.2.1.4.g? | See revised language in Section L - 2.1.4 (g) |
| 57 | ATCH L-9 | NA | The timeline provided in Att. 9 represents a typical schedule for 10 concurrent projects, but does not appear to show 10 projects with the same 7-day construction period. We request Section L, page 2, 1st paragraph, be deleted. | The requirement for seven calendar days of overlap is minimal, and represents that the projects are truly concurrent. There is no minimum number of concurrent projects required. Offerors may use Attch L-9 as a format template and can be tailored to adequately demonstrate concurrent project requirements. |
| 58 | L | Page 2 of 21, Paragraph 2 | The definition for "Concurrent Projects" states: "Projects which have at least seven calendar days of overlap in actual construction work activities (not design or closeout/warranty). However, the timeline in Attachment L-9 is more realistic in terms of 10 simultaneous task orders. Would AFCEC consider removing the "at least seven calendar days" requirement from Section L? | Reference Question #57 |
| 59 | LM | Page 11, 3.7.2 (e) | Table 2.2 is referenced. Please clarify, we believe the reference should be table 3.8. | Correct, should be 3.8 table - revision will be made. |
| 60 | ATCH L-1 | Page 1 of 5/Paragraph 1(b) | Key Personnel Qualifications for Program Manager should allow for Professional Certifications like PMP, CCM, etc., instead of just the specified architect or engineer Professional Registrations. Professional registrations are more applicable, relevant, essential and germane to the specified duties of Project Managers. Also, consider that by restricting the qualifications for Program Manager to Professional Registrations only, AF forfeits an otherwise highly experienced and successful pool of Program Managers that have consistently and effectively managed, executed and delivered top quality projects supporting AF's construction services programs over previous decades. | Attachment L-1 Key Personnel qualifications has been revised to include "in lieu of registration, an advanced degree (Masters) is acceptable." |
| 61 | ATCH L-12 | General | Government Labor Classifications for Field and Office appear to be inconsistent. For example, only Field rates are requested for Building Information Modelers, Archaeologist, Historic Preservationist, Schedulers, Structural Engineers, and Wildlife/Botanist Specialist; while only Home rates are requested for MEP Engineers and Fire Protection. Each of these labor classifications are potentially applicable and can be used in both Field Office and/or Home Office capacities. Why aren't the Government Labor Classifications consistent? | The labor classifications were developed from analyses of past project and home office staffs and the locations where the related activities most often occurred. They are considered by the Government to be consistent, and will not be changed. |
| 62 | | General | Please clarify the anticipated Contract Award date. The Synopsis says “Contract Awards Dec 2016”. Is this an error? Should it read “Dec 2015”? | Our current estimated award date is Dec 2016, however, the date is subject to change. We would like to release the RFP earlier than proposed. All updates will be posted on FBO. |
| 63 | B | 20 | There does not appear to be a guaranteed minimum amount on the contract. | See Clause 52.216-19 |
| 64 | F | 31 | Paragraph F002 Period of performance states 5 year base, plus three one year options. Elsewhere, the contact states five one year options. | 5 year base period plus three one year options. The contract will be checked for inconsistencies |
| 65 | G | 32 | I don’t recommend including the PGI reference into the contact itself. PGI is instruction to the contracting department, not the contractor. Besides, the PGI may change over the period of the contract, unless it's full text is placed in the contract. | The PGI is a mandatory clause and is in full text. |
| 66 | I | 57 | There are several theater specific clauses in the prime contact that should only be in a task order, if the order is for work in a specific theater. Recommend removing these from the Prime Contract and placing them in the task orders. For example, the requirement to purchase from a central Asian state or Afghanistan (252.225-7991 Deviation) should not be applicable to all task orders, but as written, it would be. | Clauses will be reviewed and any non applicable clauses will be removed. |
| 67 | | | Do we have to bid on every task order? | No, it is the contractor's decision as to whether or not to propose on any particular Task Order. |
| 68 | L | Page 5, Table 2.2 | The volumes stop at IV, but there is a reference to Volume V – Small Business Participation in note #4. Need clarification whether this should state Volume II as noted in the table on Page 5 or if this note is referring to something other than Volume II - Sub factor 1.2 Small Business Participation, what is it? | This will be revised to removed from Volume 5 and moved to subfactor 1.2. Footnote will be revised. |
| 69 | L | Page 7, Section 2.3.6 (b) | Reference is made to a tab for 7.3 for the subcontracting plan, but Table 2.2 does not include a 7.3. Is there a Volume missing? | Reference to 7.3 will be removed. SB subcontracting plan is located under 4.5. |
| 70 | L | Page 12, Section 3.7.4.1 | States that all attachments will be enforceable at the task order level. Are they going to require goals individually set for each task order or will the goals be set at the contract level? | The goals are set at the contract level and enforceable at the task order level. |
| 71 | L | Page 15, Section 4.5 | The draft references that the small business section is only applicable to work performed CONUS and its Outlying Areas. Does this included purchases made in CONUS and its outlying areas for work to be performed OCONUS? | No, only work performed in CONUS and its outlying areas. |
| 72 | L | Page 15, Section 4.5 | The Small Business goal is to be based on Total Contract Value while the subcategory goals are to be based on subcontract value. Will the USG provide a CONUS and Outlying Areas “Total” Contract Value or is the Small Business Goal to be based on Total Contract Value which would include work performed OCONUS? | The government will not be providing a dollar value. Each offeror must determine a CONUS and its outlying areas anticipated obligated dollar amount and calculate the percentages to be subcontracted. Work performed in OCONUS is not applicable to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. |
| 73 | L | Page 15, Section 4.5 | Page 12 notes that attachment 5 is to be a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219.9. If Volume II - S.F 1.2 is Small Business Participation, which plan do the RFP goals apply to? | It is the government's intent for offerors to submit for Subfactor 1.2 (a) Small Business Participation Plan and also provide a Subcontracting Plan to meet the SB Goals as specified in Section 3.3.1. The participation plan will be evaluated and assigned a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable. The SB Participation plan portion that demonstrates the goals assigned for each socio-economic category is not an evaluation criterion but is a contract requirement.olume II - S.F. 1.2 is the Small Business Participation plan for the WE&C; the Small Business Subcontracting Plan enumerates the goals for each socio-economic category. |
| 74 | L | Page 15, Section 4.5 | Is Attachment L-15 part of the deliverables or just a tool to utilize for proposal completion? | The Attachment is part of the deliverables to be inlcuded in the submission. |
| 75 | M | 2 | It is noted in several sections on pages 2 & 3 under Evaluation Criteria that S.F. 1.2 will be assigned a rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable however on page 5 where the evaluation criteria for S.F. 1.2 is detailed, Section 3.3.1 notes what the Large Business Offeror’s “subcontracting plan” is required to demonstrate then in section d of 3.3.1 it notes that the “subcontracting plan” is “not an evaluation criterion. It is a basic contract requirement”. Is the government’s intent to have the Offeror provide a Small Business Participation Plan for Sub factor 1.2 that will be a part of the evaluation (rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable) and separately provide a Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 that will not be evaluated or is the intent to only provide one plan, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 as Sub factor 1.2? | Reference Question #73 |
| 76 | M | Page 3, Section 3.0 b | Notes that Sub factor 1.2 will be evaluated on and Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and that the ratings for Acceptable/Unacceptable are outlined in Table 2 however Table 2 outlines the Technical Risk Ratings for Sub factor 1.1. | It should refer to Table 3. The language will be changed to reflect the proper referrence. |
| 77 | M | Page 9, Section 4.2 h | Reference is made to FAR 52.219-8, but this FAR clause was not included in the flow down clauses. Is 52.219-8 incorporated into the RFP? | Yes, FAR Clause 52.219-8 is part of this RFP. The contract will show clause as 52.219-08, because of writing system does not recognize a single digit after the dash. |
| 78 | I | Page 55 | 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, does not require this reporting. Will the Small Disadvantaged Business supplementary report be required to be submitted under this contract? | No the SDB supplementary report will not be required to be submitted under this contract. |
| 79 | J | Exhibit B, Page 19 | Contractor’s Progress, Status, and Management Report: Are the SB reporting requirements listed here for BRAC Task Orders in addition to or in place of reporting requirements outlined in FAR 52.219-9? | The requirements in CDRL B004 as indicated on pg 19 of Exhibit B apply to all task orders EXCEPT that the additional Small Business reporting mandated by congress applies only to BRAC projects. If a task order is BRAC funded, it will be noted in the TO documents, and the additional reporting must be included in the contractor's Progress, Status, and Management Report for that Task Order. |
| 80 | L | 3.7.3 | Item 3.7.3 requires that we include a signed copy of the Model Contract. What is the Model Contract? | See response to Question #48 |
| 81 | L | 3.7.4.1 | requires that we provide Attachments 3, 4, and 5 to the Model Contract. There are no attachments 3, 4 or 5 included in the RFP. These attachments seem to refer to information (management plan, labor rates, small business plan) that are included in other volumes, so I am unclear on what is to be submitted in this section. | See response to Question #48 |
| 82 | ATCH L-1 | | Key Personnel Qualifications. This attachment is provided in the RFP, but there are no instructions as to where this information is to be incorporated. Are resumes required in Volume 2? | Resumes are not required for the proposal. Once the offeror signs the WE&C contract, all successful offerors will be required to provide names with qualifications for all Program Level (key personnel) employees as defined in L-1 or anywhere else in the contract. Project level key personnel will be elevated at the task order level. |
| 83 | M | 11 | Would AFCEC consider reducing the number of awardees on the WE&C contract to 6-10 (with appropriate number of required set-asides), as opposed to 11-15 total awards? With up to 15 contractors bidding on each task order, there is less desire on the part of each contractor to submit a proposal. Contractors are more incentivized to bid (and bid often) when there are fewer competitors, and therefore a greater chance of winning a task order. | |
| When bidding with up to 15 firms, including small businesses that may have lower OGA rates, is a strong detractor to large businesses. It leads firms to bid aggressively and creates an environment of low-ball bids that will typically be made up through change orders. Additionally, if you do receive 11-15 bids, it imposes a considerable workload on AFCEC to evaluate that many awards and will delay task order awards. In order to obtain the highest level of participation with the best quality proposals, please consider reducing the number of total awards on the MATOC. | The 11-15 total awards is an estimated number we anticipate having on our WE&C suite. However, the Government reserves the right to award fewer or more contracts based on the number and quality of proposals received. | | | | |
| 84 | A | 39 | AFCEC intends to Award each Task Order on a Best Value Trade Off criteria? Can you elaborate on the BVTO and if a Low Price Technically Accepted (LPTA) will be utilized to make awards under the WE&C? | Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA), Trade off and Price only evaluation will be used at the Task Order level. New wording has been added in Section H Ordering Procedures for clarity. |
| 85 | A | General | Is there a Integrated Priority's List (IPL) for the WE&C that can be released? | No, not at this time. |
| 86 | A | General | Can you provide more detail explanation to the current timeline (release of the RFP) stated? Will AFCEC expect any changes to the current timeline? | The timeline is an estimated date which is subject to change - please check FBO for latest information. |
| 87 | L | Table 2.2 (with note 4) and 4.5, Subfactor 1.2 | Shall the Small Business Participation Plan be provided in Volume V or only as Subfactor 1.2 in Volume II? | Provide in Subfactor 1.2. Volume II. All references to Volume V will be removed. |
| 88 | L | Table 2.2 (with note 4) and L.3.7.4.1.c | Shall the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be provided in Volume V or only as an attachment to the Model Contract in Volume I? | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be attached to the model contract. |
| 89 | ATCH L-15 | L.4.5 | Should Attachment L-15 be submitted with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | Yes, Attachment L-15 may be submitted wit the SB Subcontracting Plan. |
| 90 | L | Table 2.2 | Table 2.2 appears to be missing items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 | Table 2.2 ends with 6.2. Any reference to section 7.1, etc. has been removed. |
| 91 | L | 3.7.4.1.a | Which technical management plans are required as attachments to the Model Contract. Do you require a duplicate of the entire Volume II Subfactor 1.1 response as the attachment? | Reference Question #48 |
| 92 | L | 5.3.2.1 | Regarding past performance, please clarify the use of PPI forms versus data reports from the PPI tool. Are the forms required for all projects? Is the PPI tool to be use for two of the projects in addition to or in lieu of the PPI form? | The offeror shall fill out Past Performance Information (PPI) on all projects to be considered for this factor using the PPI Tool (See instructions on its use in Attachment L-5, PPI Tool). Also, submit copies of all PPI forms, Attachment L-3. See Section L 5.3.2.1 (a) for additional information. |
| 93 | L | 2.1.4 | May an A-E firm be named as a teaming partner? | It is the Offeror's decision as to whom he chooses to make a teaming partner. |
| 94 | L | 5.3.2.1, PPI | May a design project be used for a PPI project? | It is the offerors decision as to which projects to submit to meet evaluation criteria set in section M. |
| 95 | L | 5.3.2.b | Please explain Item 5.3.2.b of Section L, particularly the statement "The Government will only consider performance on a project effort completed or with at least one (1) year duration from the date of award within the last six (6) years prior to the publication date of this solicitation." Please rephrase or clarify. | Clarifying: If a project has been completed within the last six years from the date of publication of this solicitation, it can be considered. If a project has not been completed, it must have at least one year of duration prior to the publication of this solicitation, and only that portion of the on-going project which has been completed will be considered, anticipated scope, not yet completed will not be considered. |
| 96 | L | | Will there be a sample problem that requires a technical and cost proposal in addition to the Labor Rate Tables in Attachment L-11? | No, there will not be a sample problem provided.. |
| 97 | L | 2.1.4 | The teaming approach, limiting the team to five firms, is acceptable. | Reference Question #55 |
| 98 | L | 6.2 | All labor categories are acceptable. | No question provided. |
| 99 | L | 1 | RFP states ordering period will be five years with three one-year options and all performance must be completed within three years of the end of the ordering period. Please confirm this means performance on this contract could last up to 11 years | Confirmed. Performance on this contract could theoretically last up to 11 years. |
| 100 | L | General | What is the total contract ceiling? | Total contracting ceiling is $950,000,000.00 |
| 101 | L | Para 4.5 Pg 15 | Small business goal of 35 percent total awarded dollars is onerous and unfairly penalizes large firms that have self-perform capabilities. It also means that LB team members can't contribute in a meaningful way as a sub to another LB. Please consider reducing this goal to 28 percent. | The percentage was calculated based on actual small business subcontracting percentages achieved from the HERC contracts. Based on our analysis, 35 percentage is achievable. |
| 102 | L | Para 5.3.1.1 | Post-award, please describe how the Government intends to verify the level of effort actually performed by named team members. | This will be monitored at the Task Order level. |
| 103 | L | Para 2.1.4.g | Five partners may not be adequate to provide the depth of design-build and design-bid-build capabilities for a worldwide contract. We request that this restriction be increased to seven to ten partners. | Reference Question #55 |
| 104 | L | Para 2.1.4.g | Are specialty team partners (UXO and Fuels) included in the five partner limitation? | Reference Question #55 |
| 105 | M | Table 4 | The project size for a very relevant project is $2M; however, the project size for a very relevant project under the RE&C was $5M. Please advise if this number is correct. | The threshold referenced in question for RE&C is inaccurate. WE&C is a independent contract, please utilize WE&C evaluation criteria if interested in proposing. |
| 106 | M | | The draft SOW paragraph 7.1.6 is focused on Construction of Classified or Highly Secure Facilities. The focus of the paragraph is for development and execution of construction of Classified or Highly Secure facilities (i.e., Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF)). However the evaluation criteria does not require or take into consideration if a contract has an Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearance (FCL). The government will benefit by having the awarded contractors with a clearance to rapidly support any secure task for federal agencies. Suggest that Section L & M be updated to require contractors submit either a Secret or Top Secret DSS FCL. | While an FCL may be advantageous, it will not be made a requirement, and if necessary, it will be addressed at the Task Order level for an individual project. |
| 107 | L | Page 15 | Subfactor 1.2 SB Participation includes a discussion on “the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in these subcontracting opportunities)”. Commitments to small business are commonly demonstrated through establishing team partner positions for key SB partners and inclusion of Protégés. With the team partners limited to 5, demonstrating commitment to small business in this manner is restricted. Will the government exclude SB team partners for the 5 partner limitation | 1. Commitment to small business is more than the subcontracting anticipated for this effort. Past commitments for similar work, corporate committee, involved in small business conferences, involvement in Mentor-Protégé programs, meaningful work being subcontracted to small businesses, awards received for overall small business program, in-house small business training programs are all examples of commitment to the small business program. These are just examples of what a firm might use to demonstrate corporate commitment and these examples are not intended as Section L and Section M language in the preparation of your proposal. 2. Teaming limitation applies to all offerors interested in proposing on this IDIQ. |