REC_Contractor_Question_Comments_Matrix_29_Jan_15.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 67 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFICA Regional Engineering and Construction (RE&C) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-15-R-0002
About this file
Questions/Comments Responses dated 29 Jan 2015
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
AFICA Regional Engineering and Construction (RE&C) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Draft Section L&M
| QUESTION # | Section / Attachment | QUESTION / COMMENT | Government Response |
| 1 | L | Requires inclusion of a sign Model Contract Sections A through K - File Conwrite_18_Dec_14.pdf does not include Section A | The section has been revised to read: 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. Reference revised Section L, paragraph 3.9. |
| 2 | L | This section also requests Sections A through K - Do you want it twice? | No duplicate copies are not required. Section 3.9.1 has been revised to read "The Offeror's proposal shall submit a signed copy of the Representations and Certifications from the System for Awards Management (SAM) website as well as copies of those Representations and Certifications specifically required under this solicitation." |
| 3 | L | Techmical Management Plan - Do you want our response to L.4.3.a - d included here, or is the intent of this section different? If it is different, please provide requirements. | All attachments to the basic contract (with exception of SOW, CDRLs, and Key Personnel Qualifications - Attach L-1) will be from the proposal submission, duplicate copies are not required to be provided for Model Contract. The government will use the plan provided as part of proposal submission for 4.3.a-d. Section 3.9.1.1 has been revised to clarify. |
| 4 | ATCH L-1 | The minimum requirements for Program Manager appear to eliminate a lot of highly qualified people (bachelors degree in engineeering, architecture or construction management; professional registration as an architect or engineer). Please provide an unequivocal answer as to whether this person is disqualified and explain why: 36 years total professional experience; 21 years of experience managing federal programs (first 14 years were programs that included construction related to environmental remediation, but little vertical construction); 7 years of experience managing federal construction programs; BS in geology; MS in geological engineering; Licensed Professional Geologist (PG); Certified through PMI as a Project Management Professional (PMP); A/E experience in Afghanistan. | |
| Due to the limited provided information, an unequivocal answer is not possible. (The key personnel qualifications do allow for eight years of relevant construction experience - relative to our construction requirements in the SOW - to be substitued for a bachelor's degree. Therefore, if a candidate has this as well as the other identified qualification requirements, then they are qualified; if they do not, then they are not qualified). | |||
| 5 | L | Are contractors allowed to specify (pick) to work in only |
certain states within a region or are we committed to an
| entire region? | The award for each region will be for the entire region. Contractor may choose which task orders to propose on and are not required to submit a proposal for all Requests for Proposals at the task order level. | |||
| 6 | Can you please breakdown an approximate percent of work you expect per category? For example, what percent has been fueling related, new construction, renovations, historical buildings, etc? Knowing this better enables us to know how to respond to this RFP as well as determine if the progam is the correct fit for us. | With uncertain budget constraints and changing priorities over the period of this entire contract, it is not possible to predict what percent of projects actually solicited will be within any particular category, that is why the solicitation requires each offeror to be capable of performing the full spectrum of work within the SOW. | ||
| 7 | The Solicitation Notice that was published on FBO lists "Small business Set Aside". In addiiton there is language suggesting a number of the contracts are designed ONLY for Small Business. However, will there also be Unrestricted awards or is this solely a Small Business Program? The size of the program suggests it may involve larger contractors. | Under this solicitation, all awards are set aside for small businesses only, with reserves for certain categories of small business. There will be no unrestricted awards. Small Businesses may include a Large Business as a teaming partner. | ||
| 8 | L | Are offerors required to prepare and submit a technical management plan? | Yes, as stated in Section L, the Offeror shall submit a management plan that applies to all geographical locations identified within specific region (East, Central, West) that offeror is submitting a proposal for. Refer to Section L for a detailed list of what this plan shall include. | |
| 9 | M | In Section M, Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, Item A.5., please define “Construction Type I-A, Type I-B, Type II-A, Type II-B” | The definitions for these standardized contruction types are defined in the International Building Code developed by the International Code Council and can be accessed at http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ click on: International Building Code, Chapter 6. A footnote has been added for clarification. | |
| 10 | L | Section L, Page 5, Paragraph 2.1.4.f states “Mentor-Protégé (M-P) is a relationship and not a business entity. M-Ps require formal Teaming Agreements or LOIs to qualify for consideration as a team member.” The SBA Mentor Protégé program requires the Mentor and Protégé to submit proposals as a Joint Venture as evidenced by the following C.F.R. excerpts: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 124.520(a) – “The mentor/protégé program is designed to encourage approved mentors to provide various forms of business development assistance to protégé firms. This assistance may include technical and/or management assistance;…and/or assistance in performing prime contracts with the government through joint venture arrangements.” In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 124.520(d)(1) – “A mentor and protégé may joint venture as a small business for any government prime contract or subcontract…provided the protégé qualifies as small for the procurement…”In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 124.520(d)(1)(i) – “SBA must approve the mentor/protégé agreement before the two firms may submit an offer as a joint venture…” Please confirm that an SBA approved mentor-protégé joint venture can submit as a joint venture as the prime contractor for this contract. | In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 124.520 (d) (1) an approved mentor-protégé joint venture can submit as a joint venture as the prime contractor for this requirement. | |
| 11 | L | Section L, Page 12, Section 3.9.1.1 states that the offeror shall provide Attachment 3 – Technical Management Plan and Attachment 4 – Firm-Fixed-Price Labor Rates to the Model Contract. We cannot find those attachments or instructions to prepare those attachments in the Request for Proposal. Please direct us to these attachments or the directions on how to prepare them. | All attachments to the basic contract (with exception of SOW, CDRLs, and Key Personnel Qualifications - Attach L-1) will be from the proposal submission, duplicate copies are not required to be provided for Model Contract. |
The government will use the plan provided as part of proposal submission for 4.3.a-d as attachment to awarded contract. In addition, the L-11, Fully Burdened Labor rates attachment will be a modified version to remove the average column since it is for evaluation purposes at IDIQ level. Language has been revised in Section L to clarify.
| 12 | L | Section L, Page 14, Section 4.4, second paragraph states in part “Classify each risk in accordance with Table 2, Technical Risk Rating. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance.” Are we to use the Technical Risk Ratings from Table 2 on page 5 of Section M (Low, Moderate, High) to describe the risks of our management approach? Given that we are not evaluating a specific task order at this time, how are to provide quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule and performance? | Yes, 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. |
| 13 | L | Section L, Page 11, Section 3.1 states in part “The summary shall address subcontractors or teaming arrangements, including any critical subcontractors whose support is relied upon for a successful effort, show the delivery schedule or period of performance including schedules for the basic and all options.” We do not understand what type of schedule information is desired. Please explain what type of scheduling information is required. | The schedule is an affirmation that the contractor will perform for the entire period of performance for this contract: five year basic period plus three one-year option periods plus a three year performance period beyond the last option period awarded. |
| 14 | L | Will task orders be issued from Lackland for the various Air Force installations or will task orders be issued from each individual installation? | The majority of the task orders will be issued from 772 ESS Contracting Squadron, however the requirement has built in decentralized ordering so there may be a possiblity of task orders from other installations. |
| 15 | L | Are all Air Force installations involved in this solicitation or just particular ones. The RFP is silent on this. | This solicitation covers all Air Force installations, plus other locations where Air Force or other DoD construction may occur. Work is to be performed at locations in accordance with the SOW. |
| 16 | L | What is to be included as Attachment 3 - Technical Management Plan? | Reference Response to Question #3 |
| 17 | M | The Government responses (# 5, 6, 49) dated October 30, 2014 state that the Government has adjusted the “Very Relevant” requirement to allow for work performed within ANY REGION identified in the RE&C SOW. The Final Section M, Table 3 states under the definition for “Very Relevant” that the “project shall be within any PROPOSED region identified in the RE&C SOW.” The definitions for “Relevant” and “Somewhat Relevant” do state that “project shall be within ANY REGION identified in the RE&C SOW.” Please confirm that the “Very Relevant” requirement should also state that the projects can be in ANY REGION and do not have to be in the PROPOSED region. | Confirmed. The intent of the Very Relevant definition is to have projects submitted that were constructed within any region as defined in the RE&C SOW. Reference revised language. |
| 18 | ATCH L-3 | It appears that Attachment L-3 has not been updated to reflect the changes made to Section M, Table 3. For example, the 5th item under Specialized Construction Experience in the new Table 3 is “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-B”. The Attachment still lists the 5th item under Specialized Construction as “Non-standard or unique structures.” In addition, the description of Option 2 under Category B on the Attachment states that the project must include "one of the DESIGN circumstances...", whereas Option 2 in Table 3 states that the project must include "one element from the above Category B – Delivery Circumstances..." Will the Government be providing a revised Attachment L-3 that reflects the changes made to Table 3? | Concur, Attachment L-3 has been revised to be consistent with Section M requirements. |
| 19 | ATCH L-4 | It appears that Attachment L-4 has not been updated to reflect the changes made to Section M, Table 3. For example, the 5th item under Specialized Construction Experience in the new Table 3 is “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-B”. The Attachment still lists the 5th item under Specialized Construction as “Non-standard or unique structures.” In addition, the description of Option 2 under Category B on the Attachment states that the project must include "one of the DESIGN circumstances...", whereas Option 2 in Table 3 states that the project must include "one element from the above Category B – Delivery Circumstances..." Will the Government be providing a revised Attachment L-4 that reflects the changes made to Table 3? | Concur, Attachment L-4 has been revised to be consistent with Section M requirements. |
| 20 | Section L 5.3.2.2 CPARS | Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted (only for projects that a CPARS report do not exist). Q: Please consider reducing the requirement for three PPQs to one PPQ. A majority of projects will only have one or two representatives from the client that have the familiarity necessary to accurately complete a PPQ. | 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 three (3) POCs and provide their contact information (via PPQ POC Summary Sheet) to allow the government to follow-up directly with POC if necessary. |
| 21 | Section L 5.3.2.2 CPARS | Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted (only for projects that a CPARS report do not exist). 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. |
| 22 | L | We understand task orders under this contract will require design/engineering expertise; however the RFP does not appear to require the Designer(s) of Record to be identified in the Technical Management Effectiveness and Capabilities requirements, the Past Performance requirements, or the Price requirements. Are the Offerors required to name Designer(s) of Record in this proposal? | No, they are not required to be named in this proposal. Designers of Record will be required to be named at the Task Order Level when a project is awarded on a design-build basis. The discussion of design-build procedures is required under Section L Para 4.3 b (i), and the evaluation of this discussion is reflected in Section M Para 3.1 b (i). |
| 23 | M | Will Offeror Factor 1 Technical Ratings and/or Technical Risk Ratings be given higher consideration if their team includes and indicates a specific Designer of Record versus not indicating a specific Designer of Record? | No, since they are not required no higher consideration will be given. |
| 24 | M | Will Offeror PPIs and PPQs from Designer of Record teaming member design projects be acceptable to include in Factor 2 Past Performance projects? | Past Performance is intended to gauge construction experience, not design experience. Submittal of purely design experience will be considered Not Relevant for past performance consideration. However, design-build experience by the construction contractor is acceptable to include in Past Performance projects. |
| 25 | L | The Attachment 11 Labor Rate Tables indicate labor categories not typically employed directly by a Prime Contractor but instead hired as design consultants including: Architects, CADD Operators, Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Fire Protection Engineers, Geotechnical Engineers, Interior Designers, LEED Professionals, Mechanical Engineers, MEP Engineers, RCDDs, and Structural Engineers. Section L paragraph 6.2.b states that "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 for NTE Fully Burdened FFP labor Home Office and Field rates." If labor categories indicated in Attachment 11 are not categories currently employed by the Offeror are the Offerors required to name a teaming member in this proposal to cover those categories? | 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. |
| 26 | I | The FAR clauses incorporated by reference include both FAR 52.222-34 and 52.222-24, Alternate 1. Not incorporated by reference is FAR 52.222-23, Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement. Since FAR 52.222.23 is not incorproated by reference into the Solicitation and resulting contract, please confirm that there is no requirement for a PLA under the solicitation. | The 52.222-34 and 52.222-34 Alt 1 are being removed from the contract document. Neither will be required under this solictation. |
| 27 | ATCH L-1 | L-1 pages 1 through 4 state that "DoD construction experience with experience managing projects in remote and/or austere environments in desirable" while Section L, page 3, Regions, includes only the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Even as a "desirable" factor, referenced experience in remote and austere locations will severely limit competiton. Will the Government remove this "desirable factor" from the required qualifications. | Non-concur, Remote and/or Austere locations are defined as any location where commercial availability of basic logistical support is difficult or absent. The desirable factor, is not a requirement and will remain as a valid consideration. |
| 28 | I | FAR 52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) is incorporated by reference into the contract clauses but is not included. What are the minimum and maximum order limitations anticipated for this contract? | Although not incorporated in full text the clause is applicable to the contract. The min $3,000.00 / max $25,000,000 are included within the clause. |
| 29 | L | Please indicate where (if) in the proposal you would like to see Key Personnel data | 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. |
| 30 | L | Is the Government looking for information to determine responsibility under this paragraph in addition to the information being requested in the remaining portions of Volume I instructions? | No, the information already requested within Volume I will suffice for making this determination. |
| 31 | L | This paragraph states that in addition to Volume IV we are to include the firm-fixed price labor rates in Volume I. Shall Volume I include only Attachment L-11 Labor Rate Tables, or shall we also include Attachment L-12 Pricing Model in Volume I? | Volume IV shall be the only volume that contains Attachments L-11 and L-12. Sections 2.3.4 and 3.9.1.1 have been revised. |
| 32 | L | This paragraph states that page limitations shall be placed on responses to ENs. Please clarify the definition of "EN" in this sentence. | Evaluation Notices. This term has been spelled out for clarification. |
| 33 | L | Paragraph 2.3.11.3 indicates that all Section L Attachments has been exempt from page limitations, while paragraph 2.3.11.4 states that "Each page shall be counted except the following:", and Section L Attachments is not listed. Please confirm that all Section L Attachments has been exempt from page limitations. | Concur, Section L attachments are exempt from page limitations. Contradicting wording has been revised for consistency. |
| 34 | L | This sentence indicates that the contractor must have a letter from a surety on surety letterhead that says the required bonding has been obtained. Was it intended in this paragraph that the surety letter indicates that the contractor has the required bonding capacity, and not that bonding has actually been obtained at this point? | Yes, the requirement is for offerors to provide letter from surety that states required bonding capacity has been obtained. Actual bonds will be required at task order level. Section has been revised for clarity. |
| 35 | L | The first two sentences read, "The Government will only consider performance on a project effort completed or with at least one (1) year duration from date of award within the last six (6) years prior to the publication date of this solicitation. Only work actually completed as of proposal due date has been considered." The way the first sentence is worded is slightly confusing, especially when taken in context with the second sentence. Is the Government saying that projects either must have been completed within the last six years or may still be active with at least a one year duration of construction performance (as defined in Section M para 4.0(1) Recency) from award prior to the publication date of this solicitation; or is the Government saying that projects must have been completed within the last six years and have had at least a one year duration of construction performance? Please clarify the intent of this paragraph. | The first interpretation shown in the question is the proper one. The language has been revised for clarity to read as follows: |
The Government will only consider performance on a project effort completed within the last six (6) years prior to the publication date of this solicitation, or if the project is currently active, at least one year of construction duration must have been accomplished from the date of award of the project to the publication date of this solicitation. For a currently active project, only construction in place will be considered for past performance, anticipated, or scheduled activities will not be considered. Paragraphs 5.3.2(b) and 5.3.2.1(b) have been changed to clarify this requirement.
| 36 | M | "Only work actually completed as of proposal due date has been considered." Would a project be considered completed if physical construction is complete but there are some closeout items remaining? | Yes, if physical construction is complete the project is considered completed even if there are some closeout items remaining. |
| 37 | M | "The Government will consider only work performed by those teaming partners proposed to perform at least 20 percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price." For purposes of this statement, please confirm that "total proposed price" is equivalent to "TEP" as referenced in Section M paragraph 5.1. | No, TEP is the Total Evaluated Price of the Pricing Model in Section M. The sentence was revised for clarity within PP section to read: The Government will consider only work performed by those teaming partners proposed to perform at least 20 percent of all construction work on the contract. |
| 38 | ATCH L-1 | The second paragraph states that eight years of relevant experience may be substituted for a Bachelor's degree. Is there a number of years of relevant experience that can be substituted for a Master's degree? | No, a masters degree is eligible to be substituted for professional registration, but is not a basic qualification for any position. No experience can be substituted for the advanced degree. |
| 39 | ATCH L-1 | Is it acceptable for one individual to fill the roles of both Program Manager and Program Construction Manager? | No, Program level positions are not allowed to be dual hatted (i.e., there |
must be a separate qualified individual for each position at the Program level).
| 40 | ATCH L-1 | Is it acceptable for one individual to fill the roles of both Program QA/QC Manager and Project QA/QC Manager? | No, combining program and project level positions is not allowed. Program level positions are expected to be headquarters positions, while project level positions are expected to be located at the job site. |
| 41 | ATCH L-1 | Is it acceptable for the Project Site Superintendent to act also as the Project QC/QC Manager and/or the Project Health and Safety Manager so long as they meet all of the requirements for each role? | No, the Government considers these three roles as full-time positions in their own right and the positions have divergent responsibilities in the completion of the project. |
| 42 | ATCH L-1 | Is it acceptable for the Project QA/QC Manager to act also as the Project Health and Safety Manager so long as they meet all of the requirements for each role? | The Government considers it unlikely that a single person can perform dual roles, as they are each considered full-time jobs in their own right. However depending on the scope and complexity of a particular task order, the Government may consider approval of dual hatted positions at the task order level. |
| 43 | ATCH L-1 | Reference item 9 Project QA/QC Manager (a): Bachelor's degree from an accredited school in a construction related technical field… is desirable. Please confirm that this is desirable, but not required. | Confirmed that it is a desirable qualification, not required. |
| 44 | ATCH L-1 | Reference item 10 Project Health and Safety Manager (a): Bachelor's degree from an accredited school in a construction related technical field… is desirable. Please confirm that this is desirable, but not required. | Confirmed that it is a desirable qualification, not required. |
| 45 | ATCH L-3 | Attachment L-3 is titled "Present/Past Performance Information Form", yet the statement has been made several times in the solicitation that only work actually completed as of proposal due date has been considered. Please clarify whether projects that are not 100% complete as of proposal due date has been accepted and evaluated. | Reference response to Question #35 |
| 46 | ATCH L-3 | Part I paragraph 3 includes a table with a column for "Business Size". Please clarify what we should enter in this column (i.e. number of personnel, annual revenue, etc.)? | Attachment L-3 has been revised for clarification. |
| 47 | ATCH L-8 | Paragraph 1(i) states that "Offerors may choose to be considered ONLY under the small business reserve competition." Likewise, paragraph 1 items ii, iii, and iv each use the same phrase that offerors may choose to be considered ONLY under each respective competition. However, Paragraph 2 indicates that we may check ALL of the below competitions we want to complete in. Please confirm that we may select all of the competitions that we want to compete in. | Confirmed, Offeror may select all of the competitions that they want to compete in as long as offeror meets requirements for Small Business designation(s). |
| 48 | ATCH L-10 | This paragraph states that Senior level Professional Labor requires a Bachelor's degree, a minimum of ten years of directly applicable experience, and a professional registration consistent with the duties of the position. Some of the senior positions listed in the Labor Rate Tables do not commonly have a professional regitration outside of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in Construction Management or similar degree (i.e. cost estimator, site superintendent, subcontract manager, contract manager, project manager, etc.). Please clarify whether the following are considered to be "Professional Labor", "Technical Labor", or "Clerical": Cost Estimator; Project Controls Analyst; Security Manager; Site Superintendent/Construction Manager; Subcontract Manager; Contract Manager; Project Manager. | The following are considered Technical Labor: Cost Estimator, Project Controls Analyst, Subcontract Manager |
The following are considered Professional Labor: Security Manager, Site Superintendent/Construction Manager, Contract Manager, Project Manager.
Professional registration is only required if the position is listed as a key personnel in Attachment L-1 and professional registration is listed under the qualifications for that key personnel, or if the duties of the position would require the individual to sign and seal design drawings as a normal part of their job (e.g. Designers of Record (DOR))
| 49 | ATCH L-10 | Senior level Professional Labor lists the requirement for a professional registration consistent with the duties of the position. For Construction Management positions, will it be acceptable to substitute a Master's degree in a related technical field and/or an additional number of years of directly applicable experience (in addition to the required ten years) for a professional certification? | It is allowable to substitute a Master's Degree for professional Registration as described in Attachment L-1, however additional experience cannot be substituted for professional registration. Additionally, see the response to Question 48 for further clarification for when professional registration is required. |
| 50 | ATCH L-11 | Attachment L-12 includes separate columns and tabs for the prime contractor and each teaming partner to propose their labor rates, but Attachment L-11 does not provide the opportunity to show any labor rates which are being proposed by multiple entities. Where the prime contractor and a teaming partner propose rates for the same position that are necessary for their respective operations (ex. Prime and the Prime's Architect both propose their own administrative assistant labor rates), please confirm that we are only to include the prime contractor's labor rate(s) for said position(s) in Attachment L-11 (and not a blend or average between the multiple rates). | That is incorrect. Per the Attachment L-12 instructions, the prime and all teaming partners complete Attachment L-11, individually. Attachment L-11 generates average labor rates per category over the contract years listed. These average labor rates per category for each team member are then copied and pasted into the appropriate blocks in Attachment L-12. If more than one team member proposes on the same category, Attachment L-12 is set up to calculate a weighted average of those rates for purposes of establishing a total evaluated price. The Attachment L-12 instructions provide a step by step guide to completing Attachments L-11 and L-12. For successful offerors, the resulting contracts will have documents equivalent to Attachment L-11 (excluding the Average columns) for the prime and each teaming partner. These will be the established NTE FFP labor rates for the contract. |
| 51 | ATCH L-4 | Part-2, Question #3 (Rating of Contractor on Timely Performance) on Attachment-4, is an exact repeat of Question #2 above it. Will Government Amend this Attachment L-4 to delete the repeat, or Past Performance Clients will need to answer this Timeliness Question, twice? | Attachment L-4 has been revised to eliminate the duplication. |
| 52 | ATCH L-11 | Correct terminology is LEED Professional (delete the S) | Corrected. |
| 53 | ATCH L-11 | MEP Engineers do not exist as there is no recognized registration protocol for this generic term of art.. We have Mechanical Engineers and Electrical Engineers in the Labor model. Plumbing is included in mechanical work. Recommend deletion of the MEP Engineer categories as they are redundant with other named disciplines | Concur, MEP Engineering categories have been deleted from the worksheet. |
| 54 | L | Reference "The contractor shall provide the following attachments to the Model Contract. |
a. Attachment 3 – Technical Management Plan."
| Is the Government's intent for the Technical Management Plan from Volume 3 to also be attached in Volume 1? | Reference response to Question # 3 | |||
| 55 | L | Reference Government's response to RFI # 105. Is the Government's intent for the Offeror to remove the "Average" Column on the HOME AVERAGE and FIELD AVERAGE Tables on Attachment L-11 prior to attaching as Attachment 4 in Volume 1? | Reference response to Question #11 and #31 | |
| 56 | Section L 5.3.2.2 CPARS | Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted (only for projects that a CPARS report do not exist). Q: Please consider reducing the requirement for three PPQs to one PPQ. A majority of projects will only have one or two representatives from the client that have the familiarity necessary to accurately complete a PPQ. | Reference response to Question #20 | |
| 57 | Section L 5.3.2.2 CPARS | Item b. indicates: "Offeror shall submit three (3) PPQs per each of the projects submitted (only for projects that a CPARS report do not exist). 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. | Reference response to Question #21 | |
| 58 | L | We understand task orders under this contract will require design/engineering expertise; however the RFP does not appear to require the Designer(s) of Record to be identified in the Technical Management Effectiveness and Capabilities requirements, the Past Performance requirements, or the Price requirements. Are the Offerors required to name Designer(s) of Record in this proposal? | Reference response to Question #22 | |
| 59 | M | Will Offeror Factor 1 Technical Ratings and/or Technical Risk Ratings be given higher consideration if their team includes and indicates a specific Designer of Record versus not indicating a specific Designer of Record? | Reference response to Question #23 | |
| 60 | M | Will Offeror PPIs and PPQs from Designer of Record teaming member design projects be acceptable to include in Factor 2 Past Performance projects? | Reference response to Question #24 | |
| 61 | L | The Attachment 11 Labor Rate Tables indicate labor categories not typically employed directly by a Prime Contractor but instead hired as design consultants including: Architects, CADD Operators, Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Fire Protection Engineers, Geotechnical Engineers, Interior Designers, LEED Professionals, Mechanical Engineers, MEP Engineers, RCDDs, and Structural Engineers. Section L paragraph 6.2.b states that "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 for NTE Fully Burdened FFP labor Home Office and Field rates." If labor categories indicated in Attachment 11 are not categories currently employed by the Offeror are the Offerors required to name a teaming member in this proposal to cover those categories? | Reference response to Question #25 | |
| 62 | L | For Volume III Factor 2 Past Performance, 5.0 Volume Organization, it has the volume organized with (ii) Present/Past Performance Documents and 1. Organization Structure Change History as its subsections. This seems to conflict with the order presented in In Table 2.2 and Section 5.3.1.1 Organization Structure Change History and Section 5.3.2 Present/Past Performance Documents. Please clarify as to the order and hierarchy of these sections so that we may organize our proposal accordingly. | Both references identified have been validated to ensure no inconsistencies exist in document. | |
| 63 | L | Regarding remote and austere locations, section L defines this as "Any location where commercial availability of basic logistical support is difficult or absent can be considered remote and/or austere." and 3.1 Management Effectiveness and Capabilities says, "(iii) The construction in remote and/or austere environments process at a minimum adequately addresses: specific practices and plans for staffing and logistical support for all aspects for performing construction requirements." Traditionally, remote and austere refers to work in logistically and resourced challenged OCONUS locations that may even pose a threat to human life. Will the Government please elaborate on the type of CONUS project that the Government is looking for in regards to remote and/or austere? | As described in the definitions, any location where commercial availability of basic logistical support is difficult or absent can be considered remote and/or austere. Potentially, the Government believes that certain areas in Alaska and perhaps other areas within CONUS may require the contractor to provide basic support for housing, and feeding the workforce during construction operations. Please describe how these services will be provided when these conditions exist. | |
| 64 | L | Reference Section L, paragraph 3.9.2 - Financial Responsibility; please confirm that with the Offeror does not have to contact the local DCMA office to provide financial information until after proposal submission to the Government and then only when requested by DCMA. | Confirmed, however the offeror must complete Attachment L-13. | |
| 65 | L | We has been adding a UXO firm on our proposal. If we are a successful offeror, will we be limited to using our named UXO teaming partner or will we be allowed to seek competitive bids to get the lowest pricing? | You may compete any requirement, depending on the terms and limitations of your teaming agreement. The Government does not require exclusivity as a pre-requisite. | |
| 66 | L | we are naming a design firm to our team for the proposal. If we are a successful offeror, will we be limited to using that design firm or will we be able to use any design firm that can meet the TO RFP requirements? | You may compete any requirement, depending on the terms and limitations of your teaming agreement. The Government does not require exclusivity as a pre-requisite. | |
| 67 | Can the due date for questions be extended beyond the January 9th deadline. The January 9th deadline is about 5 ½ weeks before the proposal deadline and with the final RFP issued just prior to the holiday’s we need more time to study the contents of the RFP and ask important questions about the project. | This question was overcome by events. | ||
| 68 | Is there a pre-proposal meeting for this project? | No a pre-proposal meeting will not be scheduled. | ||
| 69 | Are the files on FBO noted as “Draft” considered part of the contract or can we assume that they have been replaced by the files uploaded on December 18th and noted as “Final” in the file names? | FBO keeps a running list of all documents that have been posted, offerors shall utulize the most current versions. | ||
| 70 | ATCH L-12 | For Task Order Award purposes, are Primes bound by the weighted averages labor rate shown in L-12 tables or will they be allowed to use the actual proposed rates for prime and team member ? | The actual proposed rates per year as proposed in Attachment L-11 for the prime and each teaming partner will be incorporated into the contract. The weighted average rates are solely for the purpose of establishing the TEP. | |
| 71 | ATCH L-12 | Not all Labor Categories are included in both the Field and Office listing, i.e. there is no Civil Engineer - Senior and only an Administrative Assistant - Mid in the Field listing. This limits the offerer's ability to place the most qualified (or best value - Admin - Junior) in that position. Recommend all labor categories be priced for Field and Office to ensure the offerers have the opportunity to staff the work to provide the best value to the government. | The Labor Categories were carefully chosen based |
upon review of historical projects. The labor categories chosen is an attempt to prevent paying for over-qualified personnel and/or limiting proposing an under qualified personnel on subsequent task orders.
| 72 | The solicitation synopsis states that the "anticipated award of the resultant contract is in the second quarter of FY16." and Labor Rate Tables in Attachment L11 also show estimated award in April 2016. The SF 33 states "In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within __240__ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date of receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule." Since proposal submittal date is mid-Feb 2015, request clarification regarding 240 days. | ||
| SF 33 has been revised to 365 calendar days to coorelate with the projected acquisiton schedule. | |||
| 73 | M | The RFP states "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-B". This type of project typically has a construction cost exceeding $50M. Does this mean we can expect MILCON projects of this magnitude? Based upon the small business NAICS code and contract bonding requirements ($25M), this type of past experience/performance project is not consistent with this type of contract. | From past experience, the Government has awarded these types of projects through our construction IDIQ contracts. Therefore, it was determined to include #5 as one of the criteria options under Past Performance. However, the Very Relevant definition gives other options to receive a Very Relevant rating. The relevancy criterion is based on the full depth and breadth of the expected workload. This option will remain as detailed. |
| 74 | H | It is unclear from this section whether a selected contractor can decline to bid task orders, and, if so, whether or not there are any limitations on the number of task orders that may be declined. Please clarify. | Sucessful offerors will be awarded an IDIQ contract for the entire applicable region; however, the offeror is not required to propose on every task order. |
| 75 | ATCH L-13 | We have performed a significant amount of DOD work but we have never dealt with nor are we familiar with DCMA Offices. As such we are not sure how to determine our Cognizant DCMA Office or who the appropriate POC at that office would be. Please advise. | DCMA is divided into 3 regions (Eastern, Central and Western). The regions are broken down into smaller offices located within the region. Please log on to the DCMA website https://www.dcma.mil/ and click on "ABOUT US" to find your appropriate region. Offerors may call their local DCMA office to confirm that they indicate the correct Cognizant DCMA office on Attachment L-13. |
| 76 | ATCH L-1 | Please explain why a Program Security Manager is needed for the RE&C contract? Item c. of qualifications notes that person needs 6 months experience in remote/austere environments and three years DOD experience. This position and its qualifications seems unnecessary for this CONUS contract and a burden to the small business contractor. | Concur, this qualification has been removed from the RE&C Attachment L-1. However the need for a Program Security Manager is still valid to provide policy guidance on Site Security and related responsibilities for project accomplishment. |
| 77 | ATCH L-3 | Please clarify how submitted projects (as evidence of past performance) has been evaluated relative to the percent of work completed (self-performed) by the Prime Contractor. Is there a minimum percent the government is looking for relative to self-performance by the Prime? | The percentage will be evaluated as part of relevancy under past performance. For clarification purposes, the government has revised to Section M, Table 3 to indicate: the contractor submitting the project must have performed at least 15% of the cost of the project. In addition, a footnote was added for further clarity: All projects (prime or teaming partner), the company in which project is being provided, must have performed at least 15% of the cost of the project, not including cost of materials, with its own employees. |
| 78 | ATCH L-3 | Please clarify how percentage of work conducted by the Prime and/or Sub is to be calculated. i.e. value in $$ of work performed relative to overall value of project? Are material costs included along with labor costs when calculating the value of work performed? | Reference response to Question #77, Attachment L-3 has been revised for clarity. |
| 79 | ATCH L-4 | We noticed that at the top of Attachment L-4, Past Performance Questionnaire Form, there are boxes to check to identify which region the project represents. If an offeror is submitting separate proposals for multiple regions is it allowable to check multiple boxes there to indicate that project is considered relevant for more than one region? This would be very helpful and make it easier on the client so they don’t have to complete PPQs for the same project multiple times. | This is acceptable, language has been added to clarify in Section L. |
| 80 | ATCH L-4 | If a small business firm plans to bid on more than one region, can a project PPQ be used for more than one region? If not, it seems unreasonable to require our clients to complete a new PPQ for each region. | See response to Question #79 |
| 81 | ATCH L-8 | For clarification, can eligible small businesses select multiple competition levels by Region to be evaluated for award? If so, are separate proposals required to be submitted by the Prime Contractor for each competition level by Region? | 1. See response to Question #47 |
2. Separate proposals are not required for various competition pools.
| 82 | ATCH L-11 | We assume that hardcopies of Attachment L-11 (Home and Field Rate Tables) and hardcopies of Attachment L-12 (Pricing Model) are to be included in Volume IV and that those two attachments are also to be submitted as .xls files. Please confirm this is correct. | Concur, this is correct. |
| 83 | L | Is AFCEC planning to do independent region reviews and selections separately or is one selection team going to review all three regions and then make selections? | The government will do independent region reviews; however, all regional evaluations will be performed consistently. |
| 84 | L | This item states - “All questions, concerns, or clarifications shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer listed below. All inquiries must be made in writing and submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer and the Contract Specialist at afcec.re_c.contract@us.af.mil by the date posted in Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website. Offerors will receive a notice of receipt, but if they do not, it is their responsibility to follow-up by contacting the addressees listed below. All written inquiries (questions received by designated date) has been answered and provided to all Offerors via posting(s) to the FBO website.” The date questions must be submitted by is January 9th (FBO dated December 23rd). Later, in 2.1.3 Discrepancies it states “If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale immediately, but no later than 10 days after release of the RFP.” Please clarify the difference between a discrepancy and a question and confirm that questions aren’t due until January 9th. | Acknowledge previous discrepancy, this question is now overcome by events. |
| 85 | L | This item states - “All Proposal volumes (original unbound, hard copies, e-copies) identified shall be delivered to the address specified in Block 8 of the SF 33 by the date and time specified in FBO posting.” Is the delivery address the same for proposals that are being hand delivered? | Yes, address is same for hand-delivered proposals. |
| 86 | L | This item states - “Each CD-ROM and protective sleeve shall be clearly marked as to volume number, Offeror's name, solicitation title, solicitation number, and proposed Region (East, Central, West).” Is it really the Government’s intent for us to mark the paper sleeve each CD has been submitted in? We plan to print CD labels that contain the required marking information and affixing them to our CDs, which will then be placed in a protective white paper sleeve with a clear window which allows the CD label to be seen while in the sleeve. Is this acceptable or must we mark these paper sleeves with the required markings? | A CD label is sufficient, wording has been revised for clarity. |
| 87 | L | This item states - “… The font size shall be no less than 12 point except for the following.” It goes on to say “… The font for tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be no smaller than 8 point.” Later, item g. states - “Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers can fall within the defined margin area.” We didn’t see anything that says the font size for permitted information contained in the defined margin area can be less than 12 point. Can we use no smaller than 8 point font for permitted information in the defined margin area? | No, minimum font size is 8 point. Section 2.3.11.1 has been revised for clarity. |
| 88 | L | This item states - “All information (except documentation numbers, classification markings, and page numbers) shall be contained within an image area of 9 x 15-1/2 inches.” In Section L on Page 9 of 20, 2.3.11.1 Page Format, item f. states - “Margins on all four edges of each sheet has been at least one inch. …” There seems to be a discrepancy between these two statements, please clarify. | Section 2.3.11.2 has been revised to correlate with 2.3.11.1. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .