FUELS MATOC QnA 20230619.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted Jun 19, 2023

Attached to: AFCEC Fuels MATOC - Answers to Questions
Solicitation number: FA890323R0017
Issued by: Department of the Air Force

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
FUELS SOW Draft 20230616.pdf	PDF	Jun 19, 2023
Sections L and M FUELS 20230619.pdf	PDF	Jun 19, 2023

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

FUELS MATOC FA8903-23-R-0086

This document contains draft answers that are subject to change on the final RFP based on review and approval of the RFP by the Clearance Approval Authority.

No #

DRAFT RFP Questions - 13 March 2023

REF/SOW

PARAGRAPH

ECC INDUSTRY RESPONSE

MEB INDUSTRY RESPONSE

SES INDUSTRY RESPONSE

ROUNDHOUSE INDUSTRY RESPONSE

CHENEGA INDUSTRY RESPONSE

DAWSON INDUSTRY RESPONSE

WESTON INDUSTRY RESPONSE

WOOD INDUSTRY RESPONSE

BRISTOL INDUSTRY RESPONSE

CMS INDUSTRY RESPONSE

GSI INDUSTRY RESPONSE

TETRA TECH INDUSTRY RESPONSE

S&B INDUSTRY RESPONSE

APTIM INDUSTRY RESPONSE

Combined Responses

AF Response 19 June 2023

What do you interpret from section 2.1.4.2.(b)? We believe the intent of this paragraph is clear but please mention any loopholes you perceive.

Sections L&M 2.1.4.2.(b)

We understand that AFICC does not want one company as a part of several different entities on this contract.

The language is clear and our interpretation is that a firm can only submit a proposal for selection to the MATOC as either a stand alone prime contractor or as a member of a Prime Joint Venture, NOT BOTH.

The interpretation is: Member entities of a JV cannot submit another proposal outside of the JV. We do not perceive any loopholes but suggest adding for clarity: "The JV can only submit one proposal. Each contractor within the JV cannot independently submit their own proposal."

Our interpretation is that Offerors may only submit one proposal as a prime contractor, to include being an entity of a Joint Venture. We believe the intent of the paragraph is clear.

No questions or concerns.

None

Yes, it is clear and your response doesn't leave any clear loopholes.

The paragraph is clear. It indicates each Contractor may only submit 1 proposal and be considered for 1 contract, either as Prime or as a party of a JV.

Intent is clear. There are no loopholes that we see.

The intent is clear.

The section seems straight forward and understandable.

No answers Given

All agree that the Language is Clear

See Sections L&M for updated language.

Similar to the question above, is this section clear? Also, are the definitions for conglomerate and affiliated business accurate and capture the intent of our concern?

Sections L&M 2.1.5

Understood. AFICC does not want experience or personnel to be claimed from any entity not directly affiliated with an offeror.

The language for the conglomerate business needs to be strengthened. A conglomerate business should be permitted to submit only one proposal, by only one of it's entities in a manner similar to the affiliated business requirements

Some ambiguity exists in this section. There are multiple companies within a single holding company that operate independently of each other. By not allowing different companies within a "conglomerate" to compete, you are reducing competition of multiple qualified companies within the same holding company.

We believe we understand the intent of the definitions of conglomerate and affiated business, however, we believe in both arrangements, there is a shared management of the parent company over all sister/subsidiaries at the Corporate level, however, in the case of a conglomerate, all subsidiaries act as separate business units and profit centers from other sister/subsidiaries and do not share personnel and project/programmatic management with other sister/subsidiaries.

No, would like further explanation. We do not believe the definitions are completely accurate. Please also see question 10 below.

Yes, Yes

Yes, this is clear and captures the intent.

This section is clear for the Technical Proposal Limitations. Will the contract include limitations on the use of conglomerated or affiliated companies for Task Orders?

Intent is clear

Section is clear.

The section seems straight forward and understandable.

No answers Given

7 say it is Clear 3 Say Needs to be modified 1 Say it is Not Clear at All 3 Say No Comment

See Sections L&M for updated language.

Please let us know if the example charts do not make sense.

Sections L&M 4.3.3.4 Charts

The example charts make sense. If an offeror submits a proposal for API 653 Tank Repairs and has their offer accepted, they automatically qualify for the General Pool. Same for the Hydrant Repair Pool.

These are clear and make sense

The example charts make sense.

They make sense.

No questions or concerns.

Yes

The charts make perfect sense.

Example charts are understandable.

Charts are clear on the evaluation matrix for personnel

They make sense.

Charts are understandable

No answers Given

All say that the charts are clear and understandable

No change to L&M.

Would you rather provide a narrative or complete a form?

Sections L&M 4.3.2.1. and 4.3.2.2.1

Complete a form.

Would prefer to complete a form/ matrix that specifically lists the criteria that will be used to evaluate the qualifications of a Contractor.

Prefer the "narrative" method. Narratives would allow the Prime Contractor to provide more content, detail and graphics to better establish Past Performance, Client Satisfaction and overall Fuels Construction experience. A generic form may not adequately allow for data to be displayed that will help AFCEC make a proper evaluation.

Complete a form.

Narrative.

Narrative

Form since with the proper construct, it should allow all potential contractors to provide the same information for a more rapid, thorough review. We would also request a limit of 2 pages per resume and project summary be allowed for adequate detail on each form. With 12 point font, it is difficult to provide on one page much information beyond the requirement to which we are responding.

Provide a narrative.

We would prefer a form.

A form may work better, due to the 1-page limit. Also, by completing a form, we are providing precisely the information you need for your evaluation. It would be helpful to see the format you have in mind.

Either format is acceptable to us

No answers Given

6 would prefer a form 4 would prefer a Narrative 4 Don't have a preference or didn't answer. 2 requested more than 1 page.

See Sections L&M for updated language.

Does the highlighted language in section 4.3.2.2.2 cause any issues for the potential JV primes interested in this MATOC?

Sections L&M 4.3.2.2.2.

No issues. It's been our experience with other clients that they similarly require that each JV member has to offer up at least one project as part of their team's proposal submission.

This is clear and an important requirement to include. Each member of the JV must be able to demonstrate recent and relevant experience as a stand-alone Prime Contractor for a minimum of one(1) project

Language is clear and understandable.

We believe this language should be mandatory to ensure both partners of the JV are viable, qualified entities and that the JV itself is not just a passthrough (e.g, Mentor-protégé JV arrangement)

Yes, the requirement that each entity must have a completed project is too restrictive and will exclude highly qualified JV's from MATOC competition. Not only will this cause an issue for JVs, it will reduce competition from 8(a) and SB firms. The requirement for three projects to be completed -- not just in progress-- at time of RFP release further limits competition to only those firms that were already performing work in 2018. If you consider the lifecycle of the 8(a) program, that would result in the Government limiting competition to only those firms who are at a minimum in the Transition years of the 8(a) program. If the Government further accounts for the stagnation of 8(a) contract opportunities during the pandemic, this further restricts the pool. We recommend revising the requirement to any project active or completed within the past five years so as not to disenfranchise any firm that has started business since 2018. Several questions submitted below.

N/A

N/A as we are not intending to participate in a joint venture.

N/A

This is not applicable to us as we are not pursuing as a JV

We defer to others pursuing this in a JV arrangement.

If the JV Offeror (made up of two entities) provides experience where the JV was the Prime Contractor, will the Government accept that project as meeting this requirement for both entities?

If not, then entities who have executed relevant work as the JV Offeror, but one entity has not executed work as a Prime outside of the JV, would be excluded.

No answers Given

4 Say it makes sense and agree 1 says they disagree 1 asks if a single project worked by both would suffice (If they provide the other projects by just one)? 5 Say it doesn't apply to them 3 gave no answer at all

See Sections L&M for updated language.

Is there enough information here to submit a Small Business Participation Commitment document?

Sections L&M 4.4.

Yes, as long as we have the dollar value anticipated to assume and the goals for each SB subcategory, we can write the rest per applicable FAR instructions.

Yes

The first sentence of Section 4.4.1 appears to be in error: "All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) shall…". Do you mean: "other than Small Businesses and 8(a) Businesses"? It is expected that Prime Contractors must comply with Small Business Participation Plan goals IAW DFARS and PGI. This requirement would be written into the MATOC Contract at time of award. Prime Contractors could simply declare this commitment in a one-line statement within the Volume II. As such, the SB Participation should not be a submission requirement. Seems that the Government review time of these SB documents would add further delay to the Award date.

Suggest utilizing Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) Sample Template

Yes.

Yes

SB Participation is always based on the factors found in PGI 215.304. The evaluation criteria is consistently the same and sufficient.

Yes

Not applicable to us as we are a small business

No. Please specify the minimum total Small Business Participation goal (a percentage of the total contract value) for the Fuels MATOC. Table 4.4.3 appears to contain SB Subcontracting goals for the SB Subcontracting Plan.

Will SB concerns be required to submit a SB participation plan or will that be segregated to only unrestricted offerors?

No answers Given

No longer relevant. We will not be including a commitment letter in the RFP.

No longer relevant. We will not be including a commitment letter in the RFP. See updated Sections L&M.

Pricing strategies options 1-3. There is strategy for 2 of the 3 pricing options. Please indicate your preferred pricing option and any feedback about the language or scenario that would strengthen your preferred evaluation criteria.

Section 5

We suggest to use, but revise, Option 2. We suggest utilizing the existing AFCEC Excel modification form (Price Proposal Summary) to determine Offeror's base labor rates, G&A, fringe, and overhead for each labor type listed (fully burdened labor rate for a complete picture). Please note that the Program Manager is an OH function for our company and does not directly charge our projects/task orders.

Would prefer Option 3 as it would allow the Contractor to accurately price a contract modification based on the required work that must be performed, support staff and the demonstrated time impacts based on the CPM. This is assuming we have the correct interpretation of the "Certified Cost and Pricing Data" option.

Option 1 is preferred. Option 2 allows contractors to make different assumptions and creates an uneven playing field. If the intent is to analyze labor costs for modifications, it should be done on a unit price comparison; not lump sum.

We prefer Option 1. It is the method used by AFCEC on previous contracts and we feel contractors understand the requirements.

Option 1. We strongly recommend a different pricing structure for SOW 2.2 DoD POL Maintenance Services.

Prefer Option 1 - We can provide pricing backup from previously executed contracts and market rate analysis as proof the rates are fair and reasonable.

Our firm would prefer the use of Pricing Option 1 as the cost model provides the level of effort, thus reducing the price differentiators to loaded labor and G&A on ODCs and Subcontractors. This will better represent actual costs per offeror.

We woukd prefer Option 1. This would provide a better true comparison of rates. Option 2 is essentially the same as Option 1 just in a different format.

Of the two pricing options presented, we do not have a preference; however, we would prefer a currently unlisted option fo price evaluation. We do not believe the labor rates are a very representative factor, as the prime contractor's labor has one of the lowest impacts on total price. The highest impact is the subcontracted costs itself, logically followed by the markups on subcontractor (and ODC costs). We would suggest the GOVT solicit markup rates for each of the contract years. Suggested pools would be total fringe and OH on direct labor, and G&A on all costs, including direct labor, fringes and overhead, ODCs and subcontracted costs. This option would be similar to the TEP method, but without the use of any labor category rates. Just a consistent tot direct labor value.

No answers Given

6 prefer option 1 1 prefers option 2 (But opines option 3) 2 prefer option 3 5 Gave no opinion

See Sections L&M for updated language.

No #

DRAFT RFP Questions - 13 March 2023

REF/SOW

PARAGRAPH

GOV RESPONSE

Coatings are not considered relevant work under this pool. Are the coatings to be included in 4.1.4 to only include spot coating repairs unlike in 4.1.5, which includes significant coating work?

4.1.4. DOD POL WETTED SYSTEM REPAIRS

No. Coatings of any magnitude are not considered relevant under the definition of DoD Wetted System Repairs. Full interior or exterior coatings are relevant for API 653 Tank Repairs. See updated Section L&M.

"The projects must have been completed within the past five years from the date the RFP was issued, and each site superintendent must have served in the site superintendent role for the entire field duration of the project, from mobilization through BOD."

The bolded statement requiring onsite key personnel to be on a project from mobilization through BOD is too restrictive for contractors to meet and not realistic, nor is it a common industry practice given project scope changes, winter shutdowns, POP extensions, etc.

Recommend requiring site staff be in the field for approximately 75% of the duration.	4.3.3.6.2. Minimum Qualifications
4.3.3.6.3 Minimum Qualifications				See updated Section L&M dated 19 June 2023. Highlighting has been applied to documents where the language has changed from the previous draft.
	3	Line 17, cell A17. This position is not described in the SOW, nor the Section L&M. Please delete or outline this role in the contract.	Attachment L-03 FUELS Labor Rates Tables			See updated SOW 16 June 2023. Highlighting has been applied to documents where the language has chagned from the previous draft.
	4	Similar to QC and Site Superintendent, we recommend that AFICC require Contractors show two qualified PMs to demonstrate the ability to field two complete Contractor teams.	4.3.2.5. Category 3 - Project Manager			The government has considered this feedback. However, as PM's do not typically work full-time on a single project of the expected magnitude of FUELS MATOC projects. A single PM is sufficient. No change to L&M.
	5	How is the AFICC going to vet offerors and ensure they can perform worldwide POL construction services? Recommend to at least have LBs submit a minimum of one international project as evidence of capability.	SOW Section 3 Place of Performance			Because this IDIQ covers the entire world, we will perform a "pre-qualification" after award of the basic IDIQ contract to identify firms with experience at specific overseas locations. All firms will be able to submit a Task Order proposal, but as part of the responsibility determination, they will need to show that they have experience at that specific location, either through the pre-qualification process or during the TO RFP process itself.)
	6	Recommend having all OCONUS TO work be bid by qualified firms to perform work overseas due to complexity and logistical challenges.	SOW 27.b Set-asides			See updated Ordering Procedures within the SOW dated 16 June 2023.
	7	What costs should be included in the calculated labor burden rate per Attachment 03? Should the fringe percentage include expenses for employee per diems, employee truck/ vehicle allowance and fuel, expenses for periodic travel home for employee if working remotely, employee cell phone, etc. OR will such costs be itemized and paid for separately	Sections L & M - 5 Vol. III - Price - para. 5.1 & Draft Attachment 03			The labor rate build-up includes the direct labor/salary, fringe benefits (to include any compensation provided to the employee as part of their overall salary and benefit package), and corporate labor Overhead and G&A. Any expense that can be directly applied to a specific task order should not be included in the labor rate build-up.
	8	The Statement of Work, Page 8, Paragraph 12 states that "most task orders will range from $3M to $7M". The minimum project size for the three different pools is only $500,000. Would suggest the dollar value be increased to a minimum of $3M for the API Tank and Hydrant Pools and leave $500,000 for the General pool. The larger dollar value would be more representative of the anticipated task order size and, as a result, will require Contractor's to demonstrate past performance experience on par with the project's magnitude	Statement of Work, Page 8, Paragraph 12			The minimum project size for the General Pool remains $500K, but the minimum project size for both the API 653 Tank Repair Pool and the Hydrant Repair Pool is increased to $1,000,000. See updated sections L&M dated 19 June 2023 and ensure projects meet all requreiments described.
	9	Is there a minimum and maximum number of firms that will be selected for the MATOC in each of the three(3) pools?				No, there is not a minimum or maximum number of firms that will be selected for each of the three (3) pools under the MATOC. All technically acceptable offerors will receive an award and will have access to propose in the pools for which they are qualified.
	10	How many Task Orders per year does the Government anticipate releasing?				We anticipate 25-35 task orders per year for the entire MATOC.
	11	Please confirm that there not a A-E design partner required for the Contractors participating in this MATOC and that all work will be Design-Bid-Build in nature and NOT Design-Build				An A-E teaming partner is NOT required for award of the basic MATOC. While design-bid-build will be used most often, the contract will allow for design-build task orders, as necessary. Any design-build TO RFP's would likely include evaluation criteria to ensure a qualified AE firm is identified as a teaming partner for that specific TO.
	12	Will there be a method included to "on-ramp" or "off-ramp" contractors out of and into the MATOC pools. If so, how will this occur, when, what would get you "off-ramped", how will potential "on-ramped" contractors be evaluated, etc.?				The government has revised the SOW to address on and off ramping proceedures. See updated SOW dated 16 June 2023.
	13	Please remove the language relative to "conglomerates". There are companies within holding companies that perform the same work and operate independently.	DRAFT Section L and M, 2.1.5.			The definitions created for "affiliated" and "conglomerate" relationships are specific to this solicitation only. Please see revised L&M language for clarity. Each entity of a conglomerate is allowed to submit a proposal with minimal exception (see revised section L&M for clarity).
	14	Recommend the allowance of MILCON/new construction projects. Although this construction does not include taking a system out-of-service, it does showcase the Contractor's knowledge and ability to execute complex fuel projects with all trade work.	DRAFT Section L and M, 4.3.2.2.1.			New construction will NOT be relevant for DoD Wetted System Repairs nor API 653 Tank repairs; however, projects submitted for Hydrant System repairs will allow new construction projects to be relevant. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 2023.
	15	Should we assume that CPARS and/or PPQs are required to substantiate corporate experience?	DRAFT Section L and M, 4.3.2.2.1.			No. Past Performance is not being evaluated. Follow the submission requirements in Section L&M.
	16	Section should reference UFC 3-460-01.	Fuels SOW Draft, Section 2.1.			The SOW has been revised to reference UFC 3-460-01. See updated SOW dated 16 June 2023.
	17	Section should reference UFC 3-460-03.	Fuels SOW Draft, Section 2.2.			The SOW has been revised to reference UFC 3-460-3. See updated SOW dated 16 June 2023.
	18	Recommend the values for 8(a) and Small Businesses be increased by a minimum of $1M each. We've proven that we can successfully perform large size projects.	Fuels SOW Draft, Section 27.b.			Actions within each pool under $2M are set-aside for 8a firms. Actions under $5M are open to all SB firms, including 8a, and actions over $5M are open to all firms, including 8a and SB firms. See revised SOW dated 16 June 2023.
	19	Will site visits be mandatory similar to the REC requirements?	Fuels SOW Draft, Section 27.d.			Each TO RFP will identify if a site visit it required or not. In general, we usually require site visits for general wetted system repairs and hydrant system repairs, but not for API 653 internal tank repairs.
	20	Please confirm that SB/8(a) Prime Contractors are exempt from the Small Business Participation Commitment requirement and substantiating documentation ?	Section L&M, Para 4.4.1-SECTION L			The government has revised the requirement and the SB Participation Commitment Document requirement is no longer required for any firm. See updated L&M dated 19 June 2023.
	21	Please confirm that SB/8(a) Prime Contractors are exempt from the Small Business "Subcontracting Plan" ?	Section L&M, Para 4.4.4			Yes, All SB firms, including 8a, are exempt from submitting a Subcontracting plan.
	22	To address responding to utilizing experience and/or key personnel qualifications from a parent, sister, or affliate, we recommend the following language: If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. Regarding any such submitted project, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated.
MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT: Provision of, or reliance upon, the workforce, management, facilities, or other resources of an affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD, such that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD will be involved in the contract effort with the Offeror, and thereby affect the performance of the Offeror.	Sections L & M 2.1.5 c				See revised/clarified definition of "affiliated" and "conglomerate" companies in the revised Sections L&M, as well as the revised Section L&M guidance for "Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions".
	23	We feel the set-aside limitations for 8(a) companies (under $1M) and small business ($1M-$3M) is far too low based on both the bonding capacity of 8a and small busineeses as well as project size 8a and small businesses are currently executing. For example, our firm (8a small business) has a bonding limit of $200M per project and $400M aggregate and are currently executing projects up to $20M in value. Additionally, based on the stated majority of task orders expected to be in the $3M-$7M range, this would mean that the majority of task orders to be issued would be Unrestricted. We understand we can "bid up" as an 8a and small business, however, this potentially becomes a low price shoot-out with up to 25 contract awardees. We suggest raising the 8a pool to projects under $5M and small business to $5M-$10M. This is supported by the $10M and under small business project set-asides currently being proposed on the future C2E contract.	Fuels SOW Draft 27. Ordering Procedures b. set-asides			The government has reevaluated and updated the set-aside values. Actions within each pool under $2M are set-aside for 8a firms. Actions under $5M are open to all SB firms, including 8a, and actions over $5M are open to all firms, including 8a and SB firms. See revised SOW dated 16 June 2023
	24	Completed projects are defined as construction completed (beneficial occupancy established) within the past five years from the date this request for proposals was issued. Given the sequential nature of projects relevant to this contract (e.g., one tank must be completed before work on subsequent tanks can be started), if one or more tanks are complete, or one or more phases of a project is complete in which a portion of the facility has receied BOD, can a project be submitted and considered relevant even if the entire scope of work is not compete?	Sections L&M 4.1.1			See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 2023 definitions of "completed project" and "project".
	25	The Draft RFP requires projects submitted for each key person to be completed within five years from the date the RFP is issued. Based on the long duration of many projects (particularly larger projects) and key field personnel ability to qualify for multiple pools (key field personnel can be considered for both API 653 pool and Hydrant System pool), we request that the requirement for projects to be completed within five years be increased to projects completed in the past 10 years.	Sections L&M 4.3.3.4			The government has considered your request. Only Hydrant System experience is increased to 10 years. The General and API 653 pools will remain at 5 years; however, note the updates to the definition of a "completed project" and "project" in the revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	26	If a contractor is originally qualified for the general pool, but then later aquires the requisite qualifications to qualify for specialized pools, will on-ramping to the specialized pools only take place during on-ramping competition or will Contractors be allowed to submit qualifications for consideration to be added to additional pools any time during the term of the contract?	Fuels SOW Draft 24. Onramping to Basic Contract			See updated SOW for on-ramping and off-ramping within the MATOC suite.
	27	We feel the requirements/definitions for a Specialized Hydrant System Repair is overly restrictive as written in the Draft RFP. Would the Government please consider relaxing the requirement to working on at least two components (pumps, valves, pipelines, pits, etc.) and to allow for work on and around a hydrant system attached to a hydrant loop?	Sections L&M 4.1.6			See revised Section L&M 19 June 23.
	28	What is the full definition of “fully burdened’ labor rate? Does that include just overhead and fringe, or does it include G&A and Profit? Please clarify.	Section L&M Section 5 Pricing			See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23. The labor rate build-up includes the direct labor/salary, fringe benefits (to include any compensation provided to the employee as part of their overall salary and benefit package), and corporate labor Overhead and G&A. Any expense that can be directly applied to a specific task order should not be included in the labor rate build-up.
	29	The price breakdown for labor is missing critical cost factor of G&A. Will we have the ability to edit the form or does this cost need to be added to the OH?	DRAFT Attach 03			See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23. The labor rate build-up includes the direct labor/salary, fringe benefits (to include any compensation provided to the employee as part of their overall salary and benefit package), and corporate labor Overhead and G&A. Any expense that can be directly applied to a specific task order should not be included in the labor rate build-up.
	30	Would the government consider reducing/removing the corporate project experience requirement for the general pool only if the submitting firm meet all Corporate Key personnel and Key Field personnel requirements. This would allow for more robust competition.	SOW 4.0 Pools & L&M 4.3.2			YES OR NO. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	31	Would the Government consider having DoD POL Maintenance be a separate pool set aside for Small business or 8(a) as this service is significantly different from the other pools?	SOW 2.2			No. Maintenance task order RFP's will likely include technical evaluation criteria to ensure mainenance experience of the awardee.
	32	Will the experience and past performance of parent or subsidiary companies be evaluated if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experiences and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?	Sections L&M 2.1.5			See revised/clarified definition of "affiliated" and "conglomerate" companies in the revised Sections L&M, as well as the revised Section L&M guidance for "Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions".
	33	Are there any additional requirements that an offeror must address in its proposal in order to utilize parent or subsidiary company experience and past performance if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?	Sections L&M 2.1.5			See revised/clarified definition of "affiliated" and "conglomerate" companies in the revised Sections L&M, as well as the revised Section L&M guidance for "Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions".
	34	Are there specific or special evaluation criteria for rating the experience and past performance of an offeror who utilizes parent or subsidiary company experience and past performance if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?	Sections L&M 2.1.5			See revised/clarified definition of "affiliated" and "conglomerate" companies in the revised Sections L&M, as well as the revised Section L&M guidance for "Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions".
	35	Will the Government consider allowing three projects active or completed within the past 5 years?	4.3.2.2.2			See revised Section L&M definitions of "completed project" and "project".
	36	Will projects completed by a sister company lending its experiences and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance be considered for Corporate Experience?	4.3.2.2.2			See revised/clarified definition of "affiliated" and "conglomerate" companies in the revised Sections L&M, as well as the revised Section L&M guidance for "Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions".
	37	Reference: Promises of future Prime Contractor employment will not be considered acceptable – submitted personnel must be currently employed by the Prime Offeror (or in the case of a Joint Venture, one of the Joint Venture entities). Question: Will the Government consider a Letter of (LOI) from On-site Key Personnel? A LOI is standard practice across DoD RFPs. If the only acceptable evaluation is for the personnel to be employees of the offeror or member of the JV entity, this limits competition and/or forces offerors to take employees on to their payrolls prior to work being awarded.	4.3.3.4			No. Letters of Commitment and/or Letters of Intent are not acceptable. If a firm does not currently have key personnel, they are not current DoD Fuels construction firms and thus should not be on a MATOC of this magnitude, competing with firms that have the depth of personnel and experience in DoD POL Construction.
	38	May an offeror that is not part of a conglomerate utilize the experience and past performance of an affiliate-sister company or parent company if the proposal shows that the parent or sister company has made a firm commitment that its resources - its workforce, management, facilities or other resources-will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance?	L&M 2.1.5			Yes, so long as the Offeror itself meets the definition of an "affiliated" relationship, particularly with regard to management and control of the sister/parent organization.
	39	The Program Manager must have a minimum of 10 years of experience actively working in DoD Construction Management, either as a Project Manager, Construction Manager/Superintendent, or QC Manager. Our current DoD POL Program Manager has been managing a Fuels Program for over 10 years not a specific project. Please explain how we need to show that we meet this requirement?	DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M+FUELS+20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.2.4			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	40	Program Manager Qualifications is responsible for the firm’s overall DoD POL program. It also requires completing 2 POL Wetted system repairs within the last 5 years and experience must have been in a PM, CM/Superintendent, or QC Manager role. Our current DoD POL Program Manager has been managing a Fuels Program for over 10 years not a specific project. Please explain how we need to show that we meet this requirement?	FUELS SOW Draft 20230313.docx_ Para 5.2, b			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	41	States each site superintendent must have served in the site superintendent role for the entire field duration of the project, from mobilization through BOD. Its normal practice to swap out this position on long term projects. Please explain how we will need to show that we meet this requirement?	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.3.6.2			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	42	States and the onsite QCM must have served in the onsite QCM role for the entire field duration of the project, from mobilization through BOD. Its normal practice to swap out this position on long term projects. Please explain how we will need to show that we meet this requirement?	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.3.6.4			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	43	States The Volume III technical proposal will be evaluated in two phases/gates. Should this be Vol II?	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 3.7.2			Yes. See revised Sections L&M dated 19 June 23 for revised language.
	44	Please consider the experience for the Site Superintendent and QCM to count towards the 5 years of experience to fill either the QCM or SM positions. Reason being many firms site personnel can qualify under either position. If either position has to show 5 years of per position will either stove pipe one person in one role limiting the versatility of the company to staff projects accordingly. Example: We have a site person with 30 years of coating experience and mechanical experiences as a SM. If we have a primarily mechanical project this person would be a SM, however, if we have a project for primarly coatings we would list him as the QCM . But the past 5 years would show this person as a SM. This is critical to small business where our pool of people is limited.	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.3.6.2 and 4.3.3.6.4			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23. The proposed individual must have at least five years of experience in that specific role. However, that experience can be during any time in their career. So, while an individual may serve in both a CM/Superintendent and QCM role, for the position proposed in this solicitation, the individual must demonstrate five years of experience in that specific role over the course of their career, even if that experience was mostly several years ago. To demonstrate acceptable Wetted System, API 653 Tank Repair, or Hydrant System experience, the individual proposed may have served as either a QCM or a Superintendent for those projects that were completed in the last five years, as long as they also have experience in the role proposed of at least five years during their career.
	45	Where a project contains secondary containment, cathodic protection, and fill stand repairs, the value of the fill stand repairs, by itself, must meet or exceed the $500,000.

Please clarify if the $500,000 cost is to be for the fill stand only? One fill stand repair may not be equal to or above the $500,000 threshold.	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.2.2.1			The value of the MECHANCIAL AND ELECTRICAL repairs to the wetted system must be at least $500K.
	46	Consider extending the hydrant repairs to 10 years. Hydrant work is not as common as API 653 tank repairs and limiting to 5 years may take a firm out of the running to work on a facility they are qualified to perform but haven't due tothe frequency/availability of hydrant work. Can past experience for personnel from previous employment be used as qualifier?	DRAFT Sections L and M FUELS 20230313.docx_ Para 4.3.3.7.2 and 4.3.3.7.4		See revised Section L&M.
	47	Please consider allowing tables, charts, graphs and figures to be excluded from the page count.	L.2.3.6 Page Format Restrictions		Theis RFP provides an outline for submission of each technical factor. Tables, Charts, and Figures are not necessary.
	48	Please consider allowing the use of 11x17 pages counted as 1 page each for use of figures such as organization charts, graphics.	L.2.3.6 Page Format Restrictions		Theis RFP provides an outline for submission of each technical factor. Org Charts and graphics are not necessary.
	49	Since AFCEC has not had a Fuels-specific Repair Contract released within the last 5 years, please consider: 1) allowing contractors to submit projects completed within the past 7 years from date of proposal issuance, and/or 2) allowing the use of projects that are greater than 80% complete.	L.4.1.1 Completed Projects		AFCEC, USACE, NAVFAC have all released dozens of repair projects each of the last five years. As such, there will be no change to the recency definition. Please see the revised definitions of "completed project" and "project" in sections L&M.
	50	Please confirm that the government is requesting: 1) only three total projects to demonstrate Corporate Experience, and 2) if the Offeror is pursuing both the API 653 Tank Repair and Specialized Hydrant System Repair pools, those three projects should represent both of those scopes (as well as be DoD POL Wetted System Repairs).	L.4.3.2.2.1		Corporate Experience need only be for DoD Wetted System Repairs. Please read L&M carefully for submission requirements, including number and type of projects. Qualifications to get into the Hydrant and API 653 Pools are based on Field Personnel experience.
	51	Please consider revising the Program Manager's requirements to demonstrate: 1) a minimum of 10 years of program or project management experience on DoD contracts, 2) of which a minimum of 5 years of experience was working on POL fueling systems, and 3) having completed two DoD POL Wetted System Repairs as a Program or Project Manager, Construction Manager/Superintendent, or in the QC Manager role.	L.4.3.2.3/L.4.3.2.4		The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	52	The Program Manager must demonstrate a minimum of 10 years of experience in DoD Construction Management, either as a Project Manager, Construction Manager/Superintendent, or QC Manager. The Program Manager must also have completed at least TWO DoD POL Wetted System Repairs projects in a PM, CM/Superintendent, or QC Manager role."

Consider revising required experience as either a Program Manager and/or Project Manager, as the skill sets for Program Manager or markedly different than that of a Superintendent and QC Manager. Further, as currently presented, the criteria for this key personnel labor category doesn’t afford credit for time spent serving in the labor category itself.	L.4.3.2.4			The government has considered your question and revised the qualifications criteria. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	53	The Corporate QC Manager requirement stipulates a minimum of 10 years as an Onsite QCM and/or Corporate QCM. Please consider revising this requirement threshold. POL Corporate QC Manager is a relatively new key position established by AFCEC at the TO level on the WERC09 and SATOC contracts. In addition, a considerable portion of Corporate and Onsite QCMs have also spent time as Site Superintendents. As currently presented, the requirement does not account for these realities, which we believe are common across the industry. Considering revising the requirement to a minimum of 10 years associated with DoD Construction, of which a minimum of 5 years must be as either an Onsite QCM and/or a Corporate POL QCM.	5.2.c, pg. 4 - Corporate QC Manager		The government has considered your question and there will be no change to the requirement. Ensuring a robust Quality Control program is critical for these task orders and thus the Government's expectation is that the Corporate QCM is highly experienced directly with QC and the three-phase quality control program. Note that the Corporate QCM does NOT have to have DoD POL experience.
	54	Under 3.7.2, Gated Evaluation, there appears to be a typographical error. Please confirm that "Volume III Technical Proposal" should read "Volume II Technical Proposal".
	L.3.7.2			You are correct. This was a typographical error that has been corrected to read Volume II Technical Proposal.
	55	Please confirm that Phase/Gate 1 consists of Technical Factor 1- Bonding and 2-Corporate Experience and Corporate Key Personnel.
Phase/Gate 2 consists of Technical Factor 3 Key Field Personnel for each desired pool, Technical Factor 4 Small Business Participation Commitment, and Volume III Price.	L.3.7.2			Small Business Participation Commitment is not required. See revised Sections L&M dated 19 June 23.
	56	Regarding TOs solicited to 8(a) and SB MATOC contract holders, if these task orders are solicited, but not awarded, will they be resolicited to the Unrestricted MATOC holders?	SOW Section 27.b		This scenario would need to be addressed on a case by case basis as it is rare to not award a TO - and while it can happen, there are a plethora of reasons the action could be cancelled and thus the acquisition strategy would be dependent upon the circumstances of the cancellation.
	57	As stated, the Government intends to award approximately twenty-five (25) awards under an unrestricted Full and Open (F&O) competition. The Government reserves the right to make fewer or more awards based on the quality and quantity of proposals received. Is there a expected number of contracts that will be set aside for 8(a) and SB contractors?	L.1.1.b. Program Structure and Objectives		No. Set-asides are based on the value of the task order and will be determined at the TO level.
	58	We understand the intent of requiring the Site Superintendent and QC Manager to have served in the role for the entire field duration from mobilization though BOD to prevent instances where an individual spent minimal time in the assigned role on a project, thus circumventing the solicitation requirement intent. However, there are circumstances where someone may have spent the majority of the time in the assigned role on a project but not the “entire” time, and yet still served substantially in that role. For instance, personal matters and/or training requirements may arise where someone must leave the site for a period of time. Or, some task orders may include multiple installations and different personnel assigned to key onsite role for various locations, yet it is on the same project. Additionally, weather or facility mission related conditions may also dictate demobilization and remobilization at a later date where the same personnel may not always be able to be reassigned for a variety of reasons.

Please consider a requirements model more similar to the FY18AEPOL, where contractor evaluation was based largely on corporate experience (i.e., projects related to SOW areas), and then on key personnel to evaluate current capability and capacity. Consider requiring the standalone submission of resumes for key personnel to included Site Superintendents and Quality Control Managers that demonstrate experience in the role, even per pool, but not as the final evaluation criteria of whether or not an offeror qualifies for a pool. It would seem the focus for pool qualification should be more on corporate organizational capabilities and experience as opposed to field personnel.	L.4.3.3.5.2, L.4.3.3.5.4, L.4.3.3.6.2, L.4.3.3.6.4, L.4.3.3.7.2, L.4.3.3.7.4			See revised Sections L&M dated 19 June 23.
	59	Please consider revising the range of “for the entire field duration of the project, from mobilization to BOD” to something more realistic such as a substantial portion of the duration of the field portion of the project project or a 75% threshold. Also, consider allowing for task orders having multiple locations; make the requirement at the location and facility level rather than TO level.	L.4.3.3.5.2, L.4.3.3.5.4, L.4.3.3.6.2, L.4.3.3.6.4, L.4.3.3.7.2, L.4.3.3.7.4		See revised Sections L&M dated 19 June 23.
	60	Please consider revising the language of "the Project Manager must have served in the Project Manager role for the entire duration of the project" to something more like "the Project Manager must have served in the Project Manager role for a substantial duration of the project" or a 75% duration threshold.	L.4.3.2.6		See revised Sections L&M dated 19 June 23.
	61	In this section on Corporate Safety Manager, the 3rd and 4th sentences reference the Corporate QC Manager duties and should be removed.	L.4.3.2.9 Category 5 - Corporate Safety Manager		Corrected. Thank you. See revised Section L&M dated 19 June 23.
	62	Many firms have G&A as an indirect cost pool that is applied to labor. Would the government confirm that the offeror may revise the cost worksheet in Attachment 3 to reflect G&A applied to the labor rates?	Section 5, Section L 5.1d		The overhead rate includes both general overhead and any G&A that applies to labor. See revised sections L&M. Please note, the pricing strategy is still under significant review and attachment 03 may change completely.
	63	Many firms have G&A as an indirect cost pool that is applied to ODCs/Subcontractors. Do the Subcontracting/ODC costs in Attachment 3 include mark-up (G&A) or are they raw costs?	Section 5, Section L 5.1d		Any G&A applicable to labor should be included in the labor rate build up as part of the Overhead rate. G&A for ODC's on Task Order mods will be negotiated separately for the imminent action, as applicable. See revised sections L&M.
	64	We recommend that the government requests Attachment 3 be provided as a pdf in Volume III and as an Excel file.	Section 5, Section L 5.1e		See revised Sections L&M.
	65	Corporate Experience as shown in the latest draft RFP only requires offerors to submit Wetted System Repair projects. What is the intent behind only requiring the one General Pool category for Corporate Experience and not requiring the API 653 and Hydrants Pools?	4.3.2.2.2		We expect the corporate office and experience to have a general understanding of DoD POL repair requirements, and wetted systems can include projects for API 653 tank repairs and/or Hydrant Systems as both are also wetted systems. Field personnel for the API 653 Tank Repairs and Hydrant Pools require the specialized experience in those specific areas.
	66	This section limits our responses to 12 point font. Most of the sections seem to be limited to one page. One page responses in 12 point font are limiting when we are trying to meet a variety of RFP requirements. We request that we be allowed to use 10 point font for narrative sections.	2.3.6.c		11 point font or greater is required. See L&M for any updated page limitations as well.
	67	This sections states that "Only those offerors whose Volume II Technical Proposals are deemed Technically Acceptable for a specialized pool, will be afforded the opportunity to provide proposals for that pool at the task order level." Section 4.3.3.1 goes on to list 3 available pools. Field Personnel submission requirements are for individual pools. Will Project Descriptions be required for individual pools as well, or only for the DoD POL Wetted System Repairs?	Sections L&M 4.2		Please read sections L&M carefully. The contractor must identify which pools they are proposing on, then provide applicable/relevant projects for each key person based on the type of work in that pool.

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 Jun 19, 2023.