Draft Answers to Attach L-02 Q_and_A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFCEC FUELS MATOC Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA890324R0003
About this file
This document summarizes questions and answers related to solicitation number FA890324R0003 for the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) Fuels Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). The MATOC will include requirements for construction, repair, and maintenance of Department of Defense (DoD) fuel facilities and systems. Key details include that the MATOC will have one base ordering period of two years followed by four two-year option periods. Awards are expected for 20 to 25 contractors meeting technical and price criteria. The MATOC will include pools for general work, API 653 tank repairs, and hydrant system repairs.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attach_L_02_Q_and_A_Answers 15 Dec 23.pdf | ||
| Attach_L_07_Corporate_Project_Mgr_Outline.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_L_12_Super_Outline_API_653_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_L_13_QCM_Outline_API_653_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_L_14_Super_Outline_Hydrant_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| FUELS SOW Draft 20231215.pdf | ||
| Sections L and M FUELS 20231215.pdf | ||
| Attach_L_15_QCM_Outline_Hydrant_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitation Amendment FA890324R00030001 SF 30 20231215.pdf | ||
| Attach_L_06_Corporate_PgM_Outline.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_L_10_Super_Outline_General_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_L_11_QCM_Outline_General_Pool.docx | DOCX document | |
| Construction Pricing and Purchasing Forecasts__01_12_2023.pdf | ||
| Subcontracting Plan Template.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
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
Sheet1
| FUELS MATOC FA8903-24-R-0003 | |||
| No # | RFP Questions | REF/SOW | |
| PARAGRAPH | GOV RESPONSE | ||
| 1 | Per Section L and M, under Page Format Restrictions and Limitations, "Margins on all four edges of each sheet shall be at least one inch." However, the Role/General Work Type Tables inside Attachments L-06 through L-15 extend beyond the 1-inch margin. Can AFCEC confirm that the 1-inch margin requirement does not apply to these tables? | Section L&M |
2.3.6.d
| Page 6 | The 1" margin requirement does not apply to the tables in Section L Attachments. Sections L&M 2.3.6(d) has been amended to read, "Offerors shall use the margins and font sizes established in Section L Attachments." | ||
| 2 | As part of 252.204-7007 is replacing 52.204-8, and 52.204-8 is required for the cover page, does AFCEC want to replace paragraph e of 252.204-7007 and have it included on the cover page as well? | Solicitation |
252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications.
| Page 60 | The language in Section L&M 3.3.1 has been revised to be more consistent with the language in 252.204-7007 and provides the option for offerors to include paragraph (e) as the certification on the cover page. The Representations and Certifications called out in Sections L&M 2.2 are not included in 52.204-8 or 252.204-7007 and will need to be filled out in accordance with Sections L&M 3.3.1. | |||
| 3 | Both of these non-acceptable reasons are very subjective and can be based on opinion’s based on an individual’s perspective or preference. Can you reconsider, rewrite or eliminate these reasons from the SOW? | Statement of Work - 17 Nov 2023 Section 29 Exercising Options b. 4. and 6– pg. 13. | Answer is TBD | |
| 4 | If the Contractor has additional personnel, other than listed in 6.2, 6.3, or 32, pertinent to DoD fuels work can those position(s) and personnel be included in the Contractor's proposal? | SOW 6.2 and 32 | No, these will be negotiated at the task order level. | |
| 5 | The following statement in SOW 6.2 b states "The Program Manager must also have completed at least TWO (2) DoD POL Wetted System Repairs projects of at least $500,000 within the past five years from the date the substitution/replacement is requested. This experience must have been in a PM, CM/Superintendent, or QC Manager role." Why is the Government requiring TWO projects as a PM, CM/Superintendent, or QC Manager Role for the PgM when a seasoned PgM may not have personally managed a project while managing and overseeing the POL Program as a Program Manager. This requirement effectively eliminates experienced/seasoned Program Managers from consideration. The requirement should state " . . . PgM, PM, CM/Superintendent or QC Manager role . . .". We noticed that the role of PgM, as the experience for the two projects, is allowed in L&M Section 4.3.2.3. Can we assume that the L&M Section 4.3.2.3 is correct versus SOW 6.2b? | SOW 6.2b | That is correct. The SOW inadvertently left off the PgM role for the two project experiences. SOW 6.2.b.has been changed to include PgM roles. Please see the amended SOW. | |
| 6 | We cross-utilize and cross-train all our field Site Superintendents (SS) and QC Managers (QCM) so that they are equally as qualified to perform the role of SS or QCM depending on the particular project, our labor availability and limited fuels personnel resources. We have experienced field personnel that have been alternating SS and QCM assignments to become experienced and trained as both an SS and QCM. The requirement in the L&M document stating that a person can only be submitted as either a SS or a QCM across all pools is very limiting for highly experienced personnel. We have some individuals that, based on the selection criteria, would not potentially qualify as either an SS or QCM in the five year period because they have been alternating as SS or QCM. The restriction on the SS and QCM alternating positions across pools only exacerbates the already limited pool of fuels qualified SS and QCM personnel. Will the Government possibly allow one or two personnel to be named as both a QCM and SS across pools? Can these personnel but submitted after award to be approved as both a SS and QCM? Please note, we are not suggesting a triple-hat arrangement, just the ability for a field person to be either SS or QCM as needed. | SOW 6.3 | For the evaluation of this MATOC, the experience for field SS and Field QCMs will remain as stated in Sections L&M 4.3.3.4. After award, offerors at the task order level may submit any personnel that meet the requirements of the task Order Solicitation, regardless of how they were submitted at the basic level. | |
| 7 | If the individual in the role of Project Engineer has extensive design, technical and field operational fuels systems knowledge, can this experience be substituted for the formal Bachelor's degree requirement assuming all of the other requirements are met? | SOW Para 32b | While we don't intend to amend this requirement in the SOW, the personnel intended for this labor category will not be evaluated in conjunction with this MATOC award. | |
| 8 | We assume the following statement should not be in this specific paragraph: "The Corporate QC Manager reports all DoD POL quality control-related issues and concerns to the Program Manager.". | SOW Para 6.2d | The statement in SOW 6.2.d was in error and has been corrected to reference safety instead of quality control. | |
| 9 | There was a previous question asked, responded to and included in the current RFP documents, specifically Question 02 (4.3.3.6.2). The Government responded with a specific time frame (FOUR MONTHS) as opposed to a percentage of field time. Is the FOUR MONTHS the TOTAL aggregate amount of field time for the individual or is that per project? Our concern, either way, is that an involved complete scope tank repair project on a single tank or a wetted systems repair scope, both in excess of $500,000, can be routinely executed from start to finish in less than four months and even in less than two months. This requirement could effectively eliminate a valid project for a tank repair or wetted system repair SS or QCM individual. If the FOUR MONTHS is the combined TOTAL field time requirement will the Government accept individual project field time (field start to BOD) of any duration as long as the aggregate exceeds FOUR MONTHS for the individual? | L&M P18-22 | The intent of this requirement was to require the 4 months per project and Sections L&M 4.3.3.5.2, 4.3.3.5.4, 4.3.3.6.2, 4.3.3.6.4, 4.3.3.7.2, & 4.3.3.7.4 have been updated to include the words "per project." | |
| 10 | Concerning the $500,000 project value requirement, is the $500,000 requirement the contract value of the completed project or only the value portion of the acceptable wetted system work described for the General Pool work where certain items of the scope are excluded from experience consideration? | SOW 6.3b | The qualified $500,000 threshold that is restricted to mechanical and electrical work applies only to the corporate experience IAW Sections L&M 4.3.2.2.1(b). The $500,000 requirement for General Pool personnel is per project as defined in the Sections L&M and are not limited to just mechanical and electrical work. | |
| 11 | Concerning the $1,000,000 project value requirement, is the $1,000,000 requirement the contract value of the completed project or only the value portion of the acceptable API 653 Tank Repair work described for the API 653 Tank Repair work where certain items of the scope are excluded from experience consideration? | SOW 6.3c | The qualified $1,000,000 threshold that is restricted to mechanical and electrical work applies only to the corporate experience IAW Sections L&M 4.3.2.2.1(b). The $1,000,000 requirement for API 653 pool personnel is per project as defined in the Sections L&M and are not limited to just mechanical and electrical work. | |
| 12 | Concerning the $1,000,000 project value requirement, is the $1,000,000 requirement the contract value of the completed project or only the value portion of the acceptable Hydrant System Repair work described for the Hydrant System Repair work where certain items of the scope are excluded from experience consideration? | SOW 6.3d | The qualified $1,000,000 threshold that is restricted to mechanical and electrical work applies only to the corporate experience IAW Sections L&M 4.3.2.2.1(b). The $1,000,000 requirement for Hydrant Systems Repair pool personnel is per project as defined in the Sections L&M and are not limited to just mechanical and electrical work. | |
| 13 | If an awardee was only awarded the General Pool and API 653 Pool, can the awarded Prime or JV on-ramp for the Hydrant Pool at a later date? Further, if an awardee was only awarded a General Pool can the Prime or JV on-ramp for one or both of the other pools, API 653 Tank Repair or Hydrant System Repairs? | SOW 27 | Yes, as long as an offeror received an initial award, awardees may "on-ramp from the General DoD POL Pool to a specialized pool... any time the Corporate CO and Corporate PM become aware of a contractor gaining key personnel with the requisite experience for a specialized pool, after verification that the firm meets the key personnel qualification requirements established for the original selection into the specialized pool." (SOW section 27) | |
| 14 | In L&M Para 4.3.3.6.2, the second paragraph states "demonstrate at least one (1) year of full time onsite SSHO experience working on DoD Construction projects (a dual-hatted role as SSHO is acceptable).". Can the ONE YEAR be reduced to FOUR MONTHS as required elsewhere for SS and QCM past performance? If not, is the required ONE YEAR an aggregate amount of time over several projects in the 5 year period from the date of the RFP? | L&M 4.3.3.6.2 | Having reviewed the question, we have decided to keep the one year requirement but believe that the SOW and Sections L&M allow the year to be aggregate over several projects in the 5-year period from the date of RFP. | |
| 15 | L&M Section 4.1.5. The first sentence in the paragraph states "New field-erected and/or cut and cover fuel tank construction pursuant to API 650 . . .", however, the last sentence states "New Construction is not considered Specialized API 653 Tank Repairs." New tank construction from the ground up is NOT considered acceptable past performance for the Specialized API 653 Tank Repair pool, correct? | L&M 4.1.5 | The Sections L&M was confusing and has been revised to make it clear that for evaluation purposes only, new tank construction from the ground up is not considered acceptable. However, for scope purposes, new construction of tanks pursuant to API 650 is included within the API 653 Pool of this MATOC. Section L&M 4.1.5 has been revised to clarify this: "For evaluation purposes, new construction is not considered Specialized API 653 Tank Repairs." | |
| 16 | Minimum qualifications indicate that the past performance experience for either the Wetted System SS or QCM position, the previous experience can be as either a SS or QCM for the SS and QCM under the General Pool for Wetted Systems, is this correct? | L&M 5.3.3.5.2 | This is Correct. | |
| 17 | Are the Key Personnel requirements going to be lowered or flexible? Especially 8(a) and small businesses will have difficulty in currently employing fuels personnel with such extensive experience and qualifications. | No, based on our market research, we have identified many 8(a) offerors that can meet the qualifications as stated. The intent of this source selection is create a pool of experienced and capable DoD Fuels Contractors. This source selection provides for JV offerors to qualify so that 8(a)s can pair with mentors in order to develop these experiences and qualifying personnel. | ||
| 18 | Is it acceptable to provide resumes for key personnel who are providing contingency letters for employment? That is, they are currently not employed by the Contractor; however, they and the Contractor are committing to employment upon award of the contract. | No. Our experience has been that those letters of intent are not as binding as they appear and often are not upheld. We have identified this as a risk to capability and capacity. Therefore, these will not be permitted. | ||
| 19 | Please confirm the due date 20 Dec 2023, 2pm time zone is Central. | Yes, the due date and time for the requirement is in Central Standard Time. It is anticipated that the due date will be extended with the upcoming amendment to 4 January 2024 at 2pm Central time. | ||
| 20 | The SF1442 states a bid validity of 120 calendar days, but the section L&M document states 240 calendar days – which is correct? | That is a mistake. The SF1442 should have stated 240 calendar days. The anticipated award date is approximately July 2024. | ||
| 21 | We request the requirement, 4.3.2.2.1.a Category 1 – Corporate Experience, be restated to say, “a. Demonstrate two (2) general Construction or Repair of DoD POL (or Fuels) Facilities that have a construction or repair value of $1,000,000 or higher per project…” Adding the POL or fuels type designation will give the Govt a better qualified and experienced pool of Prime Contractors to bid on POL/Fuels projects under the POL MATOC. As it is written (without the POL/fuels designation), the requirement is very general and allows for contractors with little to no corporate POL resume to qualify. | 4.3.2.2.1.a Category 1 – Corporate Experience: The minimum requirements for Corporate Experience projects state, “a. Demonstrate two (2) general Construction or Repair of DoD Facilities that have a construction or repair value of $1,000,000 or higher per project…” | Section 4.3.2.2.1. has been revised to clarify that all three projects may be DoD POL Projects so long as they meet the minimum criteria of paragraph (a). | |
| 22 | In the solicitation, the Government has provided the following criteria as the basis of qualification for tank work: “Value of Project’s [or “Phase”, if applicable] Electrical and Mechanical Work: [Only applicable for DOD POL Wetted System Repair Project - Must be at least $500K in Electrical and/or Mechanical work]”. Aviation fuel work is substantially mechanical and electrical in nature, but much of it falls under Division 33 specifications which would be Utilities. For the purposes of this solicitation, can the Government please clarify that they intended to include fuels-specific work that falls under Division 33 under its definition of “Mechanical Work”? | Corporate Experience Forms | Yes, it is the Government's intention to include in our evaluation any fuels-specific work that falls within Division 33 as Mechanical work. | |
| 23 | The Government has limited the applicable experience to new construction or repairs on at least 3 of 8 very specific elements of a Type III, IV, or V hydrant systems. From experience with AFCEC’s IDIQ contract vehicles, solicitations that included at least 3 of these 8 elements in its scope have been rare in the last several years. The closest ones would have been NATO projects in Europe and Asia which tend to differ considerably from system approaches demonstrated in the Type III, IV, or V system standards. Further, all of these projects were awarded on the basis of lowest cost which doesn’t account for a firm’s field capabilities. As such, we anticipate very few contractors with repair as their primary business line will have the corporate resume to be able to reach this 3-element threshold. Can the threshold be modified to account for projects with at least 2 of the 8 elements and/or a series of projects that meet the overall threshold of 3 elements to qualify for a hydrant system repair project? | 4.1.6., "Specialized Hydrant System Repairs" | The Government believes that the requirement as written is sufficient to establish firms that have hydrant capabilities. | |
| 24 | Can the Offeror alter the forms L-03 - L-15 with header and footer or are the forms to be unaltered? | Forms L-03 - L-15 | The header and footer may be altered to include company logo, letterhead, proprietary statements, or similar information. Do not include any of the required information from sections L&M in header and footer. | |
| 25 | Can the government provide a sample SB subcontracting plan for reference? | Yes, Please see the SB Subcontracting Plan Template as attachment 19 to Sections L&M (Attachment L-19) | ||
| 26 | Can the government provide a sample SB participation plan for reference? | No, The solicitation does not require a SB participation plan and therefore, no SB participation plan template is provided. Do not submit a SB participation plan. | ||
| 27 | Under 4.1.6., "Specialized Hydrant System Repairs", the Government has limited the applicable experience to new construction or repairs on at least 3 of 8 very specific elements of a Type III, IV, or V hydrant systems, while excluding other portions of the system constructed with the hydrant system. There are a select few contractors whose corporate resumes will allow them to meet these requirements. Several otherwise-qualified firms that have fabrication shops routinely producing X-ray quality welds on complex severe-cyclic process and power piping, as well as personnel on staff with experience constructing and maintaining DoD and commercial hydrant fuel systems, will be unable to qualify. Can the Government modify the qualification language to allow for demonstration of experience on equivalent commercial aviation fuel systems? | 4.1.6., "Specialized Hydrant System Repairs" | The Government believes that the requirement as written is sufficient to establish firms that have DoD hydrant capabilities. | |
| 28 | Our Corporate Fuels QC Manager often preforms duties as Onsite Quality Control Manager (QCM). Can he also qualify as a Onsite Quality Control Manager (QCM) for a Pool? | 4.3.2.8. Section M and 4.3.3.2. FOR EACH DESIRED POOL | No, the Corporate QCM shall be different than the field QCM. | |
| 29 | As mentioned in the previous Q/A the Specialized Hydrant Repairs are very limited. Can the two projects be within/during the career experience instead of being completed within the past 10 years from the date the RFP was issued? | Sections L and M, 4.3.3.7. Specialized Hydrant System Repair Pool and 4.3.3.7.2. Minimum Qualifications and 4.3.3.7.4. Minimum Qualifications | No, we have already evaluated an extension resulting in the change from 5 years to 10 years. No additional extension will be provided for the timing of these projects. | |
| 30 | Paragraph states that a modified API 653 Inspection can be included. Can a cut and cover concrete UST that was awarded as a modified API 653 Repair that included incidental welding with mainly concrete repairs with extensive coating repairs be used for experience? | Sections L and M, 4.1.5. SPECIALIZED API 653 TANK REPAIRS | The offerors shall provide projects that meet the definition in Sections L&M 4.1.5. | |
| 31 | Section L; Offer shall provide experience for 2 construction and 1 wetted DoD POL System; Section M states that at least 1 project must be a Wetted DoD POL This statement is in conflict with general POL requirements. Can we submit all 3 writeups with wetted systems, along with other components? | 4.3.2.2.1. Section L: | Section 4.3.2.2.1. has been revised to clarify that all three projects may be DoD Wetted Repair Projects. | |
| 32 | Question, is there a preferred type of DoD POL construction project? (i.e. wetted, 653, hydrant)? | 4.3.2.2.1. Section L: | No, There is no preferred type of project so long as it meets the definition for DoD POL Wetted System Repairs. | |
| 33 | Last sentence in para states, "Roles as a Project Manager, Superintendent, or any other position will not be considered". Please consider on site experience as a site manager or QC manager to qualify for either position as on other DOD contracts such as have a minimum of () years construction experience (within the last () years) as a Construction CQC or Superintendent with a minimum of 2 of those () years, as a Construction CQC, in construction of the work. As the qualifications read now experience as a SM can not be used for QCM and vice Versa. | 6.3, a, 3) Onsite Quality Control Manager (QCM) | The Government believes the requirement as written provides sufficient distinguishing criteria for award. | |
| 34 | We have Sole Source Contracting Authority beyond the standard size 8a firm. Please confirm we do not include our congressional authorization award limitations, or largest sole source contract awarded to date. | Attachment L-03 Contractor Data Sheet | The Contractor Date Sheet has been modified to require offerors to identify all SBA certified socioeconomic categories that a firm is registered under. It is not required for an offeror to include congressional authorizations or largest sole source awards. An Offeror may clarify which type of 8(a) they are classified as. | |
| 35 | DFARs 252.204-7019/7020 Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements is listed by references. Are we to infer that the other related clauses are not included as a result of this code. 252.204-7021, 7022, and 7023. | This is great reminder for all offerors to complete their NIST SP 800-171 assessment in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) in PIEE. DFARS 252.204-7021, 7022, and 7023 do not apply to this requirement and will not be included in the IDIQ contract. | ||
| 36 | Since DFAR 252.204-7019 was listed, is it the Contracting Officer's intent to distribute CUI information to critical fuels subcontractors or vendors who might not yet be qualified under SPRS to receive CUI data? | While we don't expect this to be an issue, any future CUI concerns will be addressed at the task order level. | ||
| 37 | Would AFCEC consider the addition of FAR 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material. | No, this is not a labor and material contract. | ||
| 38 | Does 52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Requirement-Construction Materials under Trade Agreements… Please confirm this Clause is listed for CONUS and Territory work only. | Confirmed. The clauses at FAR 52.225-12, Buy-American Construction Materials under Trade Agreements and FAR 52.225-12, Notice of Buy-American Requirement Construction Materials under Trade Agreements apply to construction that is performed in the United States and US territories only. However, upon further research, it was discovered that DFARS 252.225-7044 and 252.225-7045 should have been included and will be added to the upcoming amendment. | ||
| 39 | AFCEC has identified "Scheduler" as a critical employee and has requested labor rates on this employee. Please confirm we do not need to include our Scheduler's Resume related to Fuels Work for consideration. | The Government confirms that there is no requirement to include a resume for the scheduler or for any other labor category listed in SOW Section 32 "Additional Labor Category Descriptions." It should be noted that the description of these labor categories in the SOW is "additional" not "critical." | ||
| 40 | Likewise, AFCEC has identified our Contracts Manager, and Project Engineer as critical personnel. Please confirm we do not include resumes for these personnel. | The Government confirms that there is no requirement to include a resume for the Contracts Manager, and Project Engineer, or for any other labor category listed in SOW Section 32 "Additional Labor Category Descriptions" | ||
| 41 | Pool 4: 8(a) Pool: indicates that projects may be awarded that are not "Fully Defined" which would imply a degree of Engineering or Design Build Requirements. Please confirm we no not need to include our DB or Design Partners experience. | The vast majority of the Fuels MATOC pools and task orders will not provide for or require design. For that reason, any of the task orders that do require design will provide for that evaluation at the task order level. Do not include Design partners as part of the resulting proposal. | ||
| 42 | Does AFCEC anticipate PFOS or PFOA removal under this contract; if so please confirm if we need to include our PFOS/PFOA qualifications? | It is not the intent to utilize this contract for task orders that exclusively remove PFOS/PFOA. However, there may be cases where INCIDENTAL PFOS/PFOA removal is required. As such, qualifications for this requirement are not required to be included in proposals. | ||
| 43 | Please confirm the time of proposal submittal - the Solicitation document and Section L & M show conflicting times. | Section L & M | The time in Sections L&M 3.2 specifically refers to the Contractor Data sheet and not the proposal as a whole. The intent of having this sheet submitted one hour earlier than the deadline of 2pm Central time is to potentially identify any offeror having issues with PIEE prior to the deadline so that troubleshooting may occur. The official time associated with the due date for proposal submission is 2pm as listed in the SF1442 and Sam gov listing. | |
| 44 | Please confirm the preferred naming of each Volume. There is conflicting information listed in Section L & M on pg. 4, pg. 7, and pg. 9. | Section L & M | Sections L&M have been revised to provide consistent naming for Volumes 1 & 2. Volume 1 is titled Offeror Information and Volume 2 is titled Technical Capabilities. | |
| 45 | Is it acceptable to alter and company brand the RFP Attachment forms for proposal submittal, as long as all required information is still presented within the page limitations? | Yes, The header and footer may be altered to include company logo, letterhead, proprietary statements, or similar information. Do not include any of the required information from sections L&M in header and footer. | ||
| 46 | Para states, "Offeror shall provide at least TWO qualified Site Superintendents/SSHO and TWO qualified Onsite Quality Control Managers (QCM)" Since this statement is included in the "for each desired pool" para. Please confirm we only need to submit 6 personnel (which could be the same) instead of 12 personnel. | 4.3.3.2. FOR EACH DESIRED POOL | In order to qualify for all 3 technical pools, an offeror must submit a minimum of 4 qualified field personnel (in addition to the 4 corporate personnel). The field personnel will require separate resumes for at least the API 653 Pool and the Hydrant Repair Pool because the submission requirements are different for each pool. Those offerors who successfully qualify for either the API 653 or Hydrant Pools will automatically be included in the general pool at time of award. For clarity, 8 field personnel resumes/narratives would be required to qualify in all technical pools. An offeror is permitted to submit all 12 resumes as a form of risk mitigation to ensure they qualify in at least one pool. | |
| 47 | Will the Government consider a 4 week extension on the proposal due date because of the holidays/vacation schedules? | Form 1442, Sec. 13a | Due to the delay in posting the Q&A and amendment, the Government anticipates providing an extension to 4 January 2023 at 2pm. | |
| 48 | Section M 4.3.2.2.1(a) states "Demonstrate two (2) general Construction or Repair of DoD Facilities that have a construction or repair value of $1,000,000 or higher per project completed within five (5) years from the date this RFP was issued." Please clarify if DoD POL Wetted System Repair projects are considered "Repair of DoD Facilities" referenced in this section. | Section M, Sec. 4.3.2.2.1(a) | Section 4.3.2.2.1. has been revised to clarify that all three projects may be DoD Wetted Repair Projects. | |
| 49 | SOW shows that the only disadvantaged business with a separate pool is 8(a). Why are other disadvantaged business not in a separate pool? By placing other disadvantaged business in the small business pool, they would only be allowed to bid on projects over $2 million. 8(a) contractors are already eligible for sole source work. all small disadvantaged businesses should be in a separate pool. | SOW para 5.a.iv and SOW para 31.c.2 | Market Research conducted between 2019 and 2022 supported a competitive 8(a) set aside due to number of interested offerors. No other socioeconomic category demonstrated sufficient interest so as to be considered for inclusion in a separate set aside threshold. | |
| 50 | This paragraph states that Small Business must have $10M minimum single bonding capacity and $25M aggregate bonding capacity projects for small business set asides are $2 - $5 million. Furthermore, experience for past performance is $1 million projects and $500k projects. Small businesses that can meet the past performance but have lower bonding limits are excluded form this solicitation. Why is the single and aggregate bonding 10 times higher than required for past performance? As noted, this unfairly eliminates disadvantage small contractors that otherwise can meet the past performance requirements. | Section M para 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.2.2.1. Section L subpara a and b | The set-aside thresholds on this MATOC do not prevent small business and 8(a) offerors from proposing on larger projects and winning those requirement. The bonding limitation ensures that small business offerors have the capacity to compete on the vast majority of all task orders under this MATOC; even above the SB set-aside threshold. Additionally, the $1M and $500K thresholds mentioned in your question are only for portions of a task order related to the technical expertise required. The total bondable dollar value of these projects when including the other types of repair will exceed the $1M or $500K thresholds. | |
| 51 | Per Attachment L-16 we are to provide unit labor rates for our personnel. Please define what specifically needs to be included in those labor rates versus what will be independently calculated and paid for at the task order level. We understand that the base pay and standard fringe benefits are to be included here. However, should we also include in these hourly labor rates the following: Employee per diems, company vehicle and associated fuel and maintenance, employee cell phone, employee computer, employee travel expenses to relocate to the jobsite, periodic expenses for travel home, etc.? Are there any other expenses we should include that are not identified here? | Attachment L-16 | (1) Per Sections L &M Para 5.1b “The fully burdened labor rate shall include base labor rate plus any overheads or burdens properly associated with labor in accordance with the offeror’s Disclosure Statement.” (2) Per Section L Para 5.1d “Any expense that should be directly applied to a specific task order shall not be included in Attachment L-16 Pricing and Labor Rates Worksheet.” Employee per diems, rental vehicles, travel expenses, etc are considered expenses that directly apply to a specific task order unless specifically called out in an offeror's disclosure agreement as fringe benefits or as customarily included in an overhead. | |
| 52 | Is the contractor expected to fill in the CLIN Schedule per Section B on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Solicitation or is Attachment L-16 the only document to be priced in response to this RFP? | Section B of Solicitation | The contractor is not required to fill in Section B CLIN pricing. Only Attachment L-16 shall contain pricing. | |
| 53 | Can the page limit for Attachment L-05 Corporate Experience be increased from 1(one) to 2(two). One(1) page does not provide us with enough space to demonstrate our past performance experience as required by the RFP. | Attachment L-05 | The RFP is written that each project is allotted 1 page. The government feels this is sufficient space for the level of detail required for evaluation. | |
| 54 | Will the Government please consider allowing corporate experience projects that were contracted through DOD (USACE) for USCG and other clients that were constructed and installed utilizing API 653, API 650, UFC, UFGS, and AW standards? | SECTIONS L & M: 4.1.3. DOD POL FACILITIES | The Government has reviewed the question but believes that the requirements for DoD specific locations are unique enough to warrant this restriction. No Change. | |
| 55 | It is our understanding that the 30-Hour OSHA Construction Safety Course is a lifetime certification and does not need to be renewed. Will the Government please consider removing the requirement that the completion date of the 30-Hour OSHA Construction Safety Course must be within 5 years of this RFP? | SECTIONS L & M: QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL | AFCEC has an established a requirement for the OSHA training to be completed every 5 years and intends to enforce this throughout the administration of this contract. For that reason, this requirement will remain unchanged. | |
| 56 | In order to adequately demonstrate the years of experience for key personnel required by the RFP, will the Government please consider extending the project execution window on resumes to 10 years? | SECTIONS L & M: QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL | The Government believes the requirement as written provides sufficient distinguishing criteria for award. | |
| 57 | Due to the 4-day Thanksgiving Holiday weekend we respectfully request that this question deadline be extended from 9:00AM PT on 11/27 (the Monday after Thanksgiving) until the week following (the week of December 4). This will give contractors a better chance to examine the documents and ask relevant questions. | This question was answered early and resulted in an extended period for the Q&A submission deadline to 30 Nov 2023 at 11:00am Central time. | ||
| 58 | Are the RFP documents or any portion of them to be considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) requiring protection per typical CUI restrictions? How will this information be handled on future task orders? | The RFP documents as posted to Sam.gov are not protected as CUI. The resulting proposals and filled out attachments will be "CUI: Source Selection Information." These are strictly controlled by the PCO with limited distribution for evaluation purposes. Currently, the data provided at the task order level is not indicated as CUI. If this changes, the CUI markings will provide a distribution authority and POC for more information. | ||
| 59 | For proprietary products on future task orders, will contractors be provided with a list of the items that are required from a proprietary manufacturer or specific model on each project? If there are any, please provide the Justification and Approval documentation and identify three viable manufacturers for each of the identified proprietary items for the contractors to contact to receive competitive quotations. | This question and resulting answer apply only at the task order level. Therefore, it will not be answered at this time. | ||
| 60 | Based on the response to numerous RFI’s (25, 27, 46, 49, 82, 92, 96 etc.), our understanding is that contractors’ experience for the Specialized Hydrant System Repairs (Hydrant Pool) must be completed within 10 years of the date of issuance of this RFP. If we choose to only submit for the Hydrant Pool, we are assuming that all three projects we submit for corporate experience (form L-05) are acceptable if they have been completed within 10 years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Please confirm that this is correct. | The change from 5 years to 10 years for Hydrant Pool Projects was only provided in the Sections L&M dedicated for Field Personnel evaluation criteria. All projects submitted for corporate experience shall be within 5 years from the date of RFP. | ||
| 61 | For contractors only interested in the Specialized Hydrant System Repair Pool, Section M, Page 21-22, Paragraph 4.3.3.7 states the Minimum Qualifications for Site Superintendent/SSHO and Onsite QCM for the Specialized Hydrant System Repair Pool. It states: “The projects must have been completed within the past ten (10) years from the date the RFP was issued” (reference responses to RFI’s # 14, 44, 50, 65, and 95). Can you confirm that for all key positions required under the Hydrant System Repairs Pool, specifically including the Program Manager and Project Manager, we can acceptably show hydrant repair project experience that was completed within 10 years of the date of issuance of this RFP? | No. The PROJECT submission requirements for the Program Manager and Project Manager remain the same regardless of Pool. As per Section L&M 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.2.6, projects must have been completed within the past five (5) years from the date the RFP was issued for the Program Manager and Project Manager. | ||
| 62 | For most DOD MILCON projects, the Site Superintendent and the SSHO are required to be separate positions. The requirement that the Site Superintendent needs 5 years of experience as a Site Superintendent as well as 1 year of full-time experience as an SSHO effectively eliminates many skilled fuel system Site Superintendents from consideration, as Site Superintendent and SSHO are generally separate career paths. However, many Site Superintendents on DOD projects are also officially designated as the “Alternate SSHO” and are trained to take over the SSHO role as needed, which is common to cover absences and vacation breaks. In light of this, we request that the Site Superintendent be required to complete the 30-Hour OSHA Construction Safety Course and have served for one year as either an onsite SSHO or onsite Alternate SSHO. | Yes. Sections L&M have been revised to allow "designated alternate SSHO" experience. | ||
| 63 | Attachment L-05 has a page requirement of 1 page per project. Based on the amount of project detail being requested on this form, along with the 11-point font requirement, we respectfully request that the page limit be extended to 2 pages for each of the three corporate experience projects required. | The Government has reviewed the question but believes there is sufficient page space to provided the required information as written in Sections L&M. | ||
| 64 | SSHO must have OSHA 30 course completed within the last 5 years of the RFP. OSHA 30 cards do not expire. Is it acceptable to have individuals who's cards are older than 5 years, but have continued safety education as required by the EM 385 1-1? | Section M, Pages 18-19, Paragraph 4.3.3.5.2 | AFCEC has an established requirement for the OSHA training to be completed every 5 years and intends to enforce this throughout the administration of this contract. For that reason, this requirement will remain unchanged. | |
| 65 | Based on the Program Manager, Project Manager, Site Superintendent/SSHO and QC Manager Resume formats provided, will you consider adding an additional page for each of these as each resume is requiring two project profiles in addition to all the other requirements. | Attachment L-06 Attachment L-07 Attachment L-10 Attachment L-11 Attachment L-12 Attachment L-13 Attachment L-14 Attachment L-15 | The Government has reviewed the question and agrees that these resumes/narratives require additional space to capture the personal information and the 2 projects. Therefore, Sections L&M and the attachments will change for these positions to allow 3 pages per narrative/ resume. | |
| 66 | Resume format table is outside of the required 1" margins. Do we need to adjust to fit within the 1" requirement? If so, additional pages will be needed to fit everything that is required. | Attachment L-06 Attachment L-07 Attachment L-10 Attachment L-11 Attachment L-12 Attachment L-13 Attachment L-14 Attachment L-15 | The 1" margin requirement does not apply to the tables in Section L Attachments. Sections L&M 2.3.6(d) has been amended to read, "Offerors shall use the margins and font sizes established in Section L Attachments." Additionally, the page counts for program manager, project manager, Site Superintendant and On-Site QCM have been changed from 2-pages to 3-pages. | |
| 67 | Regarding Contract Clause 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards, 1(b), we feel we are exempt from the Cost Accounting Disclosure Statement requirement due to being a Small Business. This exemption is found in FAR 9903.201-1 CAS applicability paragraph (b)(3). Is our understanding correct? | Page 59 of Solicitation | This Answer is TBD | |
| 68 | Per 13 CFR 121.103 (b) Exceptions to affiliation coverage, and interpreting case law, entities such as Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, Alaska Native Corporations, and Community Development Corporations may utilize common management across entities, including transfer and use of key personnel across entities as part of the common management of its concerns without being deemed an affiliated structure. Accordingly, those entities share elements of both “Affiliated Structures” and “Conglomerate Structures” as defined in Section 2.1.5.a. Thus, committing to one definition of “Affiliated Structure” or “Conglomerate Structure” is not feasible. In such cases, should the entities include a narrative in Attachment L-03, Contractor Data Sheet, to accurately describe the relationship? Suggested revision to L and M, Section 2.1.5.b.: “Entities of a Conglomerate Structure: Multiple entities of a conglomerate structure may submit individual proposals. Only one proposal may be submitted per entity under a conglomerate business arrangement, provided that the parent or holding company does not also submit a proposal – further, individual conglomerate entities may not submit key personnel from another entity of that conglomerate, excluding the statutorily defined exceptions to affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103 (b) Exceptions to affiliation coverage. Personnel from the Parent or Holding Company are permitted, provided that the same personnel from the Parent or Holding company are not duplicated across multiple entity proposals.” | L and M, Section 2.1.5.a. and Section 2.1.5.b | This Answer is TBD | |
| 69 | Use of Teaming Partners does not allow the use of teaming partner project experience unless the offeror is a formal JV and the experience is from the JV itself or one of its entities. The GAO has found solicitations that restrict the ability of an offeror to provide the experience and past performance of its subsidiaries, even for proposals that demonstrate that subsidiaries will participate meaningfully in contract performance, to be unduly restrictive of competition. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Government amend the solicitation to permit offerors to submit information related to parent companies and subsidiaries in support of experience and past performance requirements. | L and M, Section 2.1.4.1 | This Answer is TBD | |
| 70 | The GAO has found solicitations that restrict the ability of an offeror to provide the experience and past performance of its subsidiaries, even for proposals that demonstrate that subsidiaries will participate meaningfully in contract performance, to be unduly restrictive of competition. Accordingly, we respectfully suggest the following revision to L and M, Section 2.1.5.c.: Offerors are ONLY permitted to submit experience and/or key personnel qualifications from a sister, parent, or subsidiary company IF the Offeror’s business status is that of an affiliated company or a company excepted from affiliation pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103 (b) Exceptions to affiliation coverage. | L and M, Section 2.1.5.c. | This Answer is TBD | |
| 71 | Clarify the term "DoD Facilities" is the same as defined in Section 4.1.3. for "DoD POL Facilities". | L and M, Section 4.3.2.2.1.a. | No, the term DoD Facilities is not the same as DoD POL Facilities. For these projects, we are allowing non-POL related projects. Please see the revised language in Section 4.3.2.2.1. | |
| 72 | If a member of a joint venture has past performance under affiliated companies, are those projects eligible to be evaluated under the joint venture? | L and M, Section 2.1.4.2. | This Answer is TBD | |
| 73 | Does a Joint Venture have to be in place on the proposal due date or at award? | A Joint Venture would need to be recognized by the SBA as in good standing at time of award in order to receive a contract. | ||
| 74 | How many contractors do you expect to award to? | Based on our market research prior to solicitation, it is possible that we could award between 20 to 25 contracts under this MATOC. All technically acceptable offerors that provide fair and reasonable rates will receive an award. | ||
| 75 | Will the Government consider personnel that provide a letter of intent to join the company upon award? | No, all personnel provided in the proposal need to be directly employed by the offeror at time of proposal. | ||
| 76 | How stringent is the selection criteria? | The selection criteria was developed to minimize risk of failed or poor performance during task orders. All offerors that can meet the minimum criteria established to mitigate this risk will receive an award provided they propose fair and reasonable price, inclusive of fair and reasonable rates. | ||
| 77 | For all Corporate Key Personnel, will the Government please allow ongoing projects to be considered as part of their experience? Ongoing projects can account for years of experience based on their long durations (particularly larger projects). | Section 4.3.2.3-4.3.2.10 Corporate Key Personnel Requirements | No. In accordance with Sections L&M 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 for the definitions of "Completed Project" and "Project", projects with multiple phases of completion that have separate and distinct Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) can identify each phase to be a project. | |
| 78 | For all Corporate Key Personnel, will the Government please consider extending the two DoD POL Wetted System Repairs projects to be completed within the past 10 years? Due to the multi-year duration of many projects as well as ongoing projects, it is very difficult to demonstrate two completed projects in a five year window. | Section 4.3.2.3-4.3.2.10 Corporate Key Personnel Requirements | No. The Government believes the requirement as written provides sufficient distinguishing criteria for award. | |
| 79 | For all Key Field Personnel, will the Government please allow ongoing projects to be considered as part of their experience as long as the personnel have been in the field for a minimum of 4 months on that project? Ongoing projects can account for years of experience based on their long durations (particulary larger projects). | 4.3.3 Technical Factor 3 - Quaifications for Key Field Personnel | No. The Government believes the requirement as written provides sufficient distinguishing criteria for award. | |
| 80 | For all Key Field Personnel for the APl 653 Tank Pool, will the Government please consider allowing projects to be completed within the past 10 years? Due to the multi-year duration of many tank projects as well as the limited number of tank projects awarded in any given year, it is very difficult to demonstrate two completed projects in a five year window. Similar to the Hydrant System Pool, we respectfully suggest allowing demonstrating five years experience with a minimum of two API 653 Tank projects completed within the past 10 years. | 4.3.3.6 Specialized API 653 Tank Repair Pool Key Field Personnel | No. The Government believes the requirement as written provides sufficient distinguishing criteria for award. | |
| 81 | Request clarification on the following reference: "Most resultant need for repairs will be accomplished as a “DoD POL System repair” (construction requirement); however, incidental minor repair may be performed up to [insert % threshold – NTE 75% of original task order award?]." It appears the Government may have omitted text in this section addressing maintenance activities. | SOW 2.2 | SOW 2.2 has been revised to say: "…incidental minor repair may be performed up to 50% of the original task order award." | |
| 82 | SOW states "Each TO solicitation will identify the evaluation factors and the relative order of importance. The basis of award may be Price-only, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), Trade-off, or other evaluation method deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer." Request the Government list the factors that will be considered when determining the basis of award type. | SOW 31.d.3 | A list of potential factors is already provided in SOW 31.d.3.i. A-G. The Government reserves the right of flexibility to determine which of these factors will be used at the task order level based on complexity and risk of the individual requirements. The majority of competed task orders will be price only. Specific factors will be identified in the task order solicitation/ FOPR. | |
| 83 | Standard Form 1442 states that an original and 1 copy is required; however, Sections L & M state the proposal is to be submitted via PIEE. Please clarify. | SF1442 and Sections L & M | A future amendment will state that only the original and 0 copies are required. No paper copy is required or requested. Please only submit 1 original proposal through the PIEE website. | |
| 84 | Please specify which Volume the signed SF1442, Section B (Supplied or Services & Prices or Costs), and any amendments should be provided. | SF1442 and Section B | The SF1442 shall be included in volume 1 and the Sections L&M 2.2 has been revised to state this. | |
| 85 | Attach 12 - Site Superintendent: The form states at the bottom - *Instructive language shown in [italics]. Offerors must delete or modify instructive language. Two (2) Site Superintendent/SSHO personnel are required for evaluation. Ensure two (2) projects are submitted. Do not submit more than two (2) pages total for Site Superintendent/SSHO. Question: Are the 2 resumes required limited to 2 pages for EACH SS or 1 page for EACH SS to equal 2 pages? | Attach L-12 | Refer to Sections L&M 2.2 for page limitations. Each Superintendent is allowed 2 pages for each pool. Each QCM is allowed 2 pages for each pool. | |
| 86 | The entirety of the project descriptions and resumes are being provided in a table format. Will the government allow 10 point for all resumes and project descriptions? | Section L, 2.3.6(c) | In Accordance with Sections L&M 2.3.6(c), tables and charts may use fonts sizes as small as 8 point. Therefore, 10 point font is allowed for the tables and charts in Resumes. Project Descriptions shall be 11 point. |
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 .