Questions_and_Answers_to_draft_RFP.pdf

Responses to Questions on Draft Request for Proposal Solicitation No. FA9101-16-R-0100, Facilities Acquisition for Restoration and Modernization (FARM)

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response RFP Letter - The letter states “During the contract period, the Government will identify design-build and/or construction tasks required to complete specific projects and the Contracting Officer (CO) will negotiate and issue individual task orders to the contractor to perform the projects.” After the award of the Seed Projects (1 to each awardee), will future task orders be competed or negotiated with individual contract awardees?

As stated in Paragraph 21.b. of Attachment 2, Special Contract Requirements, individual task orders will be competed among all contract awardees, unless one of the circumstances described in 21.b(3)(a) apply.

L-2.2 - It appears that Parts 1 and 2 are to be submitted in separate 3-ring binders. The use of the term Part, therefore, appears to equate with Volume. For clarity, please consider using the more common term of Volumes 1 and 2.

The Air Force template for Performance-Price Tradeoff procedures uses "Part" in lieu of "Volume." Since this wording may be confusing to potential offerors, we will use "Volume."

L-3.2.1 - The desired organization of the Price proposal specified in L-3.2.1 appears to equate with the way the binder should be tabbed. It lists the Seed Project Pricing Sheet, Price Proposal, Solicitation/1442, and Reps & Certs. It is unclear what would go in the Price Proposal section, since the only pricing required appears to be the Seed Project Price sheet (Attachment L-8).

Sections L and M have been modified to clarify that Attachment L-8, Seed Project Pricing Sheet, Solicitation / Standard Form 1442, and Reps and Certs are the only documents required for the Price Proposal Volume.

L-3.1.2.2.3 - It is unclear what the government is looking for by the words “provide resources to accommodate.”

Section 2.3 of the statement of work (SOW) states, "An outage represents a specified period of time that an asset or assets will be unavailable for operations. The outage process gives visibility to activities that impact AEDC operations." There will be task orders which require work to be performed which cannot be done while operations are ongoing, so to minimize impact to operations, AEDC will want these outages to be short in duration. Due to this requirement, there may be a significant increase in manpower and equipment requirements for a few days or weeks. Offerors should describe how they plan to accommodate short duration outages with regard to resources to include personnel, equipment, and materials.

L-3.1.3.1.4 - Please confirm that the cost estimate for the Sample Project is to be included in the Technical Proposal, and not the Price Volume.

Correct, the cost estimate for the Sample Project should be included in the Technical Proposal Volume. The Sample Project will not be evaluated in the Price Proposal Volume. L-3.1.3.5 has been revised for clarity.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response L-3.2.2.2 and M-2.3.1.1. - Regarding the Seed projects, please confirm that Offerors only have to provide a price, and that no technical write-up is required. If so, please clarify how the seed projects will be evaluated in order to determine whether they “reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.” Should a cost narrative be required?

A cost narrative is not required. Offerors should complete Attachment L- 8, Seed Project Pricing Sheet. Section M-2.3.1.1. and L-3.2.2.2. have been revised for clarity.

M-2.3.1.3 - What is meant by “all necessary data,” as it appears that only Attachment L-8 is required?

We agree that this verbiage is unclear; we only require a price for each seed project for Attachment L-8 to be complete. M-2.3.1.3 has been revised for clarity.

L-3.1.2.6 - Please provide guidance on the desired Small Business goals for this solicitation.

As stated in paragraph L-3.1.2.6.1, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. This FAR clause provides the description of the plan but does not identify specific goals. Please refer to the Bullet Background Paper on Small Business Subcontracting Plans in the FARM Competition Library (www.arnold.af.mil/farmlibrary/smallbusiness.asp) for additional guidance. The FY 2015 recommended subcontracting goals are: Small Business, 36.0%; HUBZone Small Business, 3.0%; Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, 3.0%; Small Disadvantaged Business, 5.0%; and Women-Owned Small Business, 5.0%.

M - How will the Small Business Plan be evaluated? As stated in paragraph M-2.2.1.1.6, an acceptable subcontracting plan shall demonstrate the extent to which the Offeror identifies the participation of small businesses and historically black or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

L-3.3.3.3 and M-2.4.1 - Given the specialized nature of the SOW, please extend the recency definition for completed projects from 5 to 8 years.

The recency period has been extended to 10 years, thus enabling bidders to better demonstrate specialized experience.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response L-3.3.1 - The following is our interpretation of the structure of the Past Performance Part:

The Past Performance References refers to Attachment L-1 PPI Tool output.

The PPI Submission refers to the PPQ forms – Do we insert copies here?

Relevant and Recency Determination – We provide a narrative on our projects here. Please confirm if this is correct.

Para L-3.3.3.2, PPI Submission, states: "Offerors shall provide hard copies of the pages generated from this tool as part of their Past Performance Volume." The tool referenced in this sentence is the PPI tool, Atch L-1. You will provide the narrative for your projects in the tool. Also as stated in this paragraph, "Offerors shall send PPQs on each identified contract to the points of contact for that contract."

Those points of contact will send the PPQs to the FARM Contracting Officer not later than 15 March 2016 or as required in the RFP.

L-3.3.3.1 and L-3.3.3.2 - We note the requirement for both a List of Past Performance References (L-3.3.3.1) and a List of Questionnaire Recipients including POCs and phone numbers (L-3.3.2). Are these intended to be separate lists? Confusion may arise from the use of the term “reference,” which may mean the contract experience referenced for past performance or the client contact used as a reference for the PPQs.

Yes, these are separate lists. The List of Submitted References (L- 3.3.3.1) should list the past performance efforts you would like to provide as relevant contract experience for this RFP. The List of Questionnaire Recipients (also from L-3.3.3.1) should list all of the POCs and contact information for the past performance efforts provided in the List of Submitted References. The summary (L-3.3.2) is an opportunity for the offerors to describe the roles and responsibilities of their team members (prime, subcontractors, and/or JV partners).

L.3.3.3.2 - Please confirm that the entire Past Performance Part to be provided directly to the FARM Contracting officer in advance of the proposal due date.

Correct, the Past Performance Volume is due to the FARM Contracting Officer by 1 March 2016 or as required in the RFP. The rest of the proposals are due 15 March 2016 or as required in the RFP.

L.3.3.3.2 and PPQ Cover Letter - The due date for clients’ return of the PPQs to the FARM Contracting Officer differs in Section L and in the PPQ cover letter.

The due date for clients' return of the PPQs is 15 March 2016 or as required in the RFP. Section L has been corrected.

L-3.3.3.2 - Please allow Offerors to provide CCASS/CPAR evaluations and previously completed USACE/NAVFAC PPQ forms, if available, in lieu of soliciting new PPQs from clients.

The FARM Past Performance Team will be using all available and applicable Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations within the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database. We are using a tailored PPQ form to ensure we are obtaining information pertinent to this solicitation.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response L-3.3.3.3 - Please clarify the language of the last sentence regarding Relevance to the Management Subfactors

All information should be pertinent to the Management Subfactor and capabilities described in Section 1, paragraph 1.2 of the SOW, within the two PPI Tool fields of "Contract Information" and "Program Details". L-3.3.3.3. has been revised for clarity.

L-3.3.3.4 and Attachment L-6 - What is the intent of the Management Subfactor section of the Relevancy Matrix?

Presumably, all elements now listed will be applicable for all contracts submitted.

The relevancy assessment is made for the design-build capabilities described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the statement of work (SOW), as well as the Management Subfactor. While all elements may be applicable for all references submitted, the Relevancy Matrix should cover all criteria used in the relevancy assessment. Additionally, the Management Subfactor elements should only be applicable to a reference if the work on that effort was similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

L-2.0(d) - Is completion of Block 17 of the SF 1442 sufficient as a “clear statement” of the proposal validity period?

Yes, completion of Block 17 of the SF 1442 is sufficient acceptance of the proposal validity period.

Amendments - Please consider identifying changed text in amendments using tracked changes or highlighted text for ease of comparison.

For the Final RFP release, we will not utilize change bars due to the amount of potential changes between the Draft and Final RFP. For any future amendments to the Final RFP, the documents will be released with a change bar or change table.

Cover Letter- Due to the significant proposal effort required, will AEDC consider making the contract a two year base with three-one year options in lieu of a one year base with four-one year options?

The acquisition strategy was approved for one base year and four 1-year option periods.

General - Is this contract a re-compete contract? If so, who are the incumbents and what was the dollar value spent on the contract?

No, this contract is not a re-competed effort.

General - The Draft RFP is in a protected PDF format that cannot be easily copied from. In order for offerors to develop a compliance matrix’s for the proposal, can AEDC please release the final RFP in a workable PDF format.

We will provide the documents in a workable PDF format.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response L-2.2.1.3- Page Size and Format- Please verify that foldout pages (11X17) count as a single page, as long as they are only be used for large tables, charts, drawings, graphs, diagrams, and schematics not for pages of text.

As stated in Para L-2.2.1.3, "Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page, i.e., information shall only be on one side of the page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, drawings, graphs, diagrams, and schematics not for pages of text."

L.3.1.2.2.3- Can AEDC provide additional explanation on what they are expecting for this section. The section requires the Offeror to describe the approach to providing resources to accommodate short duration outages. Can AEDC explain what is meant by duration outages?

Section 2.3 of the SOW states, "An outage represents a specified period of time that an asset or assets will be unavailable for operations. The outage process gives visibility to activities that impact AEDC operations." There will be task orders which require work to be performed which cannot be done while operations are ongoing, so to minimize impact to operations, AEDC will want these outages to be short in duration. Due to this requirement, there may be a significant increase in manpower and equipment requirements for a few days or weeks. Offerors should describe how they plan to accommodate short duration outages with regard to resources to include personnel, equipment and materials.

L-3.1.3- Subfactor 2 Technical Capability-This section refers to a sample project in Attachment L-9 Hydraulic System Upgrade. To clarify, the four seed projects are to be priced only but Subfactor 2 technical capability is to address the sample problem of the Hydraulic System Upgrade (Attachment L-9) ?

The Sample Project is for demonstration of the Offerors' design approach and understanding of the technical issues to be addressed in the Hydraulics System Upgrade.

The Sample Project will not be evaluated in the Price Proposal Volume. L-3.1.3.5 was revised for clarity.

L-3.3.3.2 PPI Submission- Will AEDC consider allowing PPIRS/CCASS evaluations in lieu of sending PPQ to Client POC’s (Attachment L-2).

Some DoD clients will refuse to complete the questionnaires since the official government evaluation is the PPIRS system.

The FARM Past Performance Team will be using all available and applicable CPARS evaluations within the PPIRS database. We are using a tailored PPQ form to ensure we are obtaining information pertinent to this solicitation.

Attachment 8, Section L; Table 2.1 calls for Part I, II, and III. Section L-2.3 Electronic Offers tells us to submit Parts I-IV in electronic format. Please confirm there are only three parts to the Proposal Submission.

Yes, there are only three volumes (parts) to the proposal submission.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response dRFP letter - Paragraph 2 of the dRFP cover letter says that the contract minimum will be satisfied by the seed projects. This would mean that for 4 awards of the IDIQ contract, each contractor would have to be awarded one of the 4 seed projects. A single contractor could not win more than one seed project even if they were the best fit evaluation. Please clarify government plans for the seed project awards and the contract minimum.

AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5316.504 states, "Upon execution of the contract, an obligation shall be recorded based on the issuance of a delivery or task order for the cost / price of the minimum quantity specified." Therefore, the Government intends to award one seed project to each of the successful offerors. Each of the seed projects will exceed the contract minimum of $250K, which will satisfy the regulation requirement. We understand that this process may or may not result in awarding individual seed projects at the lowest possible price.

Attachment 8, Past Performance Information (PPI form) and CPARS

- Section L describes the requirements for obtaining PPI from references of recent contracts. This section, however, does not mention CPARS evaluations. Should the contractor request that the government Contracts Officer complete a new PPI form even if there is a CPARS evaluation? Some military RFP’s state that the CPARS evaluation be used instead of the PPI form.

The FARM Past Performance Team will be using all available and applicable CPARS evaluations within the PPIRS database.

We are using a tailored PPQ form to ensure we are obtaining information pertinent to this solicitation.

General selection process – As a manufacturer and service provider, it would be beneficial to the government to purchase our equipment, systems, and services directly and at the lowest cost.

However, this procurement process in the draft RFP will prevent companies such as ours from submitting a proposal as prime contractor (due to very broad scope – we can perform some seed projects, but not all of them). The government may be able to procure our equipment, systems, and services as a subcontractor through one of the IDIQ prime contractors, but this would be at a higher price due to the prime’s markup. We therefore suggest that AEDC award some IDIQ contracts to companies that have particular important expertise, but can provide partial scope.

Award of single discipline IDIQ was considered during our acquisition planning process. Based upon our analysis of cost, schedule, and execution risk of the task orders, the Government determined a multiple discipline IDIQ was more appropriate for this acquisition.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response General - A single-phase procurement process is described. In recent years the DoD has moved to a two-phase procurement process for all but the smallest and least complex design-build projects. It would appear a two-phase procurement would be more appropriate for the FARM IDIQ.

The Government understands this is a single-phase solicitation process.

This acquisition strategy was chosen due to the time constraints associated with the program as well as our decision to conduct a performance-price tradeoff with technical acceptability source selection.

Part 1 - Technical Proposal - Corporate Experience is typically included in this section of an IDIQ / MATOC / MACC RFP but is omitted from the FARM IDIQ. The corporate experience section of an RFP enables Offerors to submit descriptive narratives of recent and relevant projects best meeting the requirements of the statement of work. AEDC is strongly encouraged to add Corporate Experience for both the contractor and design firm to the Part 1 submission requirements. See Factor 1 Experience (p. 27) of the W9126G file and Factor 2 Experience (p. 48) of the N40085 file.

(Note: These attachments will not be included in the response to potential offerors.) Inclusion of corporate experience enables the reviewers to do a detailed evaluation of the relevancy of the experience apart from the past performance evaluation.

Section L states, "L-3.1.2.1. Qualified Personnel

L-3.1.2.1.1. Describe an effective approach that thoroughly demonstrates how the Offeror will provide personnel with the knowledge, experience, training, technical expertise, licenses, and certification to accomplish each requirement of the SOW Section 1 Paragraph 1.2.

L-3.1.2.1.2. Describe the Offeror’s team for a typical design-build task order."

It would be appropriate to provide corporate experience as part of this description.

Part 1 - Technical Proposal - Contractor safety is a very important performance aspect but is omitted from the RFP. AEDC is strongly encouraged to add Safety to the Part 1 submission requirements.

Evaluation of safety performance - in the form of Experience Modification Rate and DART rate - provides a quantitative measure for the reviewers. See Factor 4 Safety (p. 53) of the N40085 file.

(Note: These attachments will not be included in the response to potential offerors.) As evident in the N40085 RFP, NAVFAC places an appropriate level of importance on contractor safety, including subcontractor safety..

While safety is not an evaluation criteria for this solicitation, contractors are required to comply with paragraph 20, Safety, of Attachment 2 Special Contract Requirements.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response Part 1 - Technical Proposal - As indicated in M2.2.1 technical capability is evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

Considering the significance of the Part 1 submission requirements this "pass / fail" basis is inappropriate. AEDC is strongly encouraged to use an adjectival rating (similar to that described in M2.4.3) for Part 1.

We understand the concern that an insignificant omission could negate the effort and expense and disqualify a good contractor from competition, so we will identify these type of omissions to allow contractors discussions and corrections to the technical proposal.

Part 2 - Price Proposal - The requirement to provide price information on a sample project (L3.1.3.1.4) and four seed projects (Attachment 8) may place an undue burden on offerors, especially in light of the fact this is a single phase procurement. In the past three years DoD has moved away from single-phase design-build procurements as they have been deemed to place an undue burden on offerors and decrease competition.

The Government understands this is a single-phase solicitation process.

This acquisition strategy was chosen due to the time constraints associated with the program as well as our decision to conduct a performance-price tradeoff with technical acceptability source selection.

Part 3 - Past Performance Information - The submission requirements for Part 3 are not in keeping with the vast majority of DoD design-build procurements.

The Past Performance Information submission requirements are in accordance with current Air Force Materiel Command procurement requirements that utilize the PPI tool.

Part 3 - Past Performance Information - Use of the PPI tool is very uncommon. In fact, in the past 5 years, XXX has submitted more than 90 DoD proposals and has never utilized this PPI tool.

The Air Force commonly uses the PPI tool. This tool synchronizes with EZSource, which is the mandatory software tool used for evaluation of proposals.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response Part 3 - Past Performance Information - Over the past 4 years DoD (USACE and NAVFAC in particular) has standardized the use of the attached Form PPQ-0. The completed Form PPQ-0 is submitted by the Offeror as part of the proposal. Requiring offerors to have clients submit PPQ information directly to the Government places an undue burden on offerors and their clients, decreases competition, and has been largely abandoned by agencies. In fact, it's been more than 4 years since clients were last required to submit PPQs directly to the Government on a proposal submitted by XXX. AEDC is strongly encouraged to utilize the Form PPQ-0 and permit offerors to submit completed forms

We are using a tailored PPQ form to ensure we are obtaining information pertinent to this solicitation. Air Force Materiel Command does not currently use a standardized PPQ form.

Part 3 - Past Performance Information - In DoD RFPs the past performance is most often linked to the corporate experience noted in Part 1. This enables relevancy, evaluated in Part 1, to inform the Performance Confidence Assessment in Part 3. For example, corporate experience receiving a rating of Very Relevant and a PPQ evaluation of Exceptional may lead to a confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, while corporate experience receiving a rating of Relevant and a PPQ evaluation of Exceptional may lead to a confidence assessment of Satisfactory Confidence.

Separation of corporate experience and past performance is likely to provide benefits to the SSEB during the evaluation process.

Relevancy is not evaluated in Part I, it is evaluated in Part III as part of the Past Performance Evaluation.

Corporate experience should be demonstrated throughout the PPI. M-

2.4.2 Relevant Assessment states "Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving design-build and construction capabilities described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW and the Management Subfactor...".

Corporate experience is inherently demonstrated throughout Part 1 but will receive either an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" rating, and not a Relevancy rating.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response Part 3 - Past Performance Information - Section 1.2 of the statement of work identifies 10 types of mechanical projects, 11 types of electrical projects, and 6 types of ID&C projects for a total of 27 discrete project types. However, L3.3.3.1 only allows offerors to submit 5 recent and relevant contracts and major subcontractors to submit 3. Unless offerors have single contracts containing multiple work types it will be difficult for offerors to demonstrate experience on a variety of work types within this limitation. AEDC is strongly urged to increase the submission limitations, enabling offerors to showcase on a larger number of work types.

The FARM Past Performance Team will be using all available and relevant CPARS evaluations within the PIPRS database in addition to our tailored PPQ form.

Part 3 - Past Performance Information - The requirements noted in L3.3.3.3 are most appropriately accomplished by inclusion of a Corporate Experience section in Part 1 as previously noted. This is the approach utilized on nearly all USACE and NAVFAC design-build and construction procurements

Corporate experience should be demonstrated throughout the PPI. M-

2.4.2 Relevant Assessment states, "Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving design-build and construction capabilities described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW and the Management Subfactor..."

Corporate experience is inherently demonstrated throughout Part 1 but will receive either an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" rating, and not a Relevancy rating.

Part 3 - Past Performance Information - Consent letters from key management personnel are required in L3.3.1. However, no other mention of key management personnel is incorporated into Attachment 8 Section L. Often, as is the case with the W9126G RFP, resumes for key personnel such as Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Architect, Engineer (mechanical, electrical, etc.) are required to be submitted as part of a technical proposal. Please clarify the submission requirements relative to key personnel.

The Consent Letters are only needed from your team members (subcontractors / JV partners) if applicable.

Section L-3.1.2.1. Qualified Personnel could be utilized to briefly identify and describe personnel with "the knowledge, experience, training, technical expertise, licenses, and certification to accomplish each requirement of the SOW Section 1 Paragraph 1.2." We do not require resumes.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response The RFP as currently written creates an undue burden on offerors and will limit competition. Considering the cost to develop a response to the single-phase RFP as currently written, and the increased likelihood that an insignificant non-compliance with one of the myriad of submission factors would be grounds for elimination. However, should the Government elect to revise the RFP - most especially relative to corporate experience and past performance -our firm is likely to reconsider.

An insignificant non-compliance with one of the submission factors may not be grounds for elimination and disqualification from competition.

As stated in Section M-1.3, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if necessary.

Section L - Attachment 8 - Table 2.1. Part III Page Limit note of greater than 27,000 characters. Just being practical, I believe a page limit for this section would be appreciated rather than a character count. When images are placed in files then I worry about it counting against characters and it becoming an issue. I also believe some of the graphic software we use may be difficult to track characters for this section, especially if it is combined with other team members work.

The PPI tool contains "fields" not "pages;" therefore, a character count is an appropriate limitation.

Section L – L3.1.3.1.4 – How much detail is requested for the preliminary cost estimate for the sample project? Are you just wanting a lump sum amount to cover the total cost of the work, or are you wanting to see a detailed estimate showing how the total cost was determined?

The Sample Project will not be evaluated in Total Evaluated Price (Section M-2.3.1). Para L-3.1.3.1.4 has been deleted. The requirement for the preliminary cost estimate for the Sample Project is now included in L-3.1.3.5, which was revised to clarify the detail required.

Section L-2.6 (Additional Questions/Requests for Clarifications) – Please ensure that the email address that RFI shall be submitted to is clearly identified in this section (assuming it is aedc.sso@us.af.mil )

The email address (aedc.sso@us.af.mil) will be added to para L-2.6.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response We are glad to see that the limit of Awardees will be between 2-4.

With this type capacity maybe up to 5 isn’t bad, but please don’t go over that amount. We are an awardee in another Government IDIQ/MATOC that has 13 Primes. That is about 7-8 too many.

The maximum number of awardees was selected to balance a number of factors such as adequate competition on task orders, obtain sufficient technical breadth and depth for design and construction tasks, ensure adequate contractor capacity, etc.

We experienced difficulty opening Attachments 4, 5 and 7. We were able to print the attachments but could not open them electronically to view the files. We tried to open these attachments from several different computers, the suggested software updates did not help either. Since we could not open them electronically, we could not verify everything printed.

Attachments 4, 5, and 7 are PDF Portfolios with multiple PDF files embedded in them. Attachment 6 is only a single PDF File. Ensure that your PDF Viewer is able to open PDF Portfolios. Adobe Acrobat XI Pro seems to open these Portfolios without any issues. Be sure to "Enable All Features" if the file is opened in a Protected View. Attachment 4 contains 28 files for a total of 134 pages of information and 26 pages of drawings. Attachment 5 contains 28 files for a total of 198 pages of information and 32 pages of drawings. Attachment 7 contains 13 files for a total of 121 pages of information and 11 pages of drawings.

While there is a Relevancy Matrix, Attachment L-6, for providing relevancy for the Prime Contractor, there is no place or separate attachment for showing relevancy of subcontractor experience.

Perhaps modify Attachment L-6 to include this information or provide a separate attachment for subcontractors.

The Relevancy Matrix will be provided as an Excel spreadsheet that will have separate tabs for partners and / or subcontractors.

The Relevancy Matrix, Attachment L-6, has very specific experience items. To receive a Substantial Confidence rating, please clarify if the Prime Contractor and/or subcontractors should have experience in all of the items listed.

Please see section M-2.4.2 Relevant Assessment which states:

"Offerors who provide relevant past performance for a broader range of these capabilities will be considered more relevant than those whose past performance covers a narrower range." This does not mean that experience in all 27 items are required to receive a Substantial Confidence rating.

Section H stipulates "no clauses or provisions in this section."

However, Attachment 2, as amended, stipulates special contract requirements. As the Government indicated in other sections, should section H reference Attachment 2 for relevant special contract requirements?

Attachment 2, Special Contract Requirements, is not Section H.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response In an effort to estimate abatement costs, do Offerors have access to surveys and maps of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) in expected work areas and buildings?

Yes. This information will be made available as it applies to individual task orders when those task orders are released for proposal.

Attachment 2, as amended, stipulates Offerors are to "provide their employees safety and health protection equal in quality to that provided to Air Force employees." A placeholder is placed in the competition library under Safety Health and Environmental Standards. When will the Government upload the Air Force's Safety and Health program so Offerors may ensure their plan is equivalent?

The Safety Health and Environmental (SHE) Standards have been uploaded to the FARM competition library, www.arnold.af.mil/farmlibrary.

Are there outlines or templates already established by AEDC for the Safety and Health Plan and corresponding site safety checklist referenced in Section 19.3 of the revised Special Contract Requirements?

SHE Standard A6, User and Subcontractor Safety, contains an example of the Contractor Safety, Health, and Environmental Plan (Appendix A) and AEDC Contractor/Subcontractor Pre-job Checklist (Appendix B).

This SHE Standard has been uploaded to the FARM competition library, www.arnold.af.mil/farmlibrary.

Does the prime contractor need to have a full-time safety officer on site?

Item 19 c 10 of the Special Contract Requirements states, (10) "Identify Safety roles and responsibilities of management, supervisors, employees and contractor safety coordinator." Section 1.4.1.2 of the statement of work (SOW) requires a Site Superintendent to be on-site any time work is being done. The Contractor determines whether the superintendent can fulfil the safety responsibilities or if a designated safety officer is required.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response The dRFP references an "attachment identified in the table shall be separately bound…". However, Table 2-1 does not reference an attachment. Please clarify what attachment the Government is referencing with respect to Table 2-1.

The paragraph is rewritten as follows: "L-2.2.1.1. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below. The proposal volume and any attachments identified shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary.

Section L-2.0 stipulates "Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation." The dRFP stipulates proposal parts are to be organized as described in Table 2.1. The Part titles vary from part titles described in Section L-3.1, L-3.2, and L-3.3. Which part titles should the Offeror use in its proposals?

Volume 3.1 is Technical Proposal, Volume 3.2 is Price Proposal, and Volume 3.3 is Past Performance Information, which is consistent with Table 2.1.

Exclusions to page limitations are defined as cover pages, table of contents, glossaries, tabs, Subcontracting Plan, and the cross-reference matrix. With respect to Part III, Past Performance, page limitations are specifically provided for the Summary (not to exceed two pages) as well as character limitations for the "Contract Information" and "Program Details" sections of the PPI Submission.

Given the remaining organization sections required for the Past Performance Part consists of Government-provided templates and page limits are not assigned, are past performance references, PPI Submission, Relevant and Recency Determination, Relevancy Matrix, Organizational Structure Change History, Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, and List of Questionnaire Recipients

Table 2.1 , Volume III, Past Performance Information, does not have a page limit but states, "See Note." The note states, "...each submitted performance reference shall not have the PPI Tool fields of “Contract Information” and “Program Details” together sum to a character count (excluding spaces) of greater than 27,000 characters."

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response Section L-2.0 stipulates "Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation." The dRFP stipulates organization of Part II outlined with the table of contents, Attachment L-8, Price Proposal, Solicitation/SF 1442, and Completed Representations/Certifications. However, sections L-3.3.3.4.2, L-

3.2.2.4.4 and L-3.2.2.4.5 require additional information from those listed in the outline table. Should the Offeror include the latter items within the Price Proposal? If not, please clarify where these items are to be included within the organization of Part II.

Para L-3.2.1 identifies the contents for the Price Proposal: Attachment L-8, Seed Project Pricing Sheet; Price Proposal; Solicitation / Standard Form 1442; and completed representations / certifications. Section L does not contain L-3.3.3.4.2. Paragraph L-3.2.2.4, Contract Documents, states: In addition, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the following sections from the solicitation in the Price Volume:" Paragraph L-

3.2.2.4.4 states, "If the Offeror still finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate each exception in the appropriate Volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject Volume."

The dRFP stipulates the "Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) contracts in dRFP section M-1.4.

However, in Amendment 0001's revised Attachment 2 Special Contract Requirements, Section 22 "On/Off Ramp Procedures", the Government stipulates "The Government will ensure that four contractors are available at all times to achieve effective competition on all task orders." How many contracts will the Government award for this solicitation to ensure effective competition?

The Government intends to initially award up to four contracts. In the past, we have seen that not all selected contractors fully participate in the program for any number of reasons. To ensure we have adequate competition for future task orders, we included the flexibility to bring additional qualified contractors on board but the total number of contractors will never exceed four.

The dRFP stipulates in order for past performance references to be recent, "the effort must have been completed during the past five years…" However, in the M-2.4.3 Performance Quality Assessment rating table, present and past tense of "...is meeting (or met)..."are used. Will the Government accept past performance efforts that are either currently ongoing or completed during the past 5 years?

The Government will not accept currently ongoing projects. The definitions in Section M-2.4.3 Performance Quality Assessment are standardized for DoD procurements.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response The dRFP mandates use of the PPI Tool in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance volume. When will the PPI tool be accessible to Offerors via FBO?

The PPI Tool will be released with the Final RFP.

The "Entering information in the PPI Tool" instruction no. 10, 3rd bullet requires "Location where contractor will perform work" to be entered for the "Enter New Business Relationship" tab. The SOW Section 1 Introduction stipulates performance on this contract will be primarily required at AEDC at Arnold AFB, TN.

However, work may also be required at Mountain View, CA and White Oak, MD. Since a specific Gov't location is not provided in the solicitation, of those stipulated in the SOW, which place of performance should Offerors indicate when completing the PPI submission?

Use "Arnold AFB."

Printing instruction #4 stipulates "Hard copies of pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume…" Redundant information is asked in the PPI tool and Section L-3.3.3.3 regarding demonstration of relevance.

Further, the dRFP stipulates "past performance information pertaining to capabilities described in Section 1, paragraph 1.2 of the SOW and the Management Subfactor not listed under the appropriate section of the proposal may not be considered." Please clarify if the Government is looking for the same relevance narratives entered in the PPI Tool and under the "Relevant and Recency Determination" tab for Part III addressing dRFP section L-

3.3.3.3. If the information is not redundant, please clarify how the Government differs the relevance requirement for the two sections.

The PPI Tool satisfies the requirements in Section L-3.3.3.3.

Information submitted through the PPI Tool (and hard copies generated) will be used to determine relevancy and recency.

The dRFP requires submission of an electronic copy in CD medium of the saved PPI database file. Section L-2.2.1.1, Table 2-1 requires two electronic copies of the Past Performance part. How many electronic copies (e.g., CD) of the PPI Tool does the Government require?

The output of the PPI tool is part of the Past Performance Volume;

therefore, two electronic copies are required.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response The Government requires Past Performance Questionnaires to be completed by customer references. For ease of customer use, will the Government provide a PDF form or editable version in an effort to ensure integrity of the Government's desired format?

AEDC will provide a PDF form or editable version to ensure the integrity / conformity with the desired format.

The dRFP relevancy matrix reflects major capabilities as outlined in SOW section 1.2 (pgs. 3-4). However, component E11 under the Electrical capability in the SOW was omitted from the relevancy matrix under section 2 "Electrical". Should Section 2 of the relevancy matrix also include 2.11 Variable frequency drives for motors (≥ 600V & ≤ 69k V)?

We corrected the Relevancy Matrix to add 2.11.

Please confirm the date and location for the pre-proposal conference and site visit.

We will not hold a pre-proposal conference for this solicitation. The site visit date and location for the four seed projects will be included in the Final RFP.

Table 2.1 - Proposal Organization does not show any page limits for Part III, Past Performance, with exception to the 2-page limit for the summary. Please confirm there are no overall limits on the page count for this part of the proposal.

Table 2.1 , Volume III, Past Performance Information, does not have a page limit but states, "See Note." The note states, "...each submitted performance reference shall not have the PPI Tool fields of “Contract Information” and “Program Details” together sum to a character count (excluding spaces) of greater than 27,000 characters."

Please confirm if other CAD programs other than AutoCAD may be used to generate drawings. (In reference to the sample projec t)

L-3.1.3.4.1 has been revised for clarity to reflect that drawings generated in other CADD programs are acceptable.

Who is the incumbent Original Equipment Manufacturer for existing equipment? (In relation to Attachment 4 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response How old is the existing equipment? When was the last time existing equipment was maintained? (In relation to Attachment 4 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

What is the availability of existing equipment parts? Is the Government in possession of spare parts for existing equipment? If so, for which equipment pieces does the Government have spare parts? (In relation to Attachment 4 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer, and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

If availability of existing equipment parts is limited or non-existent, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 4 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases. However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand/model of equipment so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

If availability of existing equipment part(s) is/are determined to be long lead item(s)or determined to be outside of the scope's time availability, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 4 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases, the Government will accept "as equivalent" parts.

However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand / model of equipment, so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

How old is the existing equipment? When was the last time existing equipment was maintained? (In relation to Attachment 5 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response What is the availability of existing equipment parts? Is the Government in possession of spare parts for existing equipment? If so, for which equipment pieces does the Government have spare parts? (In relation to Attachment 5 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

If availability of existing equipment parts is limited or non-existent, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 5 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases. However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand / model of equipment so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

If availability of existing equipment part(s) is/are determined to be long lead item(s) or determined to be outside of the scope's time availability, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 5 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases. However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand / model of equipment so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

How old is the existing equipment? When was the last time existing equipment was maintained? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer, and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

What is the availability of existing equipment parts? Is the Government in possession of spare parts for existing equipment? If so, for which equipment pieces does the Government have spare parts? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer, and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response If availability of existing equipment parts is limited or non-existent, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases. However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand/model of equipment so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

If availability of existing equipment part(s) is/are determined to be long lead item(s) or determined to be outside of the scope's time availability, will the Government accept "as equivalent" parts? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

Yes, in most cases. However, there are rare circumstances when the Government needs to sole source a specific brand/model of equipment so it is highly recommended to identify issues like this as soon as possible to ensure "approved equal" is an option. When these cases arise, they should be discussed with the task order manager and approved through the submittal process.

Work type: Controls - New RTD signals are to be run to existing Bailey Controls in the Control Room. Is the system capable of additional points or are additional points available? Will the control system be compatible with new equipment without upgrades? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to submit specific questions to the Contracting Officer, and formal answers to all questions will be provided.

Work type: Fans - The base bid states new dampers will be compatible with fans on boilers 3 & 4. Who are the incumbent vendors providing the existing equipment? In an effort to ensure compatibility with Offerors' proposed solutions, please provide existing drawings, Bill of Materials, and existing equipment for verification. (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

For all four seed projects, a site visit will be held to clarify the requirements. Following the site visit, an opportunity will be given to

18 January 2016

Question OPR Response Work type: Boiler Demo/Replacement - What is the available outage time for demolition and installation? (In relation to Attachment 6 - Seed Project)

Attachment 6 states, "C. Perform work between the months of April and October:

1. All work…