MACC RFP FA9401-12-R-0002 Q A Round 1.pdf

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

RFP, Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit Questions

Solicitation FA9401-12-R-0002

22 March 2012

ROUND 1

MACC FA9401-12-R-0002

The purpose of this document is to provide answers to RFP, Pre-Proposal Conference and Site

Visit questions for Solicitation FA9401-12-R-0002.

1. We were contacted by an 8(a) and HUBZone certified general engineering contractor about possibly teaming on this contract proposal. Our business is Service-Disabled

Veteran Owned, but we are not small business. Would this type of teaming arrangement be appropriate for this solicitation? Would we be able to serve as a sub-contractor to the

8(a) company? I just want to ensure the time we would spend on compiling a thorough proposal with this 8(a) engineering contractor would be justified.

ANSWER:

IAW FAR 9.603, The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective.

An 8(a) contractor may serve as the prime and a large business may serve as a sub-contractor on an 8(a) contract provided prime contractor performance requirements

(limitations on subcontracting) are adhered to IAW 13 CFR 125.6.

2. In section L, paragraph 2.2.1 Page Limitations, it says “each page shall be counted except the following: drawings and specifications.” The organization of the proposal stated in section L requires table of contents, tabs, and coversheets. Do these count toward the page limits defined in Table 2.2 on page 66 of 92 in the solicitation?

Table of Contents, tabs, and coversheets do not count toward the page limits defined in

Table 2.2.

3. The Volume 1 – Executive Summary is limited to three pages. It states the Executive

Summary Section is not included in the Volume I page limitation. Please confirm that the

Narrative Summary and master table of contents of the entire proposal are included in the three page limit.

The Narrative Summary and Master Table of Contents are included in the three page limitation defined in Table 2.2 for Volume I.

Section L 3.0 will be amended to remove the statement “The Executive Summary Section is not included in the Volume I page limitation”.

Solicitation FA9401-12-R-0002

22 March 2012

ROUND 1

4. In section L, paragraph 2.3 Electronic Offers, it states “electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office

Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007, as applicable.”

We do not use Microsoft software to assemble our proposals. Would it be acceptable to submit our electronic copies in searchable Adobe PDF files?

Adobe PDF is acceptable.

Note: Per Section L 2.3, each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD.

5. In section L, paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal Information, it states “Each offeror is requested to submit the information shown in Attachment 5 of the RFP for each relevant contract NLT 1:oo PM MST, 3 April 2012.” Is it the intent of the government for the offerors to submit their Volume 3 – Past Performance (the entire volume) several weeks early? What is the government intent in requiring the Volume 3 – Past Performance early?

Due date for Past Performance, Volume III is 1:00PM MST, 3 April 2012.

The Government intends to evaluate Past Performance prior to the RFP response date of

19 April 2012, 1:00PM MST.

6. In section L, paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal Information, it says “Offeror shall send out

Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume.” Will the government accept CCASS evaluations in lieu of Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires? Our government contacts have strict policies against filling out additional performance evaluations once the final CCASS evaluations has been completed (DD Form 2626).

CCASS is acceptable; however, CCASS only applies to contracts in excess of $550,000. Section

M of the RFP, M002(c)(2)(ii), states, “Projects should be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project value between $50,000 and $1,500,000 and include projects with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers”.

Companies have the latitude to assume the risk associated by not providing Past Performance

Evaluation Questionnaires and only using CCASS.

Solicitation FA9401-12-R-0002

22 March 2012

ROUND 1

7. In section L, paragraph 2.2, table 2.2, it requires an electronic copy of Volume IV -

Cost/Price. This will be very difficult because many subcontractor bids will be received up until the due date. Burn an electronic copy of the CD will require subcontractors to submit their pricing well in advance of the proposal due date. We have found many electrical and mechanical supply houses will not release final pricing information until right before the due date. Will the government consider not requiring the Cost/Price proposal to be submitted electronically? Or will the government allow offerors to submit the electronic copy of the Cost/Price proposal within 24 hours?

IAW section L, paragraph 2.2, table 2.2, an electronic copy of Volume IV is due by the RFP response date of 19 April 2012, 1:00PM MST.

8. In section L, paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal Information, it says “Offeror shall send out

Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume.” Due to the large number of federal projects a unique burden has been placed on our previous clients in the requirement for Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for projects such as this one. Many clients have requested we resubmit previous PPQ forms, since they, in some cases, have filled them out many times. Most of the current solicitations from federal agencies

(USACE/NAVFAC/GSA) now allow the use of previously solicited PPQs. In recognition of this unique situation, I would like to request that for this solicitation you allow previously obtained PPQs?

You are at liberty to submit any document you feel meets the criteria the MACC Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) identifies; however, the MACC PPQ was created to specifically assess areas of interest particular to disciplines that will be performed under the

MACC. Any documents received that do not meet ALL areas outlined with the MACC PPQ could result in a lower rating.

9. I read in the Kirtland Construction MACC that task orders will range all the way up to

$10,000,000. Currently, I have bonding capacity of $2,000,000 for a single project and aggregate of $4,000,000. Would my current bonding capacity disqualify me or make me

“non-responsive” for this opportunity?

Your current bonding capacity will not disqualify your company’s proposal or make the proposal non-responsive.

The $10,000,000 constraint is for the IDIQ contract not the individual Task Orders.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to amend per Task Order limits to reflect a minimum of

$2,000.00 to a maximum of $3,000,000.00