SCIPIIIATCH15QUESTIONS3.pdf

SOLICITATION HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 STREAMLINED CONSTRUCTION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SCIP III) QUESTIONS ‐ 0003

Number Specification Section

Drawing Sheet

QUESTION US Government Response

79 Please confirm that the exterior work shown on sheet A5.1 is to go in the "C" bid. If that is incorrect, please advise.

Bid categories for architectural work are indicated in Items of Work on drawings AD1.01, AD1.02, A1.01, and A1.02.

80 During the prebid it was stated that we were building a feature front similar but smaller than the one adjacent at the Food Court entry. One element of that is the dark bronze metal gable roof. The plans indicate a very different design, without a pitched roof.

What should we design for the entry?

The intent is that the design of the Commissary's proposed entry tower compliment, not match the existing Exchange entry tower. This is accomplished by using new EIFS on the Commissary that matches the existing EIFIS on the Exchange. The proposed front facade work has been approved by DeCA and the Installation.

81 Page 1 of the RFP for the McGuire seed project the Table of Contents references “Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint and PCG Survey Report - "which appears to be missing from the documentation. Can you please provide this information?

Hazardous materials survey is included as attachment 14.

82 Will the Jacobs CAD files for this solicitation be provided to the successful vendor?

Yes. After contract award.

83 We note that existing plan sheets A25 and A33 report as corrupted and will not open.

Sheets will be attached in Amendment 3 of the solicitationas attachments 16 and 17.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 1 Attachment 15

84 How thick are the terrazo floor tiles? We do not see them shown or listed on the existing plan set. The Alteration plan set does not mention them: it states that the existing resilient tile will remain under the new tile.

[Sheet A1.1] Except in the work items sections, we don't find those terrazo tiles at all. Our concern is that they may require more infill of the floor than would be expected by just removing the existing vct as requested.

The existing terrazzo tile can be found on Original Building Record Drawing A32 - Rm. 116 - RT-1. This terrazzo tile is typically about 3/16" thick and is adhered on top of the concrete floor slab. The previous Additions/Alterations Project expanded the Sales Area eastward. In the expansion portion, new VCT was installed on top of the existing floor slab. In the original Sales Area portion, new VCT was installed on top of the existing terrazzo tile. The differences in the uneven flooring elevations was likely handled with tapered underlayment. All existing VCT, terrazzo tile, mastic and underlayments should be removed. The Original Building Structural Record Drawings show the floor slab in the Sales Area is not depressed. Therefore, one can assume that the existing floor slab under the existing terrazzo tile is not depressed and requires no infill.

85 If a contractor submits a SCIP III proposal with an 8A joint venture partner, can the contractor also submit a separate SCIP III proposal for the large corporation free and open category under its own corporate name without the 8a participation?

No. A contractor will be awarded only one (1) contract.

86 If a contractor submits a successful SCIP III proposal with an 8a Joint Venture partner, is the contractor allowed to also bid future task orders as a large corporation in the free and open category under its own corporate name without the 8a participation?

No. A contractor will be awarded only one (1) contract.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 2 Attachment 15

87 If a contractor submits a successful SCIP III proposal as an 8a Joint Venture, is that Joint Venture allowed to bid future task orders beyond those which are set aside for 8a participation?

Yes. If the project is within their bonding capacity.

88 It was said at the pre-bid meeting that the SCIP III contractors are required to use already-approved DECA IDIQ design firms.

Please provide a list of the approved designers.

No, that is incorrect. If the project calls for the contractor to design, the contractor will use their own design firms for their projects.

89 Please provide a copy of the pre-bid slide presentation.

It has been posed to Federal Business Opportunities.

90 Although we are a SCIP II vendor, we have not yet been awarded any SCIP II projects.

We request that projects considered for past performance evaluations be extended to projects completed within the last 7 years so that the original SCIP program projects are eligible.

The projects for evaluations has been changed to 5 years.

91 We note that existing plan sheets A25 and A33 report as corrupted and will not open.

Sheets will be attached in Amendment 3 of the solicitation.

92 Is electronic format acceptable for the past performance?

Yes

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 3 Attachment 15

93 Is it possible to get the Past Performance Questionnaire document in word format, as it would be better suited for the owner/customer to complete? If this is not available, is there any objection for us to re-create the Past Performance Questionnaire in word format?

The questionnaire can be submitted in WORD format.

94 Part III- Past Performance Information asks for a minimum 3 maximum 5 “of the most relevant contracts performed within the last three (3) years.” The past performance questionnaire asks for “Current / Completion Date:” and “Current / Final Amount”. What percentage of a project must be complete for consideration in past performance?

The project must be 100% complete.

95 Reference Section L- Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, page 41 of 50, Part III- Past Performance Information. Is DeCA’s preference that the Past Performance Questionnaire (Section J- Attachment 2) is furnished to the Contracting Officer electronically (e-mail) or by paper? Please clarify.

In section J of Attachment 2 it states the preferable method is by e-mail to the contract specialists listed.

96 Reference Section L- Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, page 41 of 50, Part III- Past Performance Information. This information is to be sent to the Contracting Officer, who is identified on Page 33 of 50 as Terry Ward. Please provide email contact information if this is an acceptable method of delivery.

In section J of Attachment 2, page 2 of the Past Performance Questionnaire, it provides the information for submittal of the past performance questionnaire.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 4 Attachment 15

97 Also, at the site visit it was mentioned that the construction duration is to be 150 days.

The solicitation states that it is to be less than 15 months. Please clarify that the project duration is to conform to the 15 month timeframe as indicated in the solicitation and not 150 days.

The performance period for McGuire AFB, NJ seed project is 15 months.

The 150 days is the acceptance period after your submission for your proposal.

98 In the original construction documents (1980 set), files A-25 and A-33 are corrupted and will not open. Can you provide new files for these sheets?

These documents are an attachment to Amendment 0003 of the solicitation.

99 Will CAD files of the provided PDF design documents be provided to the winning team?

Yes

100 Confirm that the location of AHU-2, on the roof as described in Section 1.4.1.2 of the SOW, is not to be installed on the mezzanine F shown on drawing M 1.05.

Correct, the existing AHU-2 in Mezzanine F has to remain in operation until the new roof mounted AHU-2 is fully installed, tested, and operational.

The new location shown on M1.05 is incorrect in the drawings unless the contractor elects to utilize a temporary Air Handling unit mounted on a trailer, while the existing AHU-2 is being demolished.

101 Is AHU-1, located on mezzanine G, a new unit that can be installed in the same location as the original without requiring a temporary unit in a different location? In other words, is that unit necessary to maintain building operation?

A new AHU-1 can be installed on a new housekeeping pad in the Plan East part of Mezzanine G (in coordination with phasing and relocation of existing Compressor Racks). The existing AHU- 1 in the Plan Southwest corner of Mezzanine G should remain in operation until the new split system, dual path AHU-1 is installed, tested, and operational and ready for connection to existing supply, return and outside air ductwork.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 5 Attachment 15

102 If a temporary or alternate location is required for AHU-1, then where should it go and how much does it weigh?

It can be located on the Plan East end of Mezzanine G (see attachment17 sketch #1). Preliminary selection of that unit indicated that it weighs approximately 10,000 lbs (not including new housekeeping pad).

103 Are all other units on the drawing, excluding CU-1 and ACCU-3 which are called out in the scope of work, going to be replaced and remain in the same locations?

The other roof mounted units are going to be replaced but do not have to remain in the same locations. For instance, the new CU-1 could be relocated to the Plan South of the existing location, the new ACCU-4 or ACCU-5 could then be installed in the old location of CU-1.

Also, once the new packaged roof mounted AHU-2 is installed and existing CU-6 has been demolished, the new ACCU-1 or ACCU-2 can be installed in the old CU-6 location. The phasing of this work should be coordinated with the Arch Phasing Plan, Store Director, and Contracting Officer.

See attached Sketch #2 (Attachment 17) for proposed locations.

104 Are the locations of CU-1 and ACCU-3, as called out in Section 1.4.1.2 of the SOW, intended to be the permanent location of these units or should they replace the existing units as shown on drawing M 1.06?

Between the drawing and the scope of work, there is a discrepancy regarding the locations of these two units. Do these units need to be in operation throughout the construction period to maintain building function?

The DB contractor has the flexibility to either relocate the existing unit temporarily and install the new unit in the old location or to install the new unit in a new location as shown on M1.06 and then demolish the old unit. Yes, these units need to be functional during the construction period. The DB contractor should coordinate with the proposed Construction Phasing Plan to develop the final construction phasing plan that should be approved by the contracting officer and store director.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 6 Attachment 15

105 Please provide the weight of the current CU- 1 and ACCU-3 units as they may affect the structural design if both old and new units are on the roof for a period of time.

Based upon old as built drawings and field observations, CU-1 weighs approximately 4,000 lbs and ACCU-3 weighs approximately 1,500 lbs.

106 We understand we are to bid the project according to the C, M, and E categories.

Will we have to maintain those divisions throughout the project in record keeping and billings?

Yes.

107 Is the Offer Guarantee to reflect the $5,000.00 minimum task order, or the amount of the proposal for the seed project at McGuire AFB? Please clarify.

Amount of proposal for the seed project, see FAR Clause 52.228-1 (c) of the solicitation.

108 Is the Offer Guarantee to use the Project Number HDEC03-11-R-0001 or the DeCA number for the Seed Project? Please clarify.

Use the Project Number.

109 The specifications issued for the seed project, in the footer reference DeCA Project No. EA10MI09. Section B Pricing Schedule indicates DeCA Project Number EAMI02. This affects our offer guarantee, if the guarantee is to be issued for the seed project. Please clarify.

The Project number is EA10MI02.

110 Will a copy of the Certifications from ORCA suffice for the technical requirement to include Representations and Certifications? Please clarify.

No. The bidder must submit Representations and Certifications with this soliciation.

111 Our scheduler has noticed that phase 4E is not included in the schedule spreadsheet provided in the RFP. It is on the drawings and the phasing plan. Should we add this to the spreadsheet or should we use the spreadsheet as-is?

The schedule spreadsheet has been revised to add phase 4E. Also added are ID numbers 2 and 4 which allow the government 14 calendar days to review design submittals.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 7 Attachment 15

112 Reference Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award, Page 46 of 50, Paragraph A.3) that states “include dollar values for each activity”. Please confirm that the schedule submitted with the RFP is to be cost loaded.

The Excel schedule to be submitted with your proposal does not have to be cost loaded. The Excel schedule at Attachment 9 will be completed for “Duration”, “Start”, and “Finish” only.

113 Reference Technical Proposal Requirements beginning on Page 40 of 50, Technical Subfactor 1. Can the Management Approach Narrative be 4 pages in lieu of 3, so long as the total proposal remains under the 90 page limit? Please clarify.

No. The management approach narrative is limited to three (3) pages only regardless if the total proposal remains under the 90 page limit.

114 Amendment 001 was issued which had an Excel spreadsheet template of the project schedule.

Page 46 of the Solicitation discusses Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule and goes into the evaluation criteria for the schedule to be submitted with the proposal. This criteria states:

“Evaluation of the schedule will have performance periods less than 15 months, reasonable average float values and float ratios, include dollar values for each activity, few or no activities without at least one predecessor and one successor, and few or no activities with excessive float. ” The solicitation describes a fully developed project schedule for use during construction. The spreadsheet template is more reasonable for submission of a proposal schedule. At the Site Visit, we were instructed to use the spreadsheet template for the schedule and to use 12/19/11 as the anticipated start date for the first activity in this template. Will the evaluation criteria for this Subfactor be revised to reflect the instructions given to all bidders at the Site Visit and delete the requirements stated above for a construction schedule?

The evaluation criteria at Section M 3.

A. 3) Technical Sub factor 3: Phased Project Schedule remains valid as written. The emphasis on this Sub factor 3 is to provide an Excel schedule that offers a performance period that is realistic, complete, and efficiently incorporates the thirteen phases for the seed project.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 8 Attachment 15

115 As part of the PPQ’s Very Relevant and Relevant criteria, page 48 of 50 of the solicitation, it states that project shall have included installation or replacement of complete supermarket product refrigeration systems and refrigeration systems monitoring controls system. Will Dining Facilities at military installations be considered as similar projects, as they have refrigeration units, walk-in freezers, temperature controlled food service lines, etc.?

No. Dining Facilities at military installations are not similar projects meeting the criteria of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project that provides for the retail sale of food products.

116 Reference Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award, page 48 of 50. In sentence two is the statement “To qualify as very relevant the past performance effort must meet all of the following.” The same verbiage is applied to the other categories “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant” and “Not Relevant”.

Additionally it is noted that projects must meet the following requirements:

Performance must have been for construction of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery story, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project. Would a 1,500 man detention facility with kitchen and complete refrigerated storage and freezer areas be considered a relevant project?

Please clarify.

No. The 1,500 man detention facility with kitchen and complete refrigerated storage and freezer area is not a relevant project meeting the criteria of a new, or addition and/or alteration of existing commercial grocery store, supermarket, military commissary, or similar sustainment project that provides for the retail sale of food products.

117 On July 12 the DeCA Design Criteria and Guide Specifications on their web site was formatted into the 16 division format. On July 18 we found their web site was changed to the 33 division format. As both formats are still available, which format is to be used?

The older 16 Division DeCA Design Criteria and Guide Specifications will be used for this seed project.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 9 Attachment 15

118 Under 3. Part III – Past Performance Information, (d) Teaming Arrangements in the original RFP page 42 of 50 and Amendment 0001 Page 7 of 8 state: “Past experience of one team member will be considered past experience of all team members for the purpose of evaluation.” At the site visit, information was given to the effect that past experience of architects was not relevant and may not be evaluated. The work needed to fulfill this contract requires expertise from engineering and architectural disciplines as well as construction firms. As such, we consider our architecture and engineering partners to be critical elements for successfully completing projects under this contract. While this contract does not require information regarding team members, please clarify whether relevant past performance experience of team members will be evaluated.

We request that past performance supplied by team members are part of the three to five past performance projects evaluated, which retains the limitation on the number of projects evaluated by the government.

Evaluation of Past Performance is based on two distinct sources: Data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources and Past Performance Questionnaire Surveys submitted by the Offeror’s clients directly to the Government. The intent of this solicitation is to place emphasis on demonstrated past performance experience of the general contractor for successfully completing his client’s recent and relevant construction projects. The solicitation addresses teaming arrangements, such as joint ventures, are acceptable and these are evaluated jointly based on the team member’s premier experience with commissary or grocery store experience.

The survey questionnaire, when accurately completed, allows the Contracting Officer to conduct and document interviews, as well as to explore performance for critical subcontractors and team partners.

119 Are we correct to assume that the Contractor’s Quality Control Manager (CQC Manager) and the CQC System Manager are the same position?

Correct. The Quality Control Manager and the CQC System Manager are used interchangeably for purposes of the Statement Of Work.

120 Are we correct in taking “home office” to mean our corporate headquarters? Would we fulfill the requirement by having an alternate CQC Manager at our corporate

Yes.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 10 Attachment 15

121 Are we correct to assume that the Project Manager and Superintendent are the same position?

Incorrect. The Contractor’s Project Manager is the senior member with autonomous project management and oversight. The Superintendent is the project field commander with authority and responsibility for the daily construction progress. The Superintendent is specifically required by the FAR Clause 52.236-6 Superintendence by the Contractor which mandates a fulltime, competent superintendent who is satisfactory to the Contracting Officer and has the authority to act for the Contractor.

122 Will you define what is meant by a “similar sustainment project?”

This acquisition is for work on DoD commissaries. It would be to the proposer’s advantage to submit past performance experience related to retail facilities that use product refrigeration display cases and associated mechanical equipment, administrative areas, and sales. Minor interior improvements to areas with these retail facilities, but maybe not involving a total alteration can be considered “similar sustainment project”.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 11 Attachment 15

123 Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule: Based on the description of what is technically acceptable in this section, it would appear that the excel spreadsheet format provided in the solicitation would not be considered technically acceptable since it only allows for start, finish and duration. This section of Technical acceptability for the schedule describes, “…constrained activity analysis, float analysis, resource loading, open ended activities, and ties between activities.”

Further reference is made to float ratios, cost loading and activity relationships.

With the issuance of the excel spreadsheet do the technical factors related to an acceptable schedule also change? Is the overall duration alone what defines technical acceptability of this portion of the Technical Review? Please clarify.

The Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule places strong emphasis on evaluating the overall performance period or duration of the thirteen phases identified in Attachment 9 of Amendment 0001, Phased Project Schedule. Offerors are to complete the categories for “Duration”, “Start”, and “Finish” on Attachment 9 for their Technical Proposal Submission requirements. Attachment 9 will not require resource loading or dollar values or other CPM schedule categories normally associated with Primavera or P6 type software.

124 We would like to confirm our assumption that the schedule to be submitted with the proposal is the Excel schedule issued in Amendment 1 and not the construction schedule per schedule requirements in the Statement of Work, Section J Section 2.4

That is correct. The Phased Project Schedule, Attachment 9 to Section J of the Solicitation HDEC03-11-R-0001, provided by Amendment 0001 is a preliminary schedule only. The Schedules For Construction Task Orders specified at paragraph 2.4.a. Schedule Requirements of the Statement Of Work (SOW) requires a complete CPM (such as Primavera or P6 type software) upon award of a specific Task Order.

125 RE: Technical Proposal – Past Performance Information: Items 3(d) Teaming Arrangements and (e) Subcontractor Consent on page 42 of 50: These items falls under what is to be provided for each submitted source, however, they appear to be discussing requirements for the SCIP III program overall and not for a particular project. Are these items intended to be related to the past performance contracts, or f th ll SCIP III P ?

Past Performance information requested by Items 3(d) Teaming Arrangements and (e) Subcontractor Consent will be evaluated for relevancy of prior contract performance to the SCIP III Program overall.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 12 Attachment 15

126 RE: Technical Proposal – Capability to Successfully Manage Multiple, Concurrent Task Orders: Item 2(a)i. on page 41 of 50:

DeCA requests qualifications for key personnel depicted on our organization chart. Does DeCA have a list of key positions required?

This Agency does not specify the key positions required to successfully manage multiple, concurrent task orders.

This Agency accepts key positions, such as Project Manager, normally used by standard construction industry practices.

Emphasis is placed on key positions that provide project control and sustained oversight to ensure project delivery on schedule and within budget.

127 Beginning at the bottom of page 40, Part II, Subfactor 1: should be submit qualifications for key personnel relative to the SCIP III Program overall, or specifically for the Seed Task Order at McGuire AFB?

You should submit the technical qualifications for key personnel for the SCIP III Program overall.

128 The evaluation criteria for Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule includes several items that would normally be found in a software based schedule, for example resource loading, constrained activities and logic ties. However, the submission requirement for Technical Subfactor 3: Phased Project Schedule indicates the use of the included Excel template for scheduling the project. The Excel template does not provide the capabilities to meet all the requirements of the evaluation factor. Please clarify if a P6 type software generated schedule or similar will be required in addition to the Excel schedule, and which evaluation factors will be used.

Reference the Answer to Question 123 above. No P6 type software generated schedule is required for the Technical Proposal Submission requirements.

HDEC03‐11‐R‐0001 13 Attachment 15