RFI's_9-11-2013.pdf

Requests for Information (RFI)

Multiple Award Construction Contract

HQ0034-13-R-0014

September 11, 2013

RFI # Question Response

0001 Is the prime firm able to team with a partner to pursue this project? Will the partner’s projects carry the same weight as the prime offeror’s projects?

See Amendment 0001, Section L, Volume I and

Section M, Relative Importance of the Evaluation

Factors.

0002 If the teaming partner’s projects are not evaluated with the same weight as the prime offeror’s projects, what weight will the teaming partner’s projects carry?

Will the teaming partner’s projects even be considered as part of the government evaluation?

See Amendment 0001, Section M, Factor 1.

0003 Is the Offeror allowed to reproduce the

Attachments J-1a and J-1b in a word format so as to reduce the number of pages and provide other past performances? (page 101 of 117)

No, the page limitation has been increased to 25 pages per Amendment 0001.

0004 Will the government consider increasing the page count in the instance of a joint venture response to provide and equal number of Past Performances for both firms?

The page limitation has been increased to 25

0005 For the entire response, is the Cover letter a stand-alone document or should it be included in one of the Volumes?

The cover letter is a stand-alone document and is not counted against the page count for Volume I, II, III, or IV.

0006 If the Cover Letter is considered part of a specific volume does it count against the page count for that Volume? (page 100 of 117)

The cover letter is a stand-alone document and is not counted against the page count for Volume I, II, III, or IV.

0007 Is the offeror responsible for returning only the sections listed in Section L (i.e.

A, B, E, F, G, H, I and K) in their entirety as printed in the RFP?

All sections, (Sections A through K), of the SF

1442 must be returned to be considered responsive to the solicitation requirements.

0008 In regards to Section G, Section L states that the “Offeror does not submit any information for this section.” Does the government still want the entirety of

Section G returned with the proposal?

Yes.

0009 Will the government evaluate our proposal if the Program Manager or

Project Manager have met all other requirements and are in the process of

Factor 2, Subfactor A- Key Personnel states that, “Any Offeror that fails to meet all minimum required certifications and work experience for each key personnel position will not be evaluated acquiring the certification at the bid due date?

further.”

0010 The Attachment 2 Task Order 0001, Submission Requirements page one, Factor 1.2, Staffing/Experience States

“Experience with the Universal Space

Plan (USP) at the Pentagon. Each organization must have completed a minimum of two USP projects within the last 5 years”. Is it the Government’s intention to restrict respondents to this

RFP to the incumbent 8(a)/MACC

Contractors?

See Amendment 0001- Attachment 2, Task Order

0001Submission Requirements and Evaluation.

This section has been amended.

0011 In the statement of work Section 8, the position of Program Manager is listed under Key Personnel. All other Key

Positions are defined in Section 8 with the exception of Program Manager.

What are the duties and responsibilities of the Program Manager?

See Amendment 0001- SOW, Section 8.

0012 In RFP Attachment 2: Task Order

Submission Requirements and

Evaluation Criteria, 1.2 Subfactor 2:

Staffing/Experience: There is a requirement to show “Experience with the Universal Space Plan (USP) at the

Pentagon. Each organization must have completed a minimum of two USP projects within the last 5 years.”

Question #1: There is no requirement for experience with USP mentioned in the

Section L or M requirements or evaluation factors; is the USP past experience a requirement as part of the evaluation of the proposal?

Question #2: Does the term

“organization” in this reference refer to the prime contractor only or the prime contractor and its team of key subcontractors?

0013 Both the Army and Navy have standardized on a Past Performance

Questionnaire that can be completed

All past performance questionnaires submitted shall be submitted to the Government by individuals or the organization listed as the once by the client and then used on an ongoing basis in proposals by the builder and design firm. The current system with Army and Navy is to have the client fill out a standard Past Performance

Form once, which then goes into the proposal.

reference. Past performance questionnaires submitted by the offeror will not be considered.

(Ref. Section L, Vol I)

Also see Section M, Factor 1

0014 1. What personnel security clearance

(PCL) is required for this contract?

(Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret)

2. Are we required to have these clearances prior the proposal submission?

3. What are the procedures to acquire clearances without a sponsor?

Offerors shall be eligible for access to classified information at the SECRET level as verified through JPAS.

No, clearances are not required prior to proposal submission.

See Section H, Security Requirements.

0015 1) Please, clarify whether having facility clearance as part of the security requirements is a prerequisite or must be acquired if selected?

2) If the facility clearance is not a prerequisite, what supporting documents are needed in this regards.

3) Does this contract require

Top Secret Clearance for company key employees? If do, what positions?

A facility clearance is not a prerequisite of this acquisition; however, performance of this contract may involve access to classified information or material and the Contractor’s facility or their subcontractor may be required to store classified material at the SECRET level. The contractor shall obtain a FCL at the SECRET level within 90 days of task order award for requirements involving access to classified information or material.

See Section H, Security Requirements

0016 Regarding Attachment 2, Task Order

0001 Submission Requirements, Page 2,

1.2 Sub-factor 2: Staffing Experience

states:

“Experience with the Universal Space

Plan (USP) at the Pentagon. Each organization must have completed a minimum of two USP projects within the last 5 years.”

We believe this requirement to be highly restrictive to fair market competition, as only incumbent contractors could have this experience. We respectfully request that this requirement be removed

0017 Reference page 99 of 117. The page limitation for Volume 1 is 10 pages. The

Past Performance Data Sheets, Attachment J-1a and J1-b are two pages per project.

The page limitation has been increased to 25

0018 Reference page 99-117. The page limitation for Volume II is 12 pages.

Based on the information that will be required to adequately respond to the detailed questions presented in Section

B, C, and D, a 30 page limit should be considered.

Increased to 15 pages. See Amendment 0001-

Section L.

0019 Reference page 100-117, Section B.

Confirm that it is acceptable to submit

CCASS and ACASS in lieu of Past

Performance Questionnaires

Offerors must follow instructions in Section L of the RFP.

Per Section M, the Government may evaluate the

Offeror’s quality performance using information available from CCASS and ACASS.

0020 Please confirm that (2) proposals are required, on for the SOW MACC and for the AF Alterations.

See Section L. Two separate technical proposals are required. One for the MACC basic contract

(Volume II) and one for the Seed Project/Task

Order 0001 (Volume IV). Pricing for Task Order

0001 is to be provided in Volume III, Tab C.

0021 Please confirm that the requirements for the MACC proposal are the following:

(3) volume binders, (1) original set, and

(3) copies, and (3) CD’s, 1 CD for each volume.

See Section L. Four (4) volumes shall be submitted. One (1) original and three (3) duplicates of each volume. Include three (3) CD’s containing electronic versions of Volume I, II, III, and IV on each CD.

0023 Please confirm that the requirements for the AF alterations are the following: a)

Does the SOW have a unique solicitation number?

b) is the proposal due at 3:00pm, Oct 1, 2013?

c) Are the formatting requirements identical to the MACC?

d) Only (1) volume binder is required.

(1) original and (3) copies.

e) the price should be included in the same volume as the technical

f) does the price proposal count in the

40-page limit?

g) An electronic copy of the entire proposal is to be emailed to Maria

a) No, the AF Alterations (Task Order 0001) does not have a unique solicitation number.

b)Yes

c) Yes

d) See Section L

e) Price for Task Order 0001 should be included in Volume III, Tab C.

f) No, there is no page limitation for pricing, Volume III.

g) See amended Attachment 2, Task Order

Calica? When is the electronic copy due?

0024 (Reference Section 2.12 WHS

Computer Aided Design) The RFP specifies that all drawings are to be created in Microstation V8i and that conversion from a non-

Microstation format is not authorized. AutoCAD and Revit software are the leading design tools utilize by the engineers and architects for building construction. Many shops utilize

AutoCAD based programs to seamlessly translate shop drawings into the fabrication process.

Microstation is more prevalent in in heavy civil Department of

Transportation work. This sole source requirement will place many firms at an economic disadvantage. Please consider allowing drawings to be created in non-Microstation software, or create a project allowance for licensing and training to use the software.

Microstation is the requirement.

0025 Volume II – Technical, Subfactor C –

Offeror Experience and Resource

Commitment is unclear as to whether relevant projects submitted must be design-build or not. RFP page 102, Section C, Experience: advises offerors to “demonstrate the experience of the team (organizations and/or individuals in successfully completing projects using the design-build process”. Section M –

Evaluation Factors for Award –

Subfactor C – states: “Experience: The degree of design-build experience, similar in scope of this requirement, of

Experience is not the same as Past Performance.

See Section M- Relevancy Ratings the Offeror’s team, including previous projects worked together.” However, Attachment J-1a OFFEROR’S PAST

PERFORMANCE DATA provides check boxes for the offeror to identify whether the project was Design-Bid-

Build, Design-Build, or Other. Please clarify if projects may be evaluated as

“Relevant” if they were completed utilizing the design-bid-build delivery method.

0026 Attachment 2 SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS AND

EVALUATION CRITERIA provides detail regarding evaluation of the task order proposal. We’re uncertain as to a few details of the task order proposal submission.

a. Is the deadline for submission of the electronic version the same as for the

MACC proposal submission (Oct 1)?

Document states that 4 hard copies are to be provided as well. What is deadline for submission of the hard copies?

b. What is the contractual “offer” document to be included with our electronic submission of task order

0001? (as the SF1442 will be included with Volume III of our MACC proposal submission)

c. Is there a government-provided

Bid Schedule you wish utilized for Task

Order 0001?

a) All copies are due by the specified proposal due date and time. Submission requirements for the MACC and Task

Order 0001 are the same. See Section L.

Attachment 2, Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria has been amended.

b) Pricing for Task Order 0001, shall be provided in Volume III, Tab C.

c) No.

0027 3. Attachment 2, 1.2 Sub-factor 2:

Staffing/Experience states: “Each organization must have completed a minimum of two USP projects within the last 5 years.” How would any firms other than the incumbents have this experience? Is “each organization” referring to each team? Or each entity on the team? Please clarify.

0028 4. RFP Page 115, Section M, identifies the criteria for an evaluation rating of “Very Relevant” for past performance projects. It is indicated on the same page that “Failure to submit a minimum of 3 “Very Relevant” or

“Relevant” past performance references will automatically receive a confidence rating of “Unknown Confidence.” One of the criteria for a “Very Relevant” rating is “The Offeror’s lead design firm is the designer of record.” We have developed numerous relationships with

A/E firms through the performance of design-build task orders throughout the

U.S., but we have chosen to team with a design firm with Pentagon experience for this MACC. Without prior teaming experience with this firm, will our team be able to achieve the required

“Relevant” rating for Past Performance?

There is no definition of “Relevant” experience provided.

Yes. The definition for Relevant is in Section M

–Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

0029 Page 99 of 117 of the RFP instructs offerors to “include three CDs containing electronic versions of Volume I, II, and

III”. Do I interpret this to mean 3 CDs should each contain Volumes I, II, and

III . . . OR . . . should 1 CD contain Vol

I, 1 CD contain Volume II, and 1 CD contain Vol III ?

See amended Section L. Provide 3 CD’s, each

CD containing Volumes I, II, III, and IV.