RMACC_Draft_Solicitation_QA_26_April_2016.pdf

RMACC Draft Solicitation Questions & Answers 26 April 2016

1. Our firm has extensive Design-Build experience over the past 10 years in projects ranging in size from $350,000.00 to $5MM+. Unfortunately, due to the great recession most of our design-build experience is in the range of 6-10 years old. Due to the rarity and difficulty in obtaining D-B work for SDVOSB & SB HubZone companies would the government consider modifying the D-B requirements for this RMACC to include D-B projects up to 10 years old with a magnitude of greater than $350K?

Answer: After careful consideration and based on the limited inquiries of this nature, the Government has decided to retain the existing evaluation criteria. Please note, only one of the three to five projects submitted needs to represent a Design-Build method of delivery and that we have defined this to include projects that include Design-Build and One-Step Turnkey (Design-Build). As noted in the current criteria, a fixed-price contract or task order that was based on a performance specification and that incorporates both the design and construction of any facility or real property requirement (including repairs) constitutes the Design-Build method of delivery.

2. What are the SDVOSB certification requirements for this contract and how will the CG monitor for any illegitimate SDVOSB involvement? Will the Coast Guard please reconsider this answer and require VetBiz certification?

Answer: The CFR states that SDVOSB status is a self-certifying process and it outlines tough penalties for misrepresentation that include suspension, debarment, and a presumption of loss based on the total amount expended. DHS, like many other Departments/Agencies, relies on the SDVOSB community to police itself and report to the contracting officer any awards made to an SDVOSB that has misrepresented its status.

When credible evidence is submitted by an interested party, SBA will review the protest and render a decision. The procedures for protesting a firm's status as a service-disable veteran-owned small business concern are outlined in FAR 19.307. As a result, for this procurement, SDVOSBs are not required to be verified by the CVE for inclusion in the VetBiz database.

3. To ensure that small business set aside concerns are properly managing and controlling task orders under the RMACC how will the CG identify and evaluate the participation of large businesses that are in a partnership or JV with an SDVOSB?

Answer: Any potential Joint Venture must be able to substantiate their status as a small business concern in the event of a protest regarding an offeror’s satus consistent with FAR

19.3. Also, the contracting officer, any time after offers are open may question the small business representation of any offeror in a specific offer by filing a contracting officer’s protest. Please also note that the Limitations on Subcontracting outlined in FAR 52.219-14 will also apply.

4. Past Performance: we have previous and current projects that meet the past performance criteria of the RMAC ($500 - $10M with the past 6 years). One of our most recent projects is a design-guild project. The design is 100% complete and we a currently on schedule to complete the project by July 2016. Please clarify if we can use the past performance of this project and other projects of similar size and scope.

Answer: See the draft solicitation Factor 1 – Corporate Experience, which states the following: Projects submitted shall be valued between $500,000 and $10M and shall be substantially completed (65%) within the past six years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

5. How long must an 8(a) have a place of business in order for it to be considered “bona fide”?

Answer: The SBA will make a determination of eligibility for presumptive 8(a) awardees and will evaluate the bona fide place of business. Please refer to 13 CFR 124.3 and consider consultation with SBA.

6. Will the Government accept receipt date of Fedex or USPS to confirm compliance with delivery deadline?

Answer: Please refer to FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors- Competitive Acquisition.

7. Referencing Part I, Section H.6, Required Insurance: For a Design-Build task order project, please clarify if the contractor is required to carry professional liability insurance, or if it is sufficient if the Designer of Record carries professional liability insurance.

Answer: It is anticipated that it would be sufficient for the Designer of Record to carry professional liability insurance.

8. Referencing Section L.3 Joint Venture Agreements, we recommend adding an additional section in regards to Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTA’s). We may or may not use a teaming arrangement for our proposal submission, however we have used CTA’s effectively on previous large projects. We would like to request a section that allows and references CTA’s in CFR 121.103 (9) and FAR subpart 9.6.

Answer: We have addressed partnerships and joint ventures as outlined in FAR 9.601(1).

We will consider the agreements outlined in FAR 9.601(2) as a traditional prime-subcontractor arrangement.

9. Can you provide information on what percentage of task orders will be design-build versus design-bid-build?

Answer: Based on the historical utilization of the current RMACC, the majority of the task orders have been design-bid-build. We anticipate that this trend will continue in the short term; however, we are advocating the One-Step (Design-Build) Turnkey delivery method for which the Coast Guard has special statutory authority (See 14 USC 677). The One-Step Turnkey process on this contract will entail selection of a contractor through the fair opportunity process on the basis of price or price in combination with other evaluation criteria to perform, in accordance with the provisions of a firm fixed price contract, both the design and construction of a facility using performance specifications. We believe that our design teams will be able to effectively employ this method to leverage the contractor’s ability to meet our requirements and that the utilization of this method will increase over time. In addition to maintenance and repair requirements, where the One-Step (Design- Build) Turnkey delivery method will be employed, we will have smaller amounts of new minor construction or small construction projects that fall within the task order limitations of this contract and where we will implement the Design-Build method which will entail more significant designs. In these cases, we intend to employ fair opportunity ordering procedures that evaluate best value using both price and non-price factors.

10. Will you accept New Construction (MILCON) projects as relative and acceptable for projects submitted? While we see that much of the requirement in the draft solicitation is for property repairs, historical remediation and restoration, a new company may have new construction projects that might demonstrate some of the other relative project experience you want to see, such as hangars, firing ranges or marine construction. Or perhaps, a company may have new construction projects within the geographic locations you outline in the draft solicitation.

Answer: New construction projects may be submitted. Please refer to the specific details of our evaluation plan and note that we are seeking a diverse capability.

11. How will you evaluate a facility addition if submitted as a relevant project? Will it be considered new construction or Maintenance/Repair/Renovation?

Answer: Facility additions would fall within the types of efforts anticipated under this contract. The evaluation team will assess the project consistent with the evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation.

12. While it is noted that the Government does not anticipate using the RMACC for projects that require complex or collaborative design effort, will you want to see any experience of the design firm a company intends to use when design elements are required? Please clarify that no design team experience is to be provided with the submission with the understanding that the contractor must still provide evidence of design build experience.

Answer: We will revise the evaluation criteria for Phase One, Factor 3 (Technical Capabilities Subfactor) and Phase Two, Factor 5 to clarify that the experience of the designers will be considered.