LRAFB Hybrid Industry Day Questions and Answers 10.6.26.pdf

ANSWERS

1 In the Self Scoring Matrix, Section 6 is designed to grade out our estimating ability with accuracy of the bids being one of the highest grading metrics. The nature of government contracting is such that very seldom is information regarding competitive bids released to the bidders in a similar fashion as commercial bidders are accustomed to seeing. The only real measure of feedback that we have from the government is whether we were awarded and what the awarded company submitted for a bid total.

Although this is vital information, it leaves a wide universe of questions open for speculation regarding precisely why the bids were unsuccessful. In the commercial world, we would be given a bid tab with every bidder's bid form information divulged.

Although this may not tell the entire story, it at least gives a hint as to where the deltas were in the bids.

We will take this section seriously when we are self-scoring for the new MACC. In the future, a better set of metrics for the MACC bidders would be to release a bid tab on the day of the award with the bid form information that will help the bidders understand the government's logic for award. A further critical set of data would be to release the approved contract schedule of values for the unsuccessful bidders to review and a schedule of values at the close of the project to reflect the final cost to the government, including change orders.

All of these documents would constitute full disclosure of cost to your MACC partners and establish a culture of transparency for the future. The one metric that the government should care about the most is the gap between the low bid and the final cost with change orders. It is entirely possible that the low MACC bidder missed a significant element and had to scramble to recover during the lifetime of the project. That fact should be a critical evaluation criteria moving forward within the cycle of the MACC. We can agree that any sensitive information or confidential corporate information could be easily redacted as it is passed to the unsuccessful bidders for review. We would then be on a footing similar to the commercial contracting world and actually be able to grade ourselves with the same level of detail where we can make effective changes to benefit the government in the future.

Sorry for the length of the question. We hope to have some constructive input regarding how to successfully evaluate our estimating performance using the single metric that is provided.

The release of detailed competitor pricing information is strictly prohibited by the FAR. The Government's primary concern regarding a contractor's estimating ability is not necessarily how closely the Offeror's bid mirrored the competition, but rather how complete and realistic the Offeror can provide an estimate for a project with common scope among MACC task orders.

2 Section L, 1.0 General Instructions: Will the government consider allowing offers to submit electronic files for bid submission to an Organization Email Box or via DoD Safe Link rather than electronic submission on a CD? Many computers do not have CDburners any longer.

Yes.

3 Section L, 3.3.1, Table 1 – Proposal Organization. What is the required document title for 3.5.3, Work Sample Cover Sheet? CompanyName_MACC_Vol2_WS1_CoverSheet.pdf, WS2_CoverSheet.pdf, etc.

4 Section L, 3.5.1 General. The second paragraph states “The maximum number of work samples is 12. The work samples submitted in this volume will be the same work samples reference in Volume III – Past Performance”. However, Section L

3.5.2.3 indicates that offerors are to submit “At least five (5) but not to exceed ten (10) CPARS/PPQ” for Past Performance. What is the maximum number of work samples that offerors are to submit?

The total maximum number of work samples is 12 for each offeror. The total maximum number of CPARS/PPQs is 10 for category 3, Past Performance. Work samples and CPARS/PPQs are not the same. A minimum of 5 work samples to a maximum of 10 work samples submitted in categories 1 and 2 will have a CPARS or PPQ to support Category 3.

5 Section L, 3.4.2 Offeror Company Information/ Cover Letter: Will the government clarify the language within this paragraph, “The Offeror shall be registered in the SAM.gov at the Page # of ## RFP FA446027R0001 Section L Instructions to Offerors time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition.”?

The Offeror shall be registered in SAM.gov from the time of proposal submission, through contract award and for the duration of the acquisition.

LRAFB MACC Hybrid Industry Day Questions and Answers (26 Aug 2026 at 8AM CDT)

INDUSTRY DAY QUESTIONS

6 Section L, 3.5.2.1.4 Category 1e: Construction in Secured Areas. The government lists “munitions areas, SCIFs, or bunkers” as types of “sensitive or secured environments”.

a. Does the government anticipate this MACC to include specific projects involving “munitions areas, SCIFs, or bunkers”?

b. Will the government accept other types of construction activities as Secured Areas including but not limited to?

i. Federal Research Laboratories?

ii. Currency Printing Facilities?

iii. Construction requiring bullet-resistant materials/ components?

iv. Electrical transmission and distribution facilities?

v. Water transmission facilities?

vi. Data centers?

vii. SIPR Rooms?

viii. RF Shielding installations?

ix. Construction in areas that require addition access requirements beyond installation access requirements?

a. Yes, it is possible. If there is a project requiring sensitive or secured enviorments, this will be identified in the statement of work.

b. Other options will be allowed, however additional information regarding level of security requirements and the nature of construction will need to be provided for points to be awarded.

Look to UFC 4-010-05 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and Secure Access Protection Facilities (SAPFs) for reference on what may classify as "Sensitive or secured environments" and its requirements.

7 Section L, 3.5.2.2.1.2 Category 2b: Experience as Prime Contractor on Design-Build Projects. Scope of Design. This paragraph states “Of the work samples submitted for category 6…”. Will the government clarify what category 6 refers to, as the only Category 6 listed appears within Attachment 3 Appendix A LRAFB MACC Self Scoring Matrix Rev1 as Estimating Capability.

Category 6 - Estimating Capability will be added to Section L and Section M.

Draft Section L Category 6 will state as follows (subject to change):

"This section awards points based on the Offeror’s ability to conduct an estimate of the sample task order in Attachment ## that is complete, fair and reasonable. The Offeror’s estimate submitted in Volume IV will be evaluated based on how detailed, complete, realistic, and accurate the documentation. The Offeror shall confirm "Yes" or "No" for each capability level. The Offeror shall not input “Yes” more than one time in this category."

Draft Section M Category 6 will state as follows (subject to change):

"In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s ability to accurately estimate costs based on the Offeror’s sample task order estimate documentation submitted in Volume IV. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it demonstrates the Offerors ability to submit complete, realistic and accurate proposals for MACC task orders."

8 Section L, 3.5.2.3.1 Category 3: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). This paragraph states that “The maximum allowed quantity of ratings is 50 combined”.

This section also states that 4 categories within the CPARS evaluations “count toward the 50-rating maximum: Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management”. Will the government explain how the maximum 50 quantity of ratings is calculated? If offerors are to use a maximum of 10 projects x 4 categories, this comes to a sum of 40 maximum ratings.

The solicitation limits Offerors to a maximum of 10 projects for past performance evaluation under Category 3. See question and answer #9 for updated CPARS evaluation categories.

The maximum of 30 combined ratings is calculated as follows:

10 projects × 3 rated categories (Quality, Schedule, and Management) = 30 ratings.

This accounts for the full set of CPARS evaluation categories that count toward the 30-rating ceiling.

9 Section L, 3.5.2.3.1 Category 3: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The allowable rating categories include “Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management”. The publicly available manual titled “Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System” (including the most recently updated July 2026 version) indicate that Cost Control evaluations are not required for Fixed Price contracts (“A3.29 Cost Control. (Not required for Fixed Price type contracts/orders)”. Since most construction contracts for federal construction projects are issued by the federal government as Fixed Price contracts, many offerors will not have evaluations listed in the Cost Control category within their CPARS evaluations, resulting in a lower overall score within Category 3 of the Self Scoring Matrix at no fault of the offerors.

a. Will the government consider excluding Cost Control from the ratable CPARS categories, particularly since this is a construction MATOC of which offerors are likely to not have Cost Control ratings for many of their federal construction CPARS-rated projects?

b. Will the government change the maximum quantity of ratings to 30 combined, utilizing those evaluation ratings from Quality, Schedule, and Management categories only?

a. Yes, Cost Control will be removed.

b. Yes, the maximum quantity of ratings will be updated to 30 and only include Quality, Schedule, and Management.

10 Section L, 3.5.2.4.1.2 Categories 4c-4e: In-House Workforce. Certified Professionals. Will the government clarify what certifications they are looking for in regard to “Certified Safety Manager”?

Statement of work calls out adhereing to EM 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements Manual. In this manual you can find information on a Certified Safety Professional.

11 Section L, 3.5.4 Work Samples. Will the government confirm what type of documentation offerors should submit to meet the requirements of this section? Or are CPARS/ PPQ sufficient for Work Sample documentation?

An acceptable work sample is defined as either a non-IDIQ contract, or a task order under an IDIQ contract, on which has been performed and completed by the Offeror as the Prime Contractor prior to the release of this solicitation. There is a maximum number of 12 total work samples. Work samples may count toward multiple categories, and it is encouraged to submit work samples that can be utilized in multiple categories. Future performance periods on an existing contract do not demonstrate technical experience and shall not be utilized as work samples, nor be factored into the total point value of a submitted sample. CPARS/PPQs shall not be utilized as work samples.

12 Section M, 1.1.1 Small Business Set Aside Award. Will the government consider an SDVOSB or VOSB reserve pool on this

MACC?

It is in the best interest of the Government to do 100% Small Business Set-Aside.

13 Section M, 3.5 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE. Category 1d: Multiple Construction Multi-Trade. Will the government confirm if the projects need to have an overlapping time-period totaling 6 months, or if offerors need to provide projects that were performed within the same 6-month period, albeit not for the entire 6-month period?

As long as the projects demonstrate overlapping periods in which the contractor was actively performing critical multi-trade work, the precise duration of that overlap is not material. Periods limited to project close-out, demobilization, or basic mobilization activities do not negate the concurrence of the critical work phases and therefore do not disqualify the projects from meeting the Category 1d criteria.

14 Section M, 3.5 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE. Category 1f: Individual Trade Projects. This paragraph states the evaluation is looking for experience “where the Prime Contractor performed at least 60% of the work”. However, Section L,

3.5.2.1.5 Category 1f: Individual Trade Projects states “where the Offeror performed at least 60% of the total project in one specific trade”, listing subsequent trades. Will the government confirm if they are looking for projects in which the offeror has self-performed 60% of the work in these specified trades? Or if the government is looking for the offerors’ experience in projects in which the majority (60%+) of the work was performed in the specified trades?

Category 1f will be updated from 60% to 40%. Category 1f requires the Offeror to submit projects in which at least 40% of the total project requirements/work was concentrated in one specific trade.

Acceptable examples include projects where fire protection/suppression systems, hazardous material construction, building automation/data systems, or roofing constituted 40% or more of the overall project scope.

The evaluation is focused on the composition of the project itself (i.e., the majority of the work being in one of the listed individual trades), not on whether the Prime Contractor self-performed 40% of the entire project value.

15 Section M, Category 4a: In-House Workforce. Trade/Construction Workers. Will the government clarify what constitutes trade/ construction workers?

a. Carpenters?

b. Laborers?

c. Project Managers?

d. Assistant Project Managers?

e. Superintendents?

f. Quality Control Managers?

g. Site Safety Health Officers (SSHO)?

h. Warehouse/ Delivery Managers?

Trade/Construction Workers are defined as craft personnel who perform hands-on construction and trade work on the project site.

This includes:

-Carpenters -Equipment Operators / Heavy Equipment -Concrete Finishers / Cement Masons -Sheet Metal Workers -Masons / Bricklayers -HVAC Craft Technicians -Drywallers / Lathers -Welders -Roofers -Laborers -Painters -Electricians -Plumbers / Pipefitters -Ironworkers / Structural Steel Workers -Operators

16 Attachment 3 Appendix A LRAFB MACC Self Scoring Matrix Rev1. In an effort to maximize local competition and take advantage of offerors who maintain relationships with specialty trade subcontractors in the local area, will the government consider adding some subcategories to Category 5 – GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE:

a. Additional points for offerors whose provided work samples are performed within the State of Arkansas.

b. Additional points for offerors whose provided work samples are performed on a military installation within the State of Arkansas.

c. Additional points for offerors whose provided work samples are performed on Little Rock Air Force Base.

Yes, these options are viable and will be considered/added.

17 Attachment 3 Appendix A LRAFB MACC Self Scoring Matrix Rev1. Will the term in which relevant projects are accepted be changed from 30 July 2026 to the date of the solicitation issuance?

Yes, the term in which relevant projects are accetped will be updated to the date of solicitation issuance.

18 Attachment 1 On Off Ramping Procedures. What are the participation and/ or win-rate requirements to stay onboard the

MACC?

MACC IDIQ awardees are expected, in good faith, to participate in task order competitions and, if successful, deliver quality projects on schedule. Failure to participate in good faith and/or an overall performance CPARs rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory may result in the Offeror being off-ramped from the MACC IDIQ program. The Government reserves the right to off-ramp an Offeror by enforcing a contract termination at the end of performance of the last active awarded task order for the reasons below:

a) Failure to provide good faith, competitive proposals or responses for at least 80% of Request For Proposals (RFPs) over a twelve-month period of performance (It is the responsibility of the Offeror to track percentage submitted.)

b) Failure to self-perform at least 15% of the work over a twelve-month period of performance

c) Late performance of task order workload

d) Failure to maintain and provide required data requested by the Contracting Officer (CO)

e) Inability of Prime Contractor or Subcontractor performing work to maintain proper certification

f) Consistently poor task order performance as evidenced by Contracting Officer Representative (COR) feedback to the Contracting Officer

g) Unresponsiveness to warranty work

h) Unsafe site conditions

i) Any other reason seen suitable by the Contracting Officer

Industry Day Questions