N39430/N3943019R2110QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_PPQ.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. When is the last day to submit requests for information or clarifications?

Answer: Firms shall submit all requests for information or clarifications by 04 February 2019 no later than 1600 PST.

2. What is the total square footage of the structures that this RFP will cover?

Answer: The approximate square footage for each region is 6 million square feet. (total square feet for all regions is approx. 30 million sq.).

3. If a project’s technical services are complete except for PCAS work, does that prohibit us from using it as an example project in our response?

Answer: The solicitation is quite detailed in the services being sought. The proposers should make their own judgement call based upon their experience.

4. Can you please share who the incumbent firms are for Solicitation N3943019R2110?

Answer: Region 1 single A/E firm, Childs Engineering Corporation; Region 2 single A/E firm, MSI Marine

Solutions; Region 3 single A/E firm, Collins Engineers, Inc.; Region 4 single A/E firm, Appledore Marine;

OCONUS single A/E firm, CH2M Hill, Inc.

5. The NAICS Code listed is 541330 Engineering Services-Marine Engineering and Naval

Architecture. It is our understanding that this is meant to be under Engineering Services with a size standard of $15M and not Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture with a size standard of $38.5M. Is that correct?

Answer: That is correct, The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code appropriate for this requirement is 541330- Engineering Services with a size standard of $15M

6. Is it the Government’s intention to apply a comparably high small business size standard ($38.5 million vs. $15 million) as compared with other similar and previous solicitations for Engineering

Services? We respectfully request that the size standard be indicated as $15 million, consistent with past and similar solicitations using NAICS code 541330 for Engineering Services rather than the code typically reserved for ship design.

Answer: The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code appropriate for this requirement is 541330- Engineering Services with a size standard of $15M

7. Can you confirm the small business size?

I believe that the type of work may be misclassified, as the work under this solicitation appears to be Civil or Structural Engineering and not Marine Engineering or Naval Architecture that deal with the design of ships and their engines.

ATTACHMENT A

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL

SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION

ON NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an

Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the

Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the

Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

Contractor Information (Firm Name):

Client Information (Name):

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff

(including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

Contractor Information (Firm Name):

Client Information (Name):

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations

(including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Answer: The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code appropriate for this requirement is 541330- Engineering Services with a size standard of $15M

8. For CONUS, we had planned on putting together different teams for different regions. Thinking we would have our SF330 and select a specific region that submittal is for and then a separate submittal with a different region selected. Is this ok to do or is the government requesting that we only submit one SF330 as prime?

Answer: A single SF330 shall be submitted by the A and E firm. The A and E firm will distinguish which

Region(s) it desires to be considered for in their submittal package (SF330).

The SF-330 shall be typed, one sided, at least 11 point Times New Roman or larger. Part I shall not exceed 50 single-sided 8.5 by 11 inch pages, unless the A and E firm is submitting different teams for each separate region.

In that situation, the A and E firm may submit a separate Part I Section C and Section D for each proposed team for each separate region.

The page limit does not include ISRs, certificates, PPQs, licenses, or the draft subcontracting plan, as required by the Small Business Subcontracting criterion, nor does the page limit include cover sheets, dividers, or other requested documentation (e.g., joint venture agreement, proof of AE firm registration) provided that these do not contain any substantive information submitted in response to the synopsis or intended to demonstrate the qualifications of the firm.

9. Is it possible for one firm to submit more than one solicitation for the CONUS regions?

(For example, if that firm put together a team for Region 2 with a sub consultant and showcased their experiences in that Region, but also put together a separate team for Region 4 with a different sub consultant with more regional experience would it be acceptable to put together one SF330 for

R2 and another one for R4)

Answer: A single SF330 shall be submitted by the A and E firm. The A and E firm will distinguish which

Region(s) it desires to be considered for in their submittal package (SF330). the A and E firm may submit a separate Part I Section C and Section D for each proposed team for each separate region.

10. Should SF330 responses be shipped via mail or third-party shipping to Port Hueneme at the following address? Or are firms allowed to hand deliver the SF330 response to the below address?

Answer: Hand delivered SF 330’s submissions are not authorized. Submit one (1) electronic copy and three (3) hard (paper) copies via mail or third-party shipping of the SF-330 to Naval Facilities Engineering

Command EXWC, Code ACQ71, Attn: Monica Razo-Shepherd, Naval Base Ventura County, 1100 23rd

Ave., Bldg. 1100, Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4347. Outside corner of mailing envelope shall be labeled as follows: N39430-19-R-2110.

11. In the SF-330 Submission Requirements (page 11 of 11), there is a mentioning of ISRs and draft

Subcontracting Plan as not being included in the page counts. Are firms responding to the

UNRESTRICTED OCONUS Region required to provide this information? If so, what are the Small

Business subcontracting goals?

Answer: Per FAR 19.000(b). OCONUS requirements are not set aside for small businesses. Thus, the

OCONUS requirement is unrestricted. However, firms will be required, as part of the formal slate-selection process, to identify proposed small business participation for the subject contract.

12. Under 'Criterion 7—Volume of Work (SF330, Part 1, Section H)' it appears to suggest that information should be included under Section H of the SF330, however under submission requirements it states 'Firms do not submit data for this factor.' Should we assume we do not need to include anything under this requirement or would you like to see a narrative explain the work we have done that would accompany the data you are extracting from FPDS?

Answer: Firms do not submit data for this factor. Data will be extracted from the Federal Procurement

Data System (FPDS).

13. Criterion 4 – Past Performance indicates offerors should use the PPQ included in Attachment A, but no attachment was found in the solicitation package. Will NAVFAC EXWC provide

Attachment A?

Answer: Submit a completed CPARS evaluation for each project under Criterion 1. If a completed CPARS evaluation is not available, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment (A)) included in this notice shall be provided for the firm or its team members to submit to the client for each project included under Criterion 1, Specialized Experience. DO NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS

IS AVAILABLE. Attachment A uploaded into NECO.

14. Will NAVFAC EXWC consider expanding the recency definition for projects on resumes in Section

E and projects in Section F, from three years to six years?

Answer: No. Based upon the Sources Sought and the previous waterfront inspection solicitation, there is sufficient small and big competition with recent experience to warrant the three-year requirement.