AMD1_ENCL2_PPI-Response.pdf

Question No.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 SF1442, Block 13 A The Government specified due date of 08 Sept (approximately one month) coincides with the Bon observances of both mainland Japan and Okinawa. Collectively, these separate host nation observances last about a week and a half and have an adverse effect on contractor's ability to get prices from suppliers and lower tier trades. Would the Government extend the proposal due date to Sept 22nd to compensate for the Bon observances?

Refer to Amendment 0001. The date for receipt of proposals is extended from 08 September 2020 to 22 September 2020 at 2:30 PM local time.

2 SF1442, Block 10 B Exhibit D - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

The contractor has many relevant completed GOJ projects it wishes to list as experience. Large GOJ projects are commonly done as JVs, with the larger companies given the role of managing partner and tasked with overall responsibility.

Question 1: Would the Government allow contractors to list as experience large GOJ projects in which it was the managing JV partner? GOJ contracting authorities maintain their own system for evaluating and documenting contractor performances; and, although the format is not exactly the same as what the Government specified in Exhibit D, the GOJ rating system does cover the majority of the items listed in the past performance questionnaire.

Question 2: Would the Government accept already issued GOJ performance assessment records in lieu of past performance questionnaire?

Yes, the Government will consider experience/work performed as a Joint Venture. Refer to Exhibit B, Block 2.

If there is not a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit D). Refer to Factor 4, Past Performance for further guidance.

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

Enclosure (2)

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

3 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 14 00 / 1.3.b / Page 8 of 9 (PDF Page 20 of 540); and ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 32

16.00 33 / 4.3.1.1 / Pages 3 and 4 (PDF Pages 68 & 69 of 540)

MACC SPECS, section 01 14 00, para. 1.3.b gives a total of 48.5 anticipated weather delay days that contractors are to incorporate in their schedules on projects that are based on a five day work week. However, in MACC SPECS, section 01 32 16.00 33, para.

4.3.1.1, the total number of anticipated weather delay days given for five day work week based projects is 38 days. Can the Government clarify if 38 days or 48.5 days the correct number of anticipated weather delay days the contractors are to incorporate into their schedules? Also, if 48.5 is deemed to be correct, will the Government be revising the number of anticipated weather delay days it has listed for work weeks that are based on 6 and 7 days?

To preclude duplication of information and ambiguities in the specifications, sub para. 1.3, Time Extension for Unsually Severe Weather under "Specs 01 14 00.05 20" is deleted. Section 01 14 00.05 20 is revised in its entirety, see Amend 0001. Specs 01 32 16.00 33 shall remain unchanged.

4 ATT3 BEQ 5703

Specs 01 14 00 / 1.5.b / Page 5 (PDF Page 45 of 1208)

The referenced section of the seed project specs provides the number of anticipated weather delay days for the project; will all task order specifications clearly indicate the number of adverse weather delay days contractors are to incorporate in their schedules, or will it be determined on a case by case basis?

The number of adverse weather delays indicated in the MACC specifications serves as the basic guideline for each task order. However, if more delays are to be experienced due to unusually severe weather, the Contracting Officer will consider an extension after fully reviewing the data provided.

5 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 20 00.00 20 / 1.5.3.a / Page 3 of 5 (PDF Page 24 of 540); and ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 20 00.05 20 / 1.5.2 / Page 4 (PDF Page 31 of 540)

MACC SPECS, section 01 20 00.00 20, para. 1.5.3.a specifies that invoices are to be mailed in. However, in MACC SPECS section 01 20 00.05 20, para. 1.5.2, contractors are advised that invoices are to be submitted electronically via WAWF. Can the Government clarify if both methods are to be used; and, if so, can the Government clarify if the processing of invoice to start once the hardcopy has been received, or once it has been entered in

WAWF?

Contractors are to submit invoices in accordance with Contract Clauses DFARS 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports and DFARS 252.232-7006 Wide Area Workflow Payment Instructions. Section 01 20 00.00 20, is revised in its entirety via Amendment 0001.

6 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 32 16.00 33 / 4.3.1 / Page 3 (PDF Page 68 of 540); and ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 32 17.00 20 / 1.8 / Page 3 (PDF Page 78 of 540)

MACC SPECS, section 01 32 16.00 33, para. 4.3.1 specifies Microsoft Project (2010) as the software to be used for scheduling. However, in MACC SPECS section 01 32 17.00 20, para. 1.8, the specified scheduling software is Primavera P6. Can the Government clarify which of the two scheduling software contractors should plan on using?

Use Microsoft Project software. Section 01 32 17.00 20, is revised in its entirety via Amendment 0001.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

7 ATT3 BEQ 5703

Specs 01 33 00 / 1.16.1 / Page 17 (PDF Page 81 of 1208)

The specifications for the seed project do not specify the software contractors are to build their schedules on. The only requirement in regards to the schedule is that it has to be a bar chart; and bar charts can be generated with either MS Project, Primavera P6, or even MS Excel. Can the Government specify the scheduling software it expects the contractor to use?

Use bar charts generated from MS Project.

8 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 33 10.05 20 / 3.3 / Page 21 (PDF Page 158 of 540)

In the event there are conflicts and/or contradictions between the ATT2 MACC specifications and the Task Order specifications;

which would take precedence?

The MACC specifications are basic specifications to serve as guidelines in the event that no specifications are provided. However, task order specifications takes precedence over MACC specifications especially for technical specifications.

9 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 45 00.05 20 / 1.4.4 / Page 12 (PDF Page 283 of 540)

This section states that the Commissioning Authority must meet the requirements of the Third Party Certifier (TPC). According to 13 CFR 127.354, all third party certifiers must enter into written agreements with the Small Business Administration (SBA); this alone will make it difficult for most Japanese companies to qualify as a Commissioning Authority.

Question 1: Can the Government confirm the applicability of this requirement? The paragraph in this specification section goes on to say that, in addition to the TPC requirements, the Commissioning Authority must also have certifications as a Building System Commissioning Contractor from the AABC; or as an NEBB Building Systems Certified Professional; or as a Building Professional from the AEE; or as a Certified Professional from the BCA; or as Commissioning Process Authority Professional / Commissioning Process Manager from the University of Wisconsin College of Engineering. These are all US based certification programs which aren’t widely available and/or recognized in Japan. If enforced, these requirements will narrow down the Commissioning Authority to maybe a handful of individuals in Japan.

Question 2: Can the Government confirm the applicability of this requirement?

Question 3: As an alternative, would the Government allow the Commissioning Authority to be certified by the host nation available Building Services Commissioning Association?

Section 01 45 00.05 20, is revised in its entirety via Amendment 0001.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

10 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 45 00.05 20 /

1.4.5.1 / Page 14

(PDF

Page 285 of 540)

This section states that the fire protection QC specialist be certified as a US professional engineer. In light of travel restrictions brought about the current global pandemic - and in the event the few individuals in Japan who meet that requirement aren't available to the contractor - would the Government allow a US based FPE to support the project via teleconference?

Section 01 45 00.05 20, is revised in its entirety via Amendment 0001.

11 ATT2 Okinawa MACC Specs 01 62 35 / 1.3 / Page 1 (PDF Page 358 of 540)

This section provides EPA guidelines for manufacturers to follow;

however, these guidelines are generally not applicable in Japan.

Can the Government confirm the applicability of this requirement?

These are just guidelines to follow although it is understood that many of them generally do not apply to Japan. The EPA guidelines should be followed to the maximum extent possible. However, most Contractors now use the Japan Environmental Governing Standards manual since it has more stringent requirements. Additionally, DoD departments within FarEast sometimes have supplemental information that will be provided during solicitation procedure.

12 Page 8 of 62 Solicitation/RFP, section 00 21 00, point B- Bid Gurantee and Bonding Requirments

As referred in Far Clause 52.228-1, 52.228-15, please advsie if the bid gurantee and performance bond are acceptabe in the form of firm commitment e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States. The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds.

Acceptable forms for the bid guarantee and performance bond are as indicated in FAR 52.228-1 and FAR 52.228-15. In addition, see Section 00 21 00, Paragraph B of the SF1442 Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Construction, Alteration, or Repair) for additional guidance. Bid guarantees, other than bid bonds, will be returned by the Contracting Officer as indicated in FAR 52.228-1.

13 SF1442, Block 13 Offers are currently due September 8th. The RFP was issued August 6th and requires a one-step price proposal for the $10M- $25M SEED project at Camp Foster to Repair Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ), Building 5703. The current deadline for proposals unnecessarily restricts competition and significantly increases cost. Our Japanese subcontractors will be challenged to properly translate and review English design documents on this compressed timeline. This will result in non-participation and substantial contingency in their pricing. To accomodate proposal activities, increase participation, and ensure submission of best value pricing, will the Government establish a deadline for submission of October 14th 2020?

See response to Question 1.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

14 RFP Page 5 of 62, Item 4, Para 2

The RFP currently dictates "liquidated damages in the amount of JPY 2,300,000 for each calendar day of delay." This amount of liquidated damages (LDs) is not in accordance with the Naval Facilities Aquisition Supplement (NFAS). Recent changes to NAVFAC's approach to LDs have further decreased the appropriate ranges for establishing LDs based on facility type and project size. For example, NAVFAC Pacific's most recent Task Order on the DB MACC established LDs in the amount of $2,905 per calendar day for a $32.4M project. Will the Government adjust LDs for the SEED project to align with NFAS guidance?

The liquidated damages is based on the most current NAVFAC guidance.

15 RFP Page 22 of 62, Section 52.236-27

The RFP states: "Information for the Site Visit pertaining to the seed project will be issued via Amendment once details are finalized." Would the Government please advise regarding timing of the site visit, security requirements/credentialing, and the deadline to submit attendee information? We will require adequate time to coordinate the logistics for personnel traveling from other parts of Japan to ensure their participation.

Refer to Amendment 0001. A virtual site visit will be offered for this project.

16 RFP Page 10 of 62, Item 4, Para 2, & RFP Page 10 of 62, Section J

The RFP states that "Information for the Site Visit pertaining to the seed project will be issued via Amendment once details are finalized." The RFP also states that "The Government does not intend to respond to inquiries submitted less than 10 calendar days before the proposal closing date and time." Would the Government please allow a minimum of 3 weeks following the Site Visit to allow for submission of contractor questions?

At this time, the deadline for submission of inquiries remains unchanged.

17 RFP Page 60 of 62 Item B. Para 1.

The RFP states that "If a MACC Contractor does not intend to submit a proposal in response to a Task Order RFP, the MACC Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing, within two

(2) days of receiving the Task Order RFP." We would like the Navy to consider additional time for this to increase participation and obtain better pricing. NAVFAC Pacific typically allows for 3 business days for a contractor to adequately assess their participation on a TO.

Refer to Amendment 0001.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

18 RFP Page 15 of 62, Factor 1, Technical Approach, Item (1) Using Exhibit A (Offeror Team)

Would the Government please confirm that offerors may make formatting adjustments to Exhibit A, so long as the order and content remains the same?

Formatting adjustments may be made to Exhibit A. However, the order and content shall remain the same. If adjustments will be made to the font type, any legible font is acceptable, as long as the font size is not less than size 10.

19 RFP Page 15 of 62, Factor 2, Experience

The Government states a requirement for a maxiumum of five relevant projects each for construction and design. What is the minimum number of projects to be provided?

The minimum number is one.

20 RFP Page 19 of 62, Factor 4, Past Performance, Item (i)

The RFP states that "If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it should be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2." Would the Government confirm that this includes Interim CPARS evaluations?

Interim CPARS may be considered for projects that are at least 80% complete at the time of proposal submission.

21 RFP Page 19 of 62, Factor 4, Past Performance, Item (i)

The RFP states that "If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit D) for each project included in Factor 2." In order to eliminate the need to solicit Government client contacts for redundant information, would the Government please confirm that previously completed NAVFAC/USACE Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) may be used?

Confirmed. PPQs obtained and utilized for a different solicitation can be utilized for this solicitation. A copy of the PPQ must be included with the proposal (i.e., do not incorporate by reference).

22 Sec. S-3-(b)/ Para (1)-(iv)-(a)-g Page. 21

"IRS W-14 Form"

- It is required to submit IRS Form W-14 if the offeror is Foreign Contracting Party. Where can we get W-14 form?

- If we form the Joint Venture, is it required for each member company to submit W-14 form or only parimary member needs to submit W-14 form

The W-14 form is available via the internet at www.irs.gov/w14.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, the form should be submitted on behalf of the Joint Venture (i.e., not individually or only primary member).

23 Paragraph 6, Page 60 of RFP

What does “register with NAVFAC Far East” mean? Should my company request its local Japanese insurance company to obtain a DUNS number and a NCAGE code and to register with SAM?

Your local Japanese insurance company does not need to obtain a DUNS number or NCAGE or register in SAM. However, they will need provide a Power of Attorney identifying persons authorized to issue Bid Bonds and Performance Bonds on behalf of the Company, including signatures and seals of the authorized persons. Power of Attorney can be sent to Rosario Hocog at rosario.hocog@fe.navy.mil.

24 When will an amendment for a site visit schedule of this Big Macc solicitation be posted on beta.sam website?

See response to Question 15.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

NOTICE 1

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NO.: N4008420R0073

OKINAWA BIG MACC

25 RFP (K) Do you have specific date for the site visit? Please inform us the schedule of the site visit.

See response to Question 15.

26 Will the Bid Guarantee be required to submit for each task order? If required, bid guarantees will be specified on each Task Order RFP and any resultant task order.

27 We are having difficulty to complete our preparation for the bidding by the due date (such as completing bid bond and obtaining required information for the submittal material). Is it possible for the Government to extend the bidding date by 6 weeks?

See response to Question 1.

28 Could you confirm that the bid bond can be accepted with an electronic signature ?

It will take longer than usual to receive the original bid bond due to

COVID19.

Bid bond with an electronic signature is not acceptable. A scanned copy of the bid bond is acceptable. Original will be submitted upon request.