MACC_PPI_-_Amend_0002.pdf

PPI#

Section of RFP or Page Number

Paragraph Reference Drawing Number Question Response

1 RFP Page 10 of 79 Design Experience N/A

Within the RFP, please refer to page 10, third paragraph under Design Experience which states “Offerors shall submit a minimum of (3) up to a maximum of (5) relevant projects as the designer of record”. In the last 5 years we have been awarded Design Build Task Orders at PNSY under multiple IDIQ contracts as Prime Contractor. As the Prime we have always teamed together and sub-contracted with a Design Firm to be our “designer of record”.

Our concern is the definition of “designer of record” within the RFP, can you clarify for us that as the Offeror our previous D/B projects will be considered relevant where we acted as the Prime Contractor and teamed together with a designer to perform the requirements of the Task Orders?

Design Experience is to be submitted for the Offeror’s proposed Designer of Record, not the Construction Contractor, who submits experience under Construction Experience. As noted within the solicitation projects where the proposed team has previously performed DB projects together, each should submit the project under Construction Experience and Design Experinece. Further, relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably.

2 RFP Page 10 of 79 Design Experience N/A

Within the RFP, please refer to page 11, first paragraph under Scope/Complexity which states “Projects submitted that only include horizontal or civil site work will not be considered relevant”. In the last 5 years at PNSY we were awarded 3 – IDIQ projects that focused on General Utility Services & Site Construction. Those 3 IDIQ projects have yielded 32 separate task orders valuing roughly $10.5m. Roughly 70% of those projects focused upon rebuilding. PNSY’s underground & surface infrastructure but 30% of those projects were vertical construction and building renovations relevant to this RFP. Out of the 32 task orders, 4 were Design Build projects. We would like the ability to use these PNSY Design Build projects as examples of Relevant experience for this MACC RFP. Our concern is that two of those projects would be excluded from consideration since they were horizontal construction or civil site work focused. Our question is could you consider altering the relevant experience Scope/Complexity requirement to include Horizontal & civil site work in our case since the projects were performed at PNSY which is the center of the AOR for this MACC?

No change; the requirement will remain as stated in the RFP.

3 RFP Page 10 of 79 Design Experience N/A

Within the RFP, please refer to page 11, last paragraph under Design Experience which states “The offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor as the Designer of Record in order to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The offer must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor”. This question is related to question 1 and is as follows:

Assuming we use completed projects in which we act as the Prime Contractor on a D/B task Order, will we need to provide copies of the subcontract agreements with our designer when they performed services on the completed task order in order for those examples to be considered relevant as Design Experience? Furthermore, does this paragraph allow us as the offeror to utilize a D/B project performed by a designer as relevant experience on this RFP so long as we have a teaming agreement in place between us for the future term of the MACC?

An agreement for projects submitted as a part of Construction or Design experience is not required, however a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement or letter of commitment is required to establish the relationship between the proposed team that would perform work under the resulting contract.

4 Section 3(a) (page 8) Whole section Not applicable

This section of the solicitation indicates the price factor for the MACC will be based on the seed project. Will MidLANT consider requesting that contractors to provide labor rates and indirect rates in addition to pricing for the seed project to avoid offerors providing low price for the seed project to win one of the contract positions? MidLANT evaluation of labor rates and indirect rates in addition to pricing for the seed project would provide a more complete picture of pricing for contract evaluation and award.

No change; the requirement will remain as stated in the RFP.

Solicitation Number: N40085-16-R-3034

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY (PPI) - AMENDMENT 0002

Section 4, Factor 1- Experience, Subsection (i) (pages 9 & 10)

2nd paragraph for Construction Experience on page 9, and 4th paragraph for Design Experience on page

Not applicable

The solicitation requests Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets (Attachment A) be provided for projects with a minimum final construction cost of $500,000. Section 1.3.3 (page

5) of the Solicitation indicates task orders will have a minimum construction cost of $150,000 although smaller value projects may be performed under the contract at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Since projects substantially smaller than $500,000 may be conducted on the contract, we request that NAVFAC allow use of Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets for somewhat smaller construction projects (say, >$250,000 final construction cost) to more fully represent the range of project sizes that may be conducted under the contract.

No change; the requirement will remain as stated in the RFP.

Section 4, Factor 1- Experience, Subsection (i) (pages 10 & 11), and Attachment A (Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet)

1st full paragraph on page 10, and 4th paragraph from the bottom on page 11

Not applicable

Photographs provide a visual demonstration of completed work. We request that NAVFAC allow no more than 1 additional page of photographs (without additional text except for short captions) for each Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet.

Photographs can be incoroporated into the project data sheet, if desired; however, the overall length limit will not change.

Section 4, Factor 3- Management Approach and Schedule, Subsection

(i) (page 14)

1st three paragraphs of this subsection

Not applicable

This section of the solicitation requires a considerable amount of information for both the contract and the seed project (combined), not to exceed 5 pages (total). While it is desirable to be concise, this is not sufficient to provide all the information requested in the solicitation.

MidLANT’s recent MACC solicitation for a very similar contract at Newport/New London (# N40085-16-R-3016) allowed 5 pages for just the management approach to the contract (excluding seed project). We request MidLANT allow the same number of pages (5) on this procurement to describe management approach to the contract plus 3 additional pages of text and a (non-page count-limited) schedule for the seed project. This will result in the Government having sufficient (but not excessive) detail to evaluate offeror’s proposals.

The information outlined in the mangement approach and schedule for both the contract and the seed project are requried to be within 5 pages double sided (10 pages single sided). The critical path milestone schedule for the seed project is not required to fit into this page limit requirement.

Solicitation Section 4, Factor 4-Past Performance (page 15), and Attachment B-Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

1st two paragraphs on this page

Not applicable

NAVFAC and other DoD agencies periodically make slight modifications to the format for PPQs.

For past procurements, NAVFAC and other DoD agencies have allowed use of slightly different formats to allow offerors to reuse PPQs previously completed by clients (including NAVFAC). This avoids NAVFAC and other clients spending time to re-write PPQs each time the format changes.

Will MidLANT accept slightly older versions of standard PPQ formats for this solicitation, provided the format has not been changed by offeror’s themselves?

Other, slightly changed, versions of the PPQ that include all required information is acceptable.

Specification Table of Contents

After Div 26, Appendix A and B are noted but are not attached to the specification. Please provide.

Appendix A and B are provided as separate documents (Amendment 0002).

In reference to the Site Visit

Not applicable Will Driver's Licenses issued by Maine be accepted as identification for entry? They are being refused at some DoD and other installations.

State of Maine driver's licenses are not compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005. Federal facilities can no longer accept the Maine State Driver's License as a form of ID for access. An alternative ID list is provided as a separate document.

Sheet1