The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY ATTACHMENT (5.3)
Solicitation Number: N40085-19-R-9103
| Contractor Name: |
| MASTER LIST |
Contractor POC (Name and email):
Instructions: DO NOT submit in PDF format. DO submit as a word document
| Contractor PPI# |
| Section of RFP or Page Number |
| Paragraph Reference |
| Drawing Number |
| Question |
| RESPONSE |
| The due date for the RFP is showing 15th May 2020. Please revise the due date. |
| Proposals are due on 30 June 2020. |
| The RFP says to submit one original & 4 copies of bid proposal but the note on page 71 of the RFP says Electronic Submission. Please clarify which mode of submission is acceptable of both. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 3 |
| 27 |
| Construction Experience |
| Please define New Building Construction as it relates to the Construction Experience requirements on page 27. |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 4 |
| 27 |
| Construction Experience |
| Since the seed project is a Repair by Replacement of a Wastewater Treatment Plant, will a new utility construction project, such as an electrical switch house, suffice for the New Building Construction requirement on page 27? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 5 |
| Pgs 17 & 34 |
| Clause 52.236-27 and (5) Basis of Evaluation/Section 5.1, respectively |
| -- |
| When will the site visit be held? Where should Offeror’s meet for the site visit? |
| The site visit will be held at NWS Earle on 25 June 2020 at 10:00 AM. Visitors will leave from the parking lot on the west side of the Pass and ID office and travel to the WWTP. Directions from the parking lot to the WWTP will be provided. Offerors will need to arrive by 9:00 AM to ensure they receive their access credentials from the Pass & ID office. Social distancing will be required |
| 6 |
| Pgs 27 & 29 |
| Factor 1 – Project Experience, (1)(c) Construction Experience and (2)(c) Design Experience |
| -- |
| As fewer construction projects have been funded in recent years and consistent with other DoD solicitations (e.g., USACE New England District 2000 solicitation for similar construction services), we request that Project Data Sheets be for projects completed within the last 10 years rather than the last 5 years. |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 7 |
| Pg 29 |
| (1) Design Experience |
| -- |
| Since the seed project is Design-Bid-Build construction and the design provided in the solicitation is detailed, there should be no need for a Designer on the seed project. Accordingly, we request eliminating the requirement to provide Design Experience Project Data Sheets and Past Performance Information for design on 1-2 water or wastewater treatment projects. It’s not relevant to the seed project. |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| 8 |
| Pgs 28 & 30 |
| 9th and 3rd paragraphs, respectively |
| -- |
| Consistent with prior solicitations, will photos only be allowed to be submitted as a 3rd page on Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 9 |
| Bottom of Pg 30/Top of Pg 31 |
| (ii) Basis of Evaluation |
| -- |
| Consistent with NAVFAC and other Department of Defense (DoD) solicitations, will Project Data Sheets and Past Performance Information for projects performed for DoD or other Federal Government projects may receive a higher rating during evaluation, which would be in NAVFAC’s interest? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 10 |
| Pg 34 & 35 |
| 5.2.1 & 5.2.3 Proposal Submittal Instructions |
| -- |
| Please clarify whether proposals need to be submitted in hard copy and CDs or via DoD SAFE. The instructions appear to indicate both which is redundant. Submittal via DoD SAFE would minimize COVID-19 risk. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 11 |
| Pg 2 of Attachment B |
| Attachment B |
| -- |
| As an alternative, can Offerors use the more recent version of the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ-0 Past Performance Questionnaire form in place of the older version provided in the Solicitation? |
| Yes. |
| 12 |
| Pg 29 |
| (2) Design Experience, (a) experience as the prime contractor, and (c) design-build |
| -- |
| Subpart (a) would appear to require that designers of record be the prime contractor on Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets for projects demonstrating design experience, yet Subpart (c) requires Design-Build experience on at least 1 project. Few AE firms are the prime contractor on Design-Build projects. Typically they are subcontractors to a construction prime contractor. It is reasonable to require that Designers of Record be the 1st tier AE firm on projects, but it is not reasonable to require them to be the prime contractor on Design-Build projects. We request NAVFAC consider changing this requirement accordingly. |
| Page 29 stipulates that projects performed as the Designer of Record will be considered “Prime Contractors” and satisfy the requirements of the RFP. |
| 13 |
| See question |
| See question |
| N/A |
| Proposal Requirements (page 34 of 85, paragraph 5.1 reference Section 00 70 00 for site visit information. |
Section 00 70 00 does not provide any site visit information.
Section 01 00 00 – General Requirements for Seed Project, Page 71 of 85 states the Site Visit for the Seed Project “To be determined”
Will there be a formal site visit scheduled for the Seed Project Please reference Amendment 0001.
| 14 |
| Pg-29 of 85 of RFP |
| (2) Design Experience |
| The design requirements ask to address the design firm that the Prime contractor is going to use for the seed project and the future task orders. What will be the role of the design firm on the seed project, as it was already designed? Please confirm. |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| 15 |
| Pgs 1 and 71 |
| SF1442 and 10th paragraph on pg 71 |
| A 2-week extension to the June 30 due date is requested as (a) answers haven’t been published for previously-submitted RFIs; (b) the site visit hasn’t yet occurred (nor its date published) and contractors need time after to price the seed project (especially a complex project like this); (c) the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting contractor operations, slowing subcontractor bids for work; and (d) there is a holiday weekend July 3-5. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 16 |
| Pg 35 |
| Section 5.3, 2nd paragraph |
| With the answers to previously-submitted RFIs not issued to date, the site visit having not yet occurred and needing to ask additional RFIs afterward, we request the deadline for submitting RFIs be extended to 1 week after the pre-bid site visit. With the June 30 proposal due date, the RFI deadline is currently June 16. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 17 |
| Amendment #0001, pages 1 and 2 |
| Bid Date |
| -- |
| The front page of the amendment (Box #11) states that the solicitation is NOT extended; however, in Box #14, it states, “The new Bid Opening Date will be 2 July 2020” – while the second page still states that the response date changed from 15 May to 30 June. PLEASE CLARIFY. |
| Proposal due date is 30 June 2020. |
| 18 |
| Instructions |
| Proposal Delivery |
| -- |
| The solicitation states that both electronic submittal via DOD SAFE and hard copies of the proposal are required. Given delivery issues due to COVID-19, would the Government consider accepting electronic copies for the volumes and receipt of the Bid Bond via mail? Or would you consider accepting electronic copies with hard copies being due a few days later? This would alleviate the need for hand delivery by personnel. Thank you. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 19 |
| 27 |
| Last sentence on page 27 |
| Do construction projects submitted for the offeror need to be 100% complete? Would projects that are mostly complete (i.e., >85% complete) be acceptable? |
| Projects are required to be 100% complete. |
| 20 |
| 33 |
| Last paragraph on page 33 |
| Can an interim CPARS evaluation be used if there is no final CPARS evaluation? |
| Yes. |
| 21 |
| 30 |
| First paragraph in (ii) Basis of Evaluation |
| Please confirm that a maximum of 5 projects are required for design experience. Since it is a DBB seed, there is no requirement for the design team to provide seed experience, correct? |
| Confirmed. |
| 22 |
| 33 |
| Last paragraph on page 33 |
| If a design firm was a subcontractor on a DB project, can the design firm use the prime contractor’s CPARS evaluation for that DB project to satisfy the requirements of Factor 4? |
| No. |
| Per paragraph 5.3 below, PPIs have to be submitted 14 days prior to the proposal due date, which would be June 16. Since the site visit is scheduled for June 25, this does not allow any time for additional PPIs that may be generated from the site walk. Please consider extending both the PPI deadline and the proposal due date to allow time for RFIs generated from the site visit to be submitted and answered before seed project prices are due. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 24 |
| 34 |
| 5.2 Proposal Submission Instructions |
| In light of COVID-19, are hard copy proposals required? Please clarify. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| Will an electronic version of the bid bond be acceptable, or is a hard copy required? |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| In light of COVID-19, we are still not in physical contact and are still teleworking. Is an electronically signed version of the Bid Bond acceptable? (We utilize the DocuSign system.) |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| Box 10 states that this will be a Design-Bid-Build IDIQ, but the RFP calls for design experience and states that both “may be contemplated under this MACC”. Will this be a Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build IDIQ? |
| It will be Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build. |
| 28 |
| 30 |
| Basis of Evaluation |
| Here (7) projects for Design Experience (Five projects for MACC experience and two projects for seed experience) are referenced. However, in the Design Experience Section, there is no reference to including projects relevant to the seed project. Are these two seed project-relevant projects a requirement for the designer? |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| Is there a form on which the government would like offerors to provide the EMR, DART, and TRC information (and Technical Approach for Safety) or are we to provide copies of the actual reports? |
| No forms are required. Simply provide the data. |
| 30 |
| 33 |
| Factor 3-Management Approach |
| The requirements for the Management Plan seem to call for writing about how the offeror will manage the overall IDIQ, with a five page limit. Is there no technical approach or work plan required for the seed project? |
| Propose according to the RFP. |
| 31 |
| Page 29 |
| 7th paragraph in Design Experience subsection |
| In the Design Experience subsection, the first paragraph suggests that the Navy expects that A-E firms (different from the prime offeror company) will be used as the DORs for MACC task orders. Later on page 29, the RFP says that “submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics: a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects. Experience as a Subcontractor will not be considered.” This is unusual because a typical arrangement for NAVFAC Design-Build MACCs is to have a construction firm prime and an A-E subcontractor. If a design firm’s design-build experience comes design-build projects where they were a subcontractor (i.e., serving in the same role for which they are proposed), these projects cannot be used in Factors 1 and 4 because they were not the prime contractor. In the instructions for design projects (not construction projects), please consider removing the text that reads: “a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects. Experience as a Subcontractor will not be considered.” |
| Page 29 stipulates that projects performed as the Designer of Record will be considered “Prime Contractors” and satisfy the requirements of the RFP. |
| The RFP requires electronic copies to be provided both on CD and through DoD SAFE site upload. Is that correct? |
| Provide electronic submission only. |
| Can proposals be hand-delivered? |
| No. |
| Please confirm that offerors will need to email the NAVFAC POC for an upload code in order to transmit their proposal files via DoD SAFE. |
| Offerors will email Scott Schulz at scott.c.schulz1@navy.mil for a dropoff code. |
| What is the average wait time for entering NWS Earle security checkpoints on a daily basis for construction personnel & their vehicles? |
| Access requirements to NWS Earle shall be in accordance with Specification Section 01 14 00, Work Restrictions, and related solicitation Addenda provided to contractors. Contractors and delivery personnel shall submit security documentation for access to NWS Earle fourteen (14) days prior to their planned arrival at NWS Earle. In addition to having been vetted to enter NWS Earle, individuals must present to security personnel at the Pass & ID office a valid driver’s license for the vehicle they operate, proof of current vehicle insurance, current vehicle registration and be subject to a vehicle inspection. If all credentials are in order it will take approximately ten minutes to access NWS Earle. |
| Please identify training specific to working at NWS Earle (safety, security, etc.) required of on-site craft labor and on-site supervisory personnel performing construction, excluding Level 1 anti-terrorism awareness training and minimum NAVFAC requirements for MACC key personnel |
| The Contractors shall review all the General Requirements Specification Sections, and related solicitation Addenda provided to contractors. Information regarding requirements to work on NWS Earle can be found in, but are not limited to, the following Sections: |
Specification Section 01 14 00, Work Restrictions
Specification Section 01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Specification Section 01 31 23.13 20 ELECTRONIC CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITY SUPPORT CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Specification Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES & SUPPLEMENT, SUBMITTAL REGISTER
Specification Section 01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
Specification Section 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Specification Section 01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
Specification Section 01 45 00.00 20 QUALITY CONTROL
Specification Section 01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
Specification Section SUPPLEMENT, SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION
Specification Section SUPPLEMENT, STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTION
Specification Section 01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS
Specification Section 01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Specification Section 01 57 28 TEMPORARY FLOW CONTROL
Specification Section 01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA
