AMENDMENT 0001 Pre-Proposal Inquiries.pdf

3. PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY RESPONSES:

Question

Reference Question Government Response

Page Section Paragraph

1 13 Factor 4

Factor 4 Past Performance in part states, "If there is not a completed

CPARS evaluation, then submit a Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

(Attachment D) for each project included in Factor 2 for both

Construction Experience and Design

Experience." The factor continues on and suggests that the PPQs should be completed by the "Client." For projects being submitted by Designers who are often subcontracted by

General Contractors please confirm that Past Performance evaluations

(PPQ-0 forms) for Design projects can be completed by their contractual clients, the General Contractors.

"Client" in this context is a designated organization receiving the completed project.

2 14 Factor 5

In the Basis of evaluation for the Past

Performance Factor, it states that, "the

Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in

Contractor's performance." Please clarify how the "relevance of the information" may be used when evaluating PPQs completed by contractual clients such as Design

Builders versus those completed by

NAVFAC personnel. Our expectation is that these evaluation sources would be considered equivalent.

Ratings from the client on recent and relevant projects will be taken into consideration as part of the stated evaluation criteria. If it is a Department of Defense project, it would utilize a

CPAR evaluation and not a

PPQ.

3 10 of 60

Construc tion

Experien ce

This section states "Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past thirteen (13) years of the date of issuance of this RFP." PPI

= Our firm is currently 95% complete on a 2+0 BEQ at Fort Meade which is utilizing prefabricated systems similar to potential systems anticipated for this BEQ project. Would NAVFAC please consider projects 95% complete to allow Offerors to showcase the most recent relevant BEQ experience?

See Factor 2 revisions issued with Amendment 0001.

Page 10 of

Factor 2, Experien ce

(1)

Factor 2 – Experience "states that projects submitted must be completed within the past thirteen (13) years from the date of issuance of the RFP."

Please consider extending the recency requirement to fifteen (15) years to allow offerors to include additional

See Factor 2 revisions issued with Amendment 0001.

highly relevant projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

RFP Page 6 of 60

1.2 2nd

RFP States: "Building Demolition:

BEQs 4312, 4201, 4199, 4204, 4295."

Can you please confirm that the reference to B4204 being demolished is correct? We believe the correct number may be B4294.

Confirmed. Correct number is

B4294.

6 NA NA NA

Will the Government permit grooved mechanical pipe joining systems to be specified in Division 23 piping specifications as an acceptable joining method for hydronic and HVAC systems, provided the systems comply with project pressure, temperature and performance requirements, consistent with industry standards and the baseline specification of the Unified

Facilities Guide Specifications?

Grooved piping will not be allowed.

7 NA NA NA

For coordination of technical questions related to mechanical piping joining methods and applicable design criteria, could the Government please provide the name and contact information for the project’s mechanical engineering point of contact or discipline lead?

All communication is required to go through the government utilizing the PPI process during the solicitation phase.

28JAN'26

Industry

Day Slides

The 28JAN26 Industry Day Slide

Presentation contained drawings for the Marine Corps 2+0 Room Plan and

Common Area Bubble Diagram Plans.

Does NAVFAC intend to issue an

Amendment to include these drawings into the solicitation?

More specific project information and requirements will be provided in phase II for the technical proposal and evaluation.

28JAN'26

Industry

Day Slides

During the Industry Day discussions, the need for CMU walls and "Marine

Proofing" of the barracks was discussed. Is this information still relevant, and if so, does NAVFAC intend to issue an Amendment to include the relevant requirements for these into the solicitation?

More specific project information and requirements will be provided in phase II for the technical proposal and evaluation.

RFP Page 7

& 9

On page 7 of the RFP, the second paragraph says "Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror is rated Unacceptable in

Factor 1, it will not be considered for

Phase II, unless corrected through discussions, if held. In making the best value award decisions after Phase II, the Government will consider Factors

2-6 and price." For Factor 2, an evaluation rating is not provided, however on page 9 of the RFP, fifth

Adjectival ratings are not included in the RFP and are used for evaluation purposes only. Page 7 advises that there are no adjectival ratings for

Factor 1 and it is either

Acceptable or Unacceptable.

paragraph says "The absence of any such information or information that does not clearly address the requirements may result in the project being considered Non Relevant, which could result in a rating of

UNACCEPTABLE for this Factor which renders the proposal ineligible for award." Please confirm the evaluation ratings, along with criteria, for non-price Factors 2, 3, and 4.

RFP Page

On page 10 of the RFP, it says “The proposal shall clearly state specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the

Offeror in performance of the contract. The information pertaining to affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LT

D member companies must be included within Factor 2 but does not need to be included on a Project Data

Sheet.” If this information is to be provided in Factor 2, but not in the

Project Data Sheets, please confirm this information can be presented in an introduction page for Factor 2.

Confirmed.

12 RFP Page 9

On page 9 of the RFP, it says "Provide a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract. Include a brief description of the role and responsibility of each entity not to exceed (1) one page." Please confirm the (1) one page description of roles and responsibilities is in addition to the (1) one organizational chart page.

Confirmed