N44255-13-R-8002_PPI_Log.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Waterfront Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N4425513R8002
About this file
N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Basic Contract
| Government PPI Number | PPI | Response |
| 1 | In addition to the BAVR information provided in the solicitation, the BAVR site also requires “Originating Command Security Officer Information”. Please also provide the appropriate contact information for these fields. | The Originating Command Security Officer Information section should be left blank. |
| 2 | Section 0100 describes the procedures for technical factors 1, 2, and 3 if the offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture or mentor-protegee. If our team is submitting as a prime contractor / sub-contractor relationship with a signed teaming agreement, will we be able to utilize our teaming partners past performance in our proposal? | The Government will not consider experience or past performance of a subcontractor. |
| 3 | Due to the down turn in Defense spending and with the paralleled reduction in available projects in the $7.5 million plus range, will the Navy, for the Purposes of this Proposal, reduce the Size requirement to $5 million and/or extend the range to projects completed within the last 10 years? | See Section Amendment 0001, Section 00100, Basis of Award, B. Evaluation Factors for Award(2)(b) Technical Factors, Factor 2 - Experience(1)(i) Construction Experience. |
| 4 | The Basis of Evaluation under Safety states that "Lower EMR's will be given greater weight in the evaluation" This type of evaluation does not translate to other RFP Basis of Award criteria which states that the 6 lowest price proposals determined to be technically acceptable will be selected for an IDIQ Contract. |
We would request that NAVFAC clarifies what is the technically acceptable and unacceptable criteria for each of 5 Technical Factors.
We believe that that NAVFAC is only interested in awarding contracts to contractors who continually promote, believe and execute their work with consistent safe work practices and results.
We would strongly suggest that the technically acceptable and unacceptable criteria be added for all factors but specifically Factor 4 Safety should be limited to a specific EMR and DART record such as: 2013 EMR Rate must be less than .65, The EMR rate from 2008 through 2013 must show an improving downward trend, and the average EMR Rate from 2008 through 2013 must be less than .70. 2013 DART Rate must be less than 1.00, and the average DART rate from 2008 through 2013 must be less than 1.00.
| Technically acceptable and unacceptable criteria can be found in Section 00100, Basis of Award, B. Evaluation Factors for Award(2)(b) Technical Factors. | |
| 5 | The MACC and Seed Project Solicitations indicate a 245 day acceptance period for this project. The Seed Project goes on to state that the Contractor has 365 days to complete the Seed Project after receiving NTP. If the entire 245 days is taken by the Government, the potential Award/NTP date would be 6/26/14 (10/24/13 + 245 days). |
Since the fish window (allowable in-water work) is from 7/16/14 through 2/15/15, there doesn’t appear to be enough time for initial submittals, material contracts, material fabrication, and material delivery after NTP, in order to take full advantage of the available in-water work window.
| Can the 245day acceptance period be reduced in order to provide the Contractor with more time to prepare in order to take advantage of the available in-water work window? | The period of performance will be adjusted accordingly based on the award date of the task order. | |
| 6 | On page 15 of the RFP, in paragraph 2 under Subfactor 5.A.1.i, it states, “Provide performance evaluation ratings (i.e. SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) obtained on the implementation of small business subcontracting plans for all of the offeror’s contracts referenced under Factor 3, Past Performance.” |
Will any evaluation submitted under Factor 3 (CCASS or PPQ) be considered an equivalent? If not, please clarify exactly what forms need to be submitted to meet this requirement.
| No, not any evaluation sbumitted under Factor 3 would be considered an equivalent under Subfactor 5.A(1)(i). A CCASS would be considered an equivalent; however, a PPQ as provided in Attachment C does not provide information concerning small business past performance evaluation and therefore is not considerd equivalent. A SF294 or ISR and Attachment E would not be considered an equivalent under 5.A(1)(i). These forms are requested under 5.A(1)(v) and relate to small business subcontracting history. If an Offeror submits projects under Factor 3 that do not have an associated performance evaluation rating (i.e., SF1420, DD2626, or equivalent) the Offeror should follow the instructions in 5.A(1) which states "Proposals that do not include responses addressing ALL elements of the requirements stated below ((i) through (vii)) must include an explanation why that element is not addressed." | |||
| 7 | Reference: Section 00100 – Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Page 10 of 63 Inquiry: The Factor 1 solicitation submittal requirements and the evaluation criteria appear to have been developed based on the assumption that the offeror would be a joint venture of two or more firms or a mentor-protégé team. As an Offeror proposing as a single entity (i.e. not a joint venture), we intend to submit a narrative describing our company’s capabilities, our rationale for proposing as a single entity, and an internal organization chart. Please confirm that this is the correct approach for Offerors that are not teaming with other companies. | Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b) Factor 1 - Technical Approach (1)(i) states "Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsiblities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities." In the event an Offeror is proposing as a single entity, the Offeror should provide a narrative that describes the proposed primary construction firms (i.e. describe your firm) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e. the rationale for proposing as a single entity). Also provide the roles, responsiblities, and contractual relationships between the various firms if applicable. The narrative shall also include simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. For a single entity, this be an internal organization chart. | |
| 8 | Reference: Section 00100 – Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders, Factor 3 – Past Performance, Page 13 of 63 | ||
| Inquiry: Factor 3 of the RFP requires that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) – Attachment C be submitted for all of the Factor 1 projects that do not have a CCASS evaluation. Our client points of contact (POCs) have completed multiple PPQs for the same projects over the last few years (in many cases, they have filled out the same NAVFAC PPQ form multiple times). In the event that we have a past performance evaluation on file for a relevant project, and such evaluation is the same or substantially the same as the Attachment C PPQ, will the Government accept these existing evaluations in lieu of Attachment C? Existing evaluations would include the POCs’ current contact information so as to allow the Government to contact the client POC to verify the evaluation. | Section 00100, B Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b) Factor 3 - Past Performance does not prohibit an Offeror from utilizing previously submitted PPQs. Rather, Factor 3 states "Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs." | ||
| 9 | While we understand the Government’s position in seeking competitive pricing, we are concerned that the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) selection process may not be appropriate for the evaluation of proposals for an IDIQ MACC. We respectfully request that the Government change the selection criteria from LPTA to Best Value Trade-off where the technical factors, when combined, are more important than price. Our reasons and concerns are listed below. a. Per FAR 15.101, “in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.” The requirement of the seed project may be clearly defined, but the requirements of the basic contract are not. In fact, by definition, an indefinite quantity indefinite delivery contract has requirements that are not clearly defined. Therefore, placing such significant emphasis on price in the source selection method when selecting contractors to bid on and perform multiple, undefined contracts over the course of several years, seems to be inconsistent with the guidance of the FAR. We believe that a Best Value Tradeoff source selection would provide a more fair opportunity to all Offerors. b. We are concerned that the LPTA source selection method, in the context of a multi-year MACC solicitation, creates a strong incentive for contractors to submit unrealistically low price proposals. Especially in the current economic climate, many contractors may find a benefit in bidding below cost in order to be among the six (6) lowest priced proposals, if it means they would have the opportunity to bid on and perform the subsequent task orders issued over the course of the next several years. In other words, even if a contractor has to lose money on the seed project, it may be worth the cost to some contractors in order to be included in the MACC. We believe that, when used for an IDIQ MACC, the LPTA source selection method creates incentive for contractors to engage in irresponsible bidding practices. c. Related to our concerns expressed in item “b” above, the methods described in the Price Evaluation Process (where an unreasonably high or unrealistically low price may affect an offeror’s ranking) are inconsistent with the LPTA process (where proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors). While we appreciate that the Government’s review process includes a system for identifying unreasonably high or unrealistically low price proposals for the seed project, the method for doing so still does not prevent an unrealistically low priced proposal from being placed among the six (6) lowest price proposals. Based on the information made available to us in the RFP, it appears that the Government has not established a method for “weeding out” unrealistic or irresponsible price proposals, given that the only method for ranking is by lowest price (proposals will be screened for price and placed in order of price, from lowest price to highest price). To reiterate, we respectfully request that the Government change the selection criteria from LPTA to Best Value Trade-off where the technical factors, when combined, are more important than price. | In accordance with Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, A. Basis for Award, award will be made to the Offerors submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offers. | |
| 10 | Would it be possible for the government to have a camera with them during the site visit so the contractor may request that pictures be taken? | Yes. A Government personnel with a camera pass will bring a camera to the site visit. | |
| 11 | Section 00100 – Instructions to Offerors – 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements, Page 4 of 63 |
Section 2.2 indicates the following as a requirement for the submittal of the price proposal:
‘Price Proposal: One (1) Original price Proposal with original signature and date and one (1) copy on CD’
Quotes from subcontractors and suppliers are expected to be received as late as 15 minutes prior to the submission of the proposal. In order to provide the most competitive price, it may be necessary to use a quote that is received at the last minute. The final estimate will be adjusted and the final price will be hand-written only minutes prior to submitting the proposal to the Government. If final pricing must be submitted in .pdf format on a CD to accompany the paper copies, this will not be possible. Will the Government accept the CD electronic version of the price proposal within 24 hours of the paper submission?
| One (1) electronic copy of the price proposal on CD is required at the time the proposal ddue. However, the Offeror may submit the one (1) electronic copy on CD without the Seed Project, Task Order N44255-13-R-8002/0001, SF 1442, Block 17 completed. The Original Price Proposal shall include a completed Seed Project, Task Order N44255-13-R-8002/0001, SF 1442, Block 17. | |
| 12 | During our review of the amendments issued to date we have identified the following discrepancies: |
1. Amendment 0002 is labeled as “01” in box #2 and “07” box #14 of the SF30. Also, the PPI information provided in the associated PPI log is not found in subsequently issued PPI logs. It is our understanding that the most recent PPI log issued would provide all answered PPI’s to date.
2. Amendment 0003 is labeled as “0002” in box #2 and #14 of the SF30.
3. Amendment 0004 is labeled as “0002” in box #2 and #14 of the SF30. Also, the PPI log is replaced in its entirety which would indicate the replacement log contains all PPI’s answered to date but it includes none of the previously answered PPI’s and reuses Gov’t PPI’s numbers previously assigned to different questions.
We respectfully request that the above amendment numbering discrepancies be rectified to allow for proper acknowledgement of amendments. We also request that a single PPI log be issued that provides contractors all answered PPI’s to date with each answered PPI having its own number.
Amendment numbers in FBO are automatically generated by FBO when posted. This number should not be utilized when determining the amendment number. Rather, Offerors should look at Box 2 of the SF 30 to determine the amendment number. Specifically regarding N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 Amendment 01, the reference to Amendment 07 in Box 14 is a typo. As seen in Box 2, this is N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 Amendment 01.
As explained at the site visit, there are two SF 1442s: (1) one for the basic contract, N44255-13-R-8002, and (2) one for the seed project, N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001
In addition, there are two PPI logs: (1) one for the basic contract, N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log, and (2) one for Task Order 0001, N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 PPI Log
The PPI logs are labeled in multiple places. An Offeror can look at the name of the files. For example, the file containing N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 Amendment 02 contains the Task Order 0001 PPI log named N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 PPI log. Offerors can also print out the PPI log which includes the file name at the top of the document. For example, a file that says N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log is the PPI log for the basic contract. A file that says N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 PPI Log is the PPI Log for Task Order 0001.
When an amendment states “N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 PPI Log which is replaced in its entirety” that means that the N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001 PPI Log is replaced in its entirety. It is not referring to the N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log.
Note that similar to the above, Offerors will see two types of amendments: (1) ones related to the basic contract, N44255-13-R-8002 Amendment ____, and (2) ones related to Task Order 0001, N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001, Amendment __
In addition to looking at the file name which indicates if the Amendment is for the basic contract or Task Order 0001 as identified above, an Offeror can also look at the SF 30, Box 9A. If an amendment is for the basic contract, this box will say N44255-13-R-8002. If an amendment is for Task Order 0001, this box will say N44255-13-R-8002-0001.
Section 00100 – Instructions to Offerors – 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements, Page 4 of 63 Section 2.2 requests:
‘Price Proposal – One (1) original with original signature and date and one (1) copy on CD’
SF1442 Box 13 requests:
Original and 3 copies.
How many copies are to be submitted for the Price Proposal package?
| N44255-13-R-8002 SF1442 Box 13 does not allow the number of copies to be differentiated between Price and Technical Proposals. As a result, it shows only the number of copies of the Technical Proposal to be submitted. The Offeror should see N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00100 Instruction to Offerors, 2.2 for the number of copies to be submitted for both the Price and Technical Proposals. | |
| 14 | Attachment F Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBP) (Template) provides for one (1) small business percentage goal and one (1) business percentage goal for the following small business categories: HUBZone SB, WOSA, VOSW, and SDVOSB. The SBP is for the contract, and the delivery or task orders issued under the contract. |
On page 17 of 63, item (i) NAVFAC lists minimum subcontracting targets for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The minimum goals for small business and each of the listed subcategories of small businesses increases each fiscal year.
Please advise as to the following:
(1) For the SBP, which fiscal year minimum subcontracting goals should the Contractor use?
(2) Should the SBP include minimum goals for each of the fiscal years listed?
| See N44255-13-R-8002 Amendment 0004, Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b) Factor 5 - Small Business Utilization, Subfactor 5.B - Small Business Participation. The NAVFAC Subcontracting Targets have been revised. Attachment F states "The following goals are established for the Base Period and/or all Bid Items including all option periods." and "Use Attachment (1) for showing the breakdown of the base year and option periods." The Offeror should use FY14 subcontracting goals in developing Attachment F and should also include minimum goals for each fiscal year as instructed on Attachment 1. | |
| 15 | We request a day-for-day extension of the proposal due date reflecting the total number of days that the Government has been shut down. |
Because of the shutdown by the federal government, we are unable to get our PPI’s answered in a timely manner.
More importantly, because some of our PPQ’s have been sent to agencies of the Federal Government that do not utilize the CCAS system, we are counting on the “owner point-of-contact” to complete Attachment C and return them to us. Due to the shutdown, we are unable to determine the status of our requests and will not be able to do so until the Government is up and running again. At a minimum we will have lost all of the days of the shutdown. The actions of the owner (the US Government) are conceivably making it impossible for a contractor to be a responsible proposer on this contract unless a time extension is granted.
| Offerors have been provided 63 calendar days to develop their proposals. The proposal due date remains 24 October 2013. An Offeror should follow the instructions in N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b), Factor 3 - Past Performance regarding submission of PPQs, "If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information fo rthe respective project(s)." | |
| 16 | Please provide a listing of any/all of the following: 1) Names of projects awarded under the current MACC contract. |
2) Project scope/description of projects awarded under the current MACC contract.
3) Contract award value of the projects awarded under the current MACC contract.
| N44255-13-R-8002 Task Order 0001, the Seed Project, is representative of work to be performed under the Waterfront MACC. N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00800, Section 00801, 3. Description of Work states "Upland projects will not exceed 20% of the total value of the contract." See N44255-10-R-5001 Project List provided as part of this amendment. | |
| 17 | Please refer to Section 00100 Instructions to Bidders, Section B Evaluation Factors for Award, Factors 2 and 3. |
Please clarify that, in terms of acceptable previous experience, a project constructed in a freshwater environment (river, stream, or lake) meets the RFP requirement to be classified as “marine/waterfront” work.
| Under N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00100, B. Evauation Factors for Award, 2(b), Factor 2 - Experience(1)(i) Offerors may submit work performed in a freshwater environment. However, Offerors should note that "relevant projects are those that are similar in size, scope, and complexity." Under complexity, an Offeror must show "work in a marine environment." | ||
| 18 | Government response PPI Number 14 states that “The Offeror should use FY 14 subcontracting goals in developing Attachment F and should also include minimum goals for each fiscal year as instructed on Attachment 1.” Please confirm that the subcontracting goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan, template pages 2 through 4 are the goals that will be used for purposes of reporting in ISR. | Confirmed. |
| 19 | Solicitation pages 15 and 16 of 63, Subfactor 5.A Past Performance in Utilization of Small Business Concerns (v) instructs large businesses with federal contracting experience to provide completed or more recently approved SF 294s “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on all contracts referenced under Factor 3 Past Performance. |
If, for example, five (5) individual task orders included in two IDIQ MACCs are listed under Factor 3 Past Performance and, therefore, only two SF 294s or ISRs are provided under Subfactor 5.A(1)(v) (since SF 294s and IRSs are contract, not task order-based), may the Offeror also include three additional 294s or ISR’s on completed or recently approved SF 294s or ISRs which are not listed under Factor 3 Past Performance?
| No. N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b), Factor 5 - Small Business Utilization, Subfactor 5.A - Past Performance in Utiliziation of Small Business Concerns(1)(v) states "Large businesses with Federal contracting experience shall provide completed or most recently approved SF294s "Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts" or Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) on all contracts referenced under Factor 3 Past Performance." Offerors should follow the submission requirements of Subfactor 5.A. Additional 294s or ISRs submitted by the Offerors for projects not submitted under Factor 3 will not be considered. | |
| 20 | Factor 2 Experience |
It is unclear whether or not projects that are not 100% complete are acceptable for this factor. Can a relevant project that is currently 90% complete be utilized?
N44255-13-R-8002, Section 00100, B. Evaluation Factors for Award, 2(b), Factor 2 - Experience(1)(i) states "Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP." Only 100% complete projects within the timeframe specified in Factor 2 - Experience wiill be considered.
N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .