N44255-13-R-8002_PPI_Log.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 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.
| A CCASS will be considered an equivilent. A PPQ will not be considered equivilent. | |||
| 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 contrual 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. |
N44255-13-R-8002 PPI Log
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .