Attachment_E_PPI_Responses _N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NAVFAC Northwest Regional Small MACC
- Solicitation number
- N44255-14-R-9022
About this file
Attachment E PPI Responses Amendment 0002
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment_E_PPI_Responses _N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0003.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment_E_PPI_Responses _N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_C.2_PPQ_Design_Experience.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_A_PPI_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| N44255-14-R-9022.pdf | ||
| Attachment_B_Construction_and_Design_Experience_Data_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_D_Past_Performance_Worksheet_for_Safety.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_C.1_PPQ_Construction_Experience.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Phase One N44255-14-R-9022 NAVFAC Northwest Regional Small Multiple Award Construction Contract (Small MACC) Attachment E, Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Responses PPI # Inquiry Response Amendment Responded
| 001 | If a contractor’s 8(a) certification expires during the base year plus four one-year option periods, will the contractor be excluded from participating in subsequent option years? If so, does the contractor become ineligible at the end of the option year or at the 8(a) Program exit date? What will the procedure be if a certification expires while the contractor holds an 8(a) Small MACC contract? | No. As prescribed by FAR 19.804-6(c), "[a]n 8(a) concern may continue to accept new orders under a multiple award, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), multi-agency contract or Government wide acquisition contract even after a concern’s program term expires, the concern otherwise exits the 8(a) Program, or the concern becomes other than small for the NAICS code assigned under the contract." Offerors are advised that this response does not address eligibility based on Section 8(a) Program criteria, nor does it fully address contract administration functions including but not limited to those prescribed by FAR 19.812. | 0001 |
| 002 | For past performance - If a project is 95% complete, is that acceptable? | No. Refer to Factor 3 – Past Performance, ¶ (b) Basis of Evaluation, which states "This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience…". Refer to Factor 2 – Experience, ¶ (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, ¶ (1) Construction Experience, which states "...Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP...". Refer to Factor 2 – Experience, ¶ (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, ¶ (2) Design Experience, which states "...Projects submitted shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP...". | 0001 |
| 003 | Factor 3 – Past Performance: Given that the holiday season (Christmas and New Year’s) falls during the proposal preparation period and a large number of clients will not be available to complete Past Performance Questionnairs, will the Government allow for offerors to submit PPQ’s that have been previously completed and submitted for other RFPs? | ||
| Yes. The solicitation does not prohibit an Offeror from utilizing a previously submitted PPQ. Refer to Factor 3: Past Performance, ¶ (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, which states "...Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires...". If an Offeror intends to utilize a previoulsy submitted PPQ, they shall ensure that it contains the information required in Attachment C.1, Construction Experience, and/or Attachment C.2, Design Experience. | 0001 | ||
| 004 | Concerning designer experience, please confirm the below TWO evaluation factors do apply to designer experience, as they are geared toward construction experience. This is per page 13 of 67 in the RFP: |
“Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.” Please confirm this does not apply to designer experience.
“Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate experience self-performing relevant features of work may receive a higher rating than those who do not demonstrate self-performance.” Please confirm this does not apply to designer experience.
| Both statements pertain to the Government's basis of evaluation for Factor 2 - Experience, and will apply to the submittal requirements for construction experience and/or design experience. | 0002 |
| 005 | Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders |
Page: 15 of 67
EMR
The RFP states: For the three (3) [2011, 2012, 2013] previous complete calendar years, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three (3) year period).
| Should we submit years 2014, 2013, and 2012, since 2014 will be complete by the RFP response date? | No. This submission requirement is based on the date of issuance of this RFP and remains unchanged. | 0002 |
| 006 | Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders |
Page: 15 of 67
DART
The RFP states: For the three (3) [2011, 2012, 2013] previous complete calendar years, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
| Should we submit years 2014, 2013, and 2012, since 2014 will be complete by the RFP response date? | Refer to the Government's response to PPI No. 005. | 0002 | ||
| 007 | Section 00100, Page 9, NOTE 1 states that for newly formed joint ventures we need to provide a detailed written explanation of how the experience, past performance, and/or safety data of each component company is relevant. Note 1 allows a 2 page explanation to be included with Factor 2, Experience. Question 12 of the Experience Project Data, also located under Factor 2, seems to ask for the same information—however the entire form is limited to two pages. Are we to answer Question 12 on the project data sheets (which leaves little room for narrative about the featured project) and also provide a separate two page narrative? Also, do we need to provide an additional narrative addressing Note 1 again for Factor 4, Safety? If yes, does it count against the two page limit for the Technical Approach for Safety narrative? | Refer to Section 00100, Evaluation Factors for Award, NOTE 1 which states "If experience, past performance, or safety data is supplied for a firm whose CAGE code and DUNS number does not match the CAGE code and DUNS number for the offeror, the offeror MUST provide a DETAILED written explanation of how the experience, past performance, and /or safety data is relevant. The explanation will be limited to a total of two pages and should be included under Factor 2, Experience....". The aforementioned explanation submitted in response to NOTE 1 shall be included under Factor 2, but may be referenced within other areas of the proposal wherever the Offeror determines NOTE 1 to be applicable. Offerors are advised that this question and response does not fully address all aspects of NOTE 1 and that it should be read in its entirety. | 0002 |
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12N44255-14-R-9022, AMENDMENT 0002 &"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Responses &"Times New Roman,Regular"&12ATTACHMENT E
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Page &P of &N
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .