Attachment_E_PPI_Responses _N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NAVFAC Northwest Regional Small MACC
- Solicitation number
- N44255-14-R-9022
About this file
Attachment E PPI Responses Amendment 0003
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment_E_PPI_Responses _N44255-14-R-9022 _Amendment_0002.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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 | |
| 008 | Please confirm that the non-8(a) firm of a Joint Venture or Teaming Arrangement can be a member of more than one entity submitting on the Small MACC (the same as design firms can be on more than one team). | The solicitation does not prohibit an entity from being included in multiple Contractor team arrangements. Refer to Section 00100, Subsection 4 - Joint Ventures, which states "FAR Part 9.6 defines Contractor team arrangements. Contractor team arrangement, as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which -- (1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor; or (2) A potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program...". Additional clarification regarding Contractor team arrangements is included in the aforementioned Subsection 4 - Joint Ventures, as well as within the submittal requirements for each Factor where appropriate. | 0003 | |
| 009 | Page 11 of the RFP, Factor 1-Technical Approach, Section (b) Basis of Evaluation states: “The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.” | |||
| Will the Government expand on this description to clarify what specific aspects of the technical approach will be evaluated in determining the Offeror’s Capabilities? | No. Refer to Factor 1: Technical Approach, ¶ (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, which states "The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build (DB) team for this contract will be | |||
| evaluated in this factor...". The Government's basis of evaluation for this factor remains unchanged. | 0003 | |||
| 010 | On page 6 of the RFP, the section titled, “Phase One Proposal shall be organized and include the following:” item (c) Representations and Certifications requires VETS-100 confirmation of filing. |
| In the case of a newly formed JV firm with no previous work history as a JV, will each firm in the JV be required to submit their individual VETS-100 confirmation or is the newly formed JV expected to file a single VETS-100 confirmation for the JV? | It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine the applicability of the solicitation submittal requirement for confirmation of the VETS-100 report filing. Refer to Section 00100, Subsection 6 - Federal Contractor Program. If not applicable, affirmatively state so. | 0003 |
| 011 | Page 9, Section 2: Evaluation Factors for Award, Note 1 of the RFP states: “If experience, past performance, or safety data is supplied for a firm whose CAGE code and DUNS number does not match ……..the Offeror must provide a detailed written explanation…..” |
Factor 2 – Experience requires the submission of five design projects for the design team being utilized. In most circumstances the Offeror will utilize a design firm with a CAGE code and DUNS number that will not match unless an in house designer is utilized.
| In the situation where an Offeror is utilizing the past performance of a design firm with separate CAGE code and DUNS number from the Offeror, would the Offeror be required to provide the written explanation outlined in Note 1 for the design firm? Additionally if more than one firm is utilized will separate 2 page explanations be allowed for each firm or will the Offeror be restricted to a single 2 page explanation? | Explanations submitted in response to NOTE 1 are limited to a total of two-pages as stipulated by the RFP. Also, refer to the Government's response to PPI No. 007. | 0003 |
| 012 | Page 12 of the RFP regarding (2) Design Experience 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. A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract.“
We have multiple relevant design-bid-build projects where design has been completed within the past five years, however, construction is a few months/year away. Please confirm that only the design portion of design-build and design-bid-build projects need to be completed within the past five years relating to the design experience. Confirmed. Refer to Factor 2 – Experience, ¶ (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, ¶ (2) Design Experience, which states "...the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP...". 0003
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12N44255-14-R-9022, AMENDMENT 0003 &"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 .