Attachment_D_PPI_Responses _N44255-16-R-2002 _Amend_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NAVFAC Northwest Regional 8(a) Small MACC
- Solicitation number
- N44255-16-R-2002
About this file
Attachment D PPI Responses N44255-16-R-2002 Amendment 0002
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment_D_PPI_Responses _N44255-16-R-2002 _Amend_0003.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N44255-16-R-2002 _Amendment_0003.pdf | ||
| N44255-16-R-2002 _Amendment_0002.pdf | ||
| N44255-16-R-2002 _Amendment_0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_D_PPI_Responses _N44255-16-R-2002 _Amend_0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Section_00100 _Attachment_C.2_PPQ_Design_Experience.docx | DOCX document | |
| N44255-16-R-2002.pdf | ||
| Section_00100 _Attachment_B_Construction_and_Design_Experience_Data_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_00100 _Attachment_D_PPI_Responses _Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Section_00100 _Attachment_A_PPI_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Section_00100 _Attachment_C.1_PPQ_Construction_Experience.docx | DOCX document | |
| N44255-16-R-2002_ _Pre-Solicitation_Notice.pdf |
Show all 12
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
PPI Responses N44255-16-R-2002 NAVFAC Northwest Regional 8(a) Small Multiple Award Construction Contract (Small MACC) Section 00100, Attachment D, Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Responses
PPI # Inquiry Response Amendment Responded
001 Section 00100, Basis of Evaluation Factor 2, (a), (2) states that:
“The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, or approved mentor protégé agreement as applicable and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.”
A joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, or approved mentor-protégé agreement are all legal entities that dramatically exceed the scope of a typical subcontractor relationship and would require the offeror to engage in a business relationship that is not typical for this type of procurement. Please consider removing this requirement and allowing the offeror to submit evidence of a teaming relationship between the offeror and the design subcontractor, preferably through the submission of a letter of commitment and release of past performance information drafted by the design subcontractor. Experience of a design subconsultant will be considered. The solicitation submittal requirements remain unchanged. The following is provided for further emphasis:
N44255-16-R-2002 (Page 7 of 81), Section 00100, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 2.2.2 PHASE ONE - Team, states "Joint Venture, Partnership, and Mentor-Protégé agreements should be provided when applicable [emphasis added] in accordance with Factor 1 and 2. For Design Firms, a letter of commitment or teaming agreement is not required [emphasis added] in accordance with Factor 2(2) Design Experience. An offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor, however if the Offeror has an established JV, Partnership or Mentor-Protégé Agreement with their design firm , the applicable agreement should be provided in accordance with Factor 1. This does not preclude the offeror or designer from submitting the narrative required under Evaluation Factors for Award, Note 1, if experience is submitted for an offeror or designer with a different DUNS or Cage Code."
| N44255-16-R-2002 (Pages 9-10 of 81), Section 00100, Basis of Award, Paragraph 7, provides various definitions such as Joint Venture (JV), Lead Design Firm / Design Team, Offeror, Offeror's Team, and Team Arrangement (as further defined by FAR Subpart 9.6) which should be thoroughly reviewed by each Offeror. N44255-16-R-2002 (Page 10 of 81), Section 00100, Evaluation Factors for Award, Note 1, provides additional information regarding the requirement for each Offeror to establish how the connection or nexus between it and the other entity relates to the Offeror's qualifications. | 0001 | |
| 002 | Solicitation Attachment B, Box #2- “Work Performed As” |
| If a project was performed as Prime Contractor, should the percentage of project work performed only include the amount of physical work performed on the project by in-house tradesmen, or also include supervision and administrative services performed under the contract in the percentage total? | The percent of project work performed that is to be included under Block 2 of Attachment B - Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet shall be for all work performed by the entity indicated in Block 1 in support of the project indicated in Block 3 of Attachment B. Additional detail regarding self-performance may be included under Block 11 of Attachment B. | 0001 |
| 003 | Solicitation Section: 00100; Evaluation Factors For Award; Factor 2. Page Number 14. |
“The Offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, or approved mentor protégé agreement as applicable and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.”
In the case that the designer is solely a subcontractor, is it acceptable for the Offeror to submit a commitment letter between the design firm and the Offeror along with the explanation of involvement for the design subcontractor? Or does it need to be a JV, Partnership, or Mentor Protégé Agreement between the two firms certified by the SBA?
| Refer to the Government's response to PPI No. 001. | 0001 |
| 004 | The RFP states that a relevant Construction and Design projects are: “Similar in size: Construction project between $100,000 to $5,000,000.” |
| Will projects larger than $5M be considered relevant? | Submitted projects which do not fully-meet the criteria for relevancy further detailed by N44255-16-R-2002, Section 00100, Factor 2 - Experience, (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, may not be considered relevant. | 0001 |
| 005 | On page 7 of the RFP under 2.2.2 PHASE ONE – TEAM, the RFP states that “An offeror may utilize experience of a design subcontractor, however if the Offeror has an established JV, Partnership or Mentor-Protégé Agreement with their design firm, the applicable agreement should be provided in accordance with Factor 1.” |
On pages 9 and 10 of the RFP under 7. Definitions, the “Team Arrangement” describes an acceptable relationship for this proposal between the Offeror and Lead Design Firm and/or in-house Lead Designer(s).
Based on these statements, does any documentation need to be submitted in the proposal for a Teaming Arrangement (not a JV, Partnership or Mentor-Protégé) between an Offeror and a Lead Design Firm?
| Refer to the Government's response to PPI No. 001. | 0001 |
| 006 | Page 6 section 2.1.1 states: |
Whenever possible use the forms provided; however, Offerors may substitute their own forms as long as the information submitted is substantially the same as that shown on each form. Paper dimensions shall be 8 ½ x 11”and the font size shall be no smaller than 11 pitch, unless specified otherwise.
However, Attachment B CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET, utilizes Times New Roman 10 point font.
Can we match the 10 point font on Attachment B?
| Yes. Offerors may use the font set as the default within each attachment as provided by the Government upon the posting of Solicitation N44255-16-R-2002. This includes Attachment B - Construction and Design Experience Data Sheet, Attachment C.1 - Past Performance Questionnaire - Construction Experience, and Attachment C.2 - Past Performance Questionnaire - Design Experience. | 0001 |
| 007 | The Basis of Award (page 9 of 81) defines what “Lead Design Firm/Design Team”, “Offeror”, and “Offerors Team” are and those definitions are used In Factor 2 Experience (pg 12 of 81) to direct what construction and design projects may be submitted in the proposal. We interpret these paragraphs as stating construction projects may ONLY be submitted by the entity signing the proposal and may not include team subcontractor projects, unless there is a Joint Venture, partnership, or Mentor Protégé agreement between those firms. Further, our interpretation is that Design Experience may include projects from the “primary design firm(s) (emphasis added) which means more than one firm in the Design Team if we so choose. |
a. Please state if our interpretation is correct, and, if not, what the proper interpretation should be.
| The Offeror's interpretation is substantialy correct. Also refer to the Government's response to PPI No. 001. | 0001 |
| 008 | Section 00100, Page 15, Factor 3(a): “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for their solicitations.” |
Is this stating that recently completed PPQ form(s) for other Government RFP’s must be completed by the Owner/Engineer in duplicate for this RFP?” No. The solicitation does not prohibit an Offeror from utilizing a previously submitted PPQ. If an Offeror utilizes a previously submitted PPQ, ensure the previously submitted PPQ contains the information required in Attachment C.1, Construction Experience, and/or Attachment C.2, Design Experience, and that the previously submitted PPQ is included within the Offeror's proposal vice merely making reference to the document.
| N44255-16-R-2002 (Page 15 of 81), Section 00100, Factor 3 - Past Performance, (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements, states "...The offeror should provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offerors SHALL NOT INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE [emphasis added] into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. 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 shall 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 PPQs...". | 0002 | |
| 009 | There seems to be a discrepancy between the SOL and the announcement on Fedbiz Ops regarding the requirement for a Bonafide office in region X (AK, ID, OR, WA). The announcement requires a Bona Fide office, while the solicitation sates: THIS SOLICITATION IS SET-ASIDE FOR 8(a) BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN SBA REGION X which consists of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. |
Can you please clarify if we must have a Bona Fide office or located in one of the four sates in region X.
N44255-16-R-2002, Section 00010, SF 1442 Continuation Sheet, has been revised via Amendment 0002 to incorporate the pertinent competition requirements stipulated by the Pre-Solicitation Notice which was previously posted 17 February 2016 to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) at https://www.fbo.gov/. 0002
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12N44255-16-R-2002, 8(a) Small MACC Amendment 0002 &"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Pre-Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Responses &"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Section 00100, Attachment D
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .