Attachment__A-1_N44255-18-R-5003_PPI_Log.pdf

Page Section Para.

The requirement for the prime contractor to have projects over $4 and $10M restricts the ability to compete for SDVOSB and HUBZone Small Businesses. This is particularly true as traditionally the Government, has considered projects at or around $10M for large businesses (full and open/unrestricted), and therefore opportunities are very limited for Small Businesses to have larger projects in this range. Will the Government please consider lowering the relevant project minimum thresholds to Construction projects from $2‐5M and at least one (1) in the $5‐10M range to ensure adequate competition within these SB socioeconomic set‐asides?

See amendment 0002 2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

It is not clearly stated whether the price proposal should be submitted with Phase 1 or Phase 2 packages. The SF1442 is to be included in Phase 1, which would require pricing information to complete, however there is no seed project information included with Phase 1 solicitation documents.

Please clarify whether the price proposal and bond should be included with Phase 1 or Phase 2 proposal packages.

The information requested in the Instruction to Offerors paragraph 2.2.1 shall be submitted with your Phase One proposal.

The price proposal and bond are included with Phase Two proposals.

1 6 00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

RFP page 10 of 74 outlines Submittal Requirements and Basis of Evaluation for the Price Volume. Please confirm that the Price Volume is not required for the Phase One submission and will be required as part of the Phase Two submission.

See PPI #2 1 6 00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

REFERENCE

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

In regards to Factor 2 – Experience, will NAVFAC NW consider reducing the minimum construction project size from $4 million to $2 million? As this MACC is set‐aside to HUBZone and SDVOSB firms, the smaller value projects are more typical for procurements set‐aside for these small business concerns.

See PPI #1 2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

In regards to Factor 2 – Experience, will NAVFAC NW reconsider allowing the use of experience of major subcontractors to satisfy the construction experience requirements similar to the allowance for design subcontractor experience to satisfy the design experience requirements?

No. All experience must meet the requirements established in Factor 2.

1 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Factor 2 states: "If the Offeror is a joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé entity. If the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé members. At least one relevant project shall be submitted for each joint venture, partnership or mentor protégé member. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé members may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five projects combined."

Based on this paragraph, please confirm that Offeror firms arranged in a teaming arrangement (Prime Contractor/Teaming Partner) will both be allowed to submit project experience to meet the construction experience requirements outlined in Factor 2.

Projects may be submitted for the joint venture, partnership, or mentor protégé members.

1 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

SF 1442 Block 13 indicates that an offer guarantee is required.

Section 00010 Phase I proposal instructions (p. 6 of 74) do not direct us to include a bid bond. 252.228‐7004 directs us to provide a bid bond for 100% of the price payable for the contract guaranteed minimum. Also, Attachment D includes a bid bond review checklist and also indicates the Phase I Proposal due date.

A Bid Bond in not required until Phase Two Additionally please see revised attachment D.

1 6 00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Section 00010, Basis for Award, Factor 1 Technical Approach, paragraph (ii) – Will binding Letters of Commitment suffice to meet the requirement for submitting partnership agreements for each member of the Offeror’s team?

A legally binding Letter of Commitment that indicates how that company will be utilized to add value in completing projects through out the life of the SDVOSB / HUBZone MACC will be accepted.

1 11 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(1)(a)(ii)

Section 00010, Basis for Award, Factor 2 Experience – Would roads and utility projects involving multiple trades be considered similar in scope to the RFP requirements?

No, Similar in scope is New construction, repair, alteration, or renovation by design‐build or design‐bid‐build of administrative facilities, housing facilities, child care centers, recreation/fitness centers, retail complexes, manufacturing and industrial facilities, communication facilities, special access program facilities (SAPF) or sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIF’s), aviation facilities (i.e. hangars, control towers, etc.), or other similar facilities.

1 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

Please confirm that the set‐aside for this procurement is either SDVOSB or HUBZone and that a prospective bidder does not need to have both socio‐economic categories in order to qualify to submit a proposal.

Confirmed, A Contractor can be either SDVOSB, HUBZone, or both to qualify to submit a proposal.

1 1 Block 10 3

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Factor 2 Experience/Similar in Size states “One construction project must be greater than $10,000,000.” Would the government please consider lowering the dollar threshold for this one project to $8,000,000 as many small businesses do not have projects greater than $10M.

See PPI #1 2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

How many firms are anticipated to be shortlisted to Phase Two?

See amendment 0002 2 9 00010 Basis of Award

B.2

Of the six awards anticipated, is there a benchmark number of awards for SDVOSB firms? Also, is there a benchmark number of award for HUBZone firms?

No, award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non‐price factors considered.

2 10 00010 Basis of Award

B.2

The project requirements outlined in Factor 2 – Experience, specifically requiring large projects valued at $4M or greater conflicts with the intent and purpose of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, the SBA’s Service‐Disabled Veteran‐Owned Small Business Concern (SDVOSBC) Program and Executive Order 13360 which all promote the ability for SDVOSB firms to compete for SDVOSB set‐aside contracts. As such, we respectfully request the project value to be reduced to support SDVOSB participation in this procurement.

see PPI #1 2 12 00010

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Factor 2 – Experience states that a project must be at or above $4 million to be considered similar in size. Based on the types of facilities listed under “Similar in Scope” and the types of projects awarded within the last seven years especially in the Northwest area, the similar $ value threshold seems high.

Please consider reducing the $ value noted for “Similar in Size” to reflect similar types of facilities awarded and performed by SDVOSB and HUBZone firms within the last seven years.

see PPI #2 2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

Factor 3 – Past Performance: For projects that do not have a CPARS, please confirm that offerors can submit a previously completed past performance questionnaire (PPQ) in lieu of requesting a new PPQ. Several of our project references have retired, relocated or are otherwise unavailable to complete a new PPQ.

Confirmed, Offeror may provide a previously completed PPQ, but the Contact information will need to be current.

2 15 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(3)(a)

RFP page 14 of 74; (ii) Design Experience; “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 past the ‘Offeror’ has partnered with the ‘design firm’ officially by a Letter of Commitment between the Designer & Offeror after award of the contract. Is a Letter of Commitment between the ‘Offeror’ and the ‘Designer’ included in the proposal sufficient to fulfill this portion of the solicitation?

See amendment 0002 2 14 00010

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Reference the Phase One Proposal submittal mentions nothing of submitting Bid Bond paperwork with Phase One proposal submittal. The assumption is that the Bid Bond is only required for Phase Two of the RFP when it comes to pricing and the Seed Project. pg 10of 74 in the RFP Is this a correct assumption?

yes. 2 6 00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

Reference: Similar in size: Construction project at or above $4,000,000. One construction project must be greater than $10,000,000. Only a few HUBzone and SDVOSB companies nationwide have executed projects between $4M and $10M, and many of the local HUBzone firms cannot meet this requirement. Recognizing this to be the case, will NAVFAC allow Offerors to present projects below these limits without penalizing them (e.g., reconsider these limits)?

See PPI #1, All projects must meet the requirements set fourth in Factor 2 to be considered. Projects below $4 million will not be considered, and failing to provide specific project requirements in Factor 2 is considered a deficiency.

2 12 00010

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Solicitation Page 12 of 74 (last paragraph) describes how Joint Venturers, Partners, and Mentor‐Protégé arrangements must show experience through separate project descriptions if they have not worked together. Question: Will NAVFAC allow for sister‐affiliated companies under common ownership to submit as Partners, with the Partners providing separate project descriptions?

Any experience, past performance, or safety data of any entity with an EIN (Previously refered to as DUNS) or CAGE code that differs from that in the SF 1442, will not be considered unless the offeror establishes a basis for imputing the other entity's data to the offeror. The Government will not assume or independently investigate the existence and nature of a relationship between the offeror and any other entity that has a different EIN and CAGE code. The offeror must clearly explain why another entity's experience, past performance, or safety record is relevant to or indicative of the Offeror’s ability to perform this contract. A mere statement describing a corporate affiliation is insufficient; the offeror must also establish how the connection or nexus between it and the other entity relates to the Offeror’s qualifications.

2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

The RFP states on pg. 5 that the “font size shall be no smaller than 11 pitch,” but the Word Documents for Attachment B – Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet that you provided has a default pitch of 10 in Times New Roman.

Can we enter information on this sheet in the default Times New Roman font at Pitch 10, or do we have to resize your entire form into Times New Roman pitch 11? We shall provide other items that are not on Attachment B in minimum size 11 pitch.

Yes, you can use The default pitch on Attachment B. 2 6 00010 Instructions to

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

According to pg. 5 of the RFP, we are to turn in 5 binders (1 original + 4 copies) and 1 CD. The SF 1442 states (1) original and 4 copies (i.e. 5 binders) should be turned in but does not mention a CD. Do we turn in 1 CD in addition to the 5 binders?

Yes, a CD is required in addition to the four copies and one original.

2 6 00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

Please confirm that Attachments D (Bid Bond Review Checklist) and Attachment E (Performance Rating Method Compliance Report Form) are not necessary for submission until Phase II.

Confirmed. 2 0 0 0

The RFP was re‐released with Amendment 1 as a PDF under the file name “N4425518R5003_Conformed_through_0001.”

However, Amendment 1, Box 14, states that the amendment’s only purpose is to “incorporate Attachment A‐1 NA44255‐18‐R‐ 5003 PPI Log to section 008006.” Are there any differences between the RFP PDF released with Amendment 1 under the above referenced file name and the original RFP released with this solicitation (the original PDF name Solicitation_N44255‐18‐ R‐5003)?

Yes, section 00806 now has Attachment A‐1 NA44255‐18‐R‐5003 PPI Log in the attachments list. The change is highlighted in yellow.

2 74 00806 0

On pg. 6 of the RFP, the cover letter for the proposal requires a EIN, CAGE Code, and TIN according to item “c” for both the Prime/Offeror and the Lead Design Firm. Is the EIN a separate item from the TIN or are they the same number? If they are not the same, what is the EIN?

The Entity Identifier Number EIN is also known as the DUNS number.

2 6 00010 Instructions to

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

Pg. 15 of the RFP under (4) Factor 4 – Safety, (i) Experience Modification Rate (EMR) asks for five previous complete calendar years’ worth of data regarding a firm’s EMR. Does this information need to be provided on insurance company/surety letterhead or can we provide a table with the information?

EMR data can be included as a table in the narrative. 2 15 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(4)(a)

Pg. 15 of the RFP under (4) Factor 4 – Safety, (ii) ask for five previous complete calendar years’ worth of data regarding the firm’s DART and TRC Rates. Do you want us to attach our firm’s OSHA 300 and 300A forms for those same five years to supplement the DART and TRC rates provided?

No. 2 16 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(4)(a)

Pg. 12 of the RFP under (2) Factor 2 – Experience, documentation is requested for those buildings validated and/or certified through the US Green Building Council or the equivalent organization or process. For one of our projects, the LEED Silver certification is pending and official certification and documentation of approval of said certification has not been received from the Government. Should we simply note the LEED Silver certification is pending in our description as the official certification is not complete?

Government will only consider projects that have been validated and/or certified by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process at the time of RFP submission.

Offeror shall submit the applicable documentation to demonstrate the project has been validated and/or certified accordingly.

2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(ii)

If proposing as a JV, does each member of the JV submit the VETS 4212 form?

Yes, see page 7 paragraph 6. 2 7 00010 Instructions to

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

The solicitation, paragraph 2(a) is subdivided into two parts (i) – Construction Experience and (ii) – Design Experience and each is directing design teams to provide a maximum number of five relevant projects for submittal as the basis for capacity to perform identified scope in ranges from $4MM to $10MM. My interpretation is that that means provide (5) construction projects and five (5) design projects for a total of ten (10) projects being submitted to ultimately satisfy Factor 2 requirements?

Please confirm that a total of ten (10) projects; five (5) construction projects and five (5) design projects, each detailed within a two‐page maximum supporting data sheet will effectively establish the page count for Factor 2 as a maximum of twenty (20) pages?

Yes five construction projects and five design projects, each project shall be submeted on the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet, Attachment B, and each project data sheet shall not exceed one double‐sided page.

2 12 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(2)(a)(i)

Factor 1: RFP states the technical approach narrative shall be limited to one double‐sided page (or two single‐sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item (ii) below is not included in this page limitation.

Question: Would you consider increasing the page number for the information in Factor 1 to a total of 4 single sided pages or 2 double‐sided pages in lieu of the (1) double‐sided page or (2) single‐sided pages requirement now?

The page limitation of one double sided page for Factor 1 will remain.

2 11 00010

B.3.b.(1)(a)

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

This section states The Entity Identifier #, Cage #, and TIN # of the Offeror and Lead Design Firm is required in our cover letter.

Question: We are not familiar with the term “Entity Identifier #.” Will you please clarify what information you are wanting?

We are confused because you are also asking for the TIN.

SEE PPI #25 2 6

00010 Instructions to Offerors

2.2.1

Is Section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form on pg. 3 of the RFP required for submission in Phase I or Phase II?

You do not need to submit anything on Page 3 2 3 00010 0

Are we allowed to submit previous PPQs for Factor 3, as long as they are NOT incorporated by reference, but rather the completed/signed PPQ is part of the proposal?

See PPI #16 2 15 00010 Basis of Award

B.3.b.(3)(a)

On pg.6 of the RFP under "Phase One Proposals shall be organized and include the following:"; Item (c) states "Representations and Certifications, including the supplemental certifications in Section 00600 and VETS‐4212 confirmation of filing. If an Offeror is not required to file a VETS‐ 4212 report, the Offeror shall provide an explanation." The first part "Representations and Certifications, including the supplemental certifications in Section 00600..." implies there are Reps & Certs in addition to Sec 00600 that are required to be submitted with our Phase I proposal. We cannot find any Reps & Certs in the solicitation other than Section 00600. (Pg 23‐

26) If additional Reps & Certs are required please provide the pages in the solicitation where they can be found.

Clause 52.204‐8 and 204‐7007 lists multiple Certification requirement in addition to those individually listed in section 00600. If the Offeror has completed all the required Certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) the Offeror can select " Paragraph D applies" and the Government will review your certifications in SAM. It is the Offerors responsibility to ensure all required certificates are completed. See updates in section 00600

2 6 00010 Instructions to