N44255-18-R-5004_PPI_Log.pdf

Page Section Para.

In the RFP, within the Construction Experience qualifications, it states, “at least two projects shall involve Clean Water Act permit terms and conditions” and within the Design Experience qualifications, it states, “at least one project shall involve Clean Water Act permit terms and conditions.” we respectfully suggest removing the “Clean Water Act permit terms and conditions” requirement in both the Construction and Design Experience sections.

The Clean Water Act requirements will remain in this solicitation. 0003 13‐15 Section (2) Factor 2, Experience

Similar in Complexity Paragraph

The RFP requires that projects submitted shall have been completed within seven (7) years. Given the distinctive size/scope/complexity of the required experience, would the Government please consider extending the range?

After consideration and a review of the Market research the Government has determined this requirement to be adequate.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed (Beneficial Occupancy Date occurred) within the past seven years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

0002 13‐15

Section (2) Factor 2, Experience – Construction

Similar in Complexity Paragraph

If the Offeror has a Past Performance Questionnaire on file previously completed by the Client that matches all fields of the required Attachments C.1 and C.2, may this be submitted in lieu of requesting a new PPQ specific to this solicitation? Our current NAVFAC contacts for previously completed projects are reluctant to fill out PPQs for the same project multiple times.

Offeror can Submit a copy of a PPQ Previously completed by the customer. Offeror shall provide current points of contact for verification.

0002 16 Section (3) Factor 3, Past Performance

A

The Phase One Proposal requires the submittal of the VETS‐ 4212 report confirmation. If the Offeror is a joint venture, please confirm if we are to submit a VETS‐4212 report confirmation for the joint venture entity, or if it is acceptable to submit for each company in the joint venture.

See Updated VETS 4212 Submission requirements in Amendment 0001.

0002 7 Section 00100 Bidding Instructions

Since the RFP was posted on 19 Dec 2018, right before the Christmas and New Year Holiday. Additionally, time is needed to complete Joint Venture Agreements. Offeror respectfully requests a 2 week bid due date extension

See updated Proposal due date in Amendment 0001. 0002 1 Block 13 A

REFERENCE

PPI # QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Amend No.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this solicitation. In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or a similar organization or process. Applicable documentation is not included in the specified page limitation for this factor. Also, the description should address features detailing how the work was completed in accordance with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Will the Government please consider removing this requirement as it will likely increase the overall response and competition that the Government receives for this solicitation?

No. Not having Sustainable design features will not disqualify a project from consideration. As stated in Section 00100 Bidding Instructions, paragraph (B) Basis of Evaluation, on Pg. 16 "Offerors who provide relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate expericnce with sustainable features."

0002 15 Section 00100 Bidding Instructions

The RFP states “Construction projects [are to be] between $500,000 and $30,000,000.” Our team has several relevant projects with a construction cost that is greater than $30,000,000. It seems that if a contractor has experience with similar projects that are larger than $30,000,000 then this experience should be evaluated as relevant, if not very relevant. Will the Government please consider adjusting the RFP in order to allow a project over $30,000,000 as a relevant project?

See updated paragraph 3,b,(2),(A),(i) and (ii) 0003 13‐14 Factor 2 Experience

Similar in Size

Given the government furlough, we are concerned about getting the PPQ's back from our Federal government clients..

Will NAVFAC consider extending the deadline to accommodate the government furlough?

See Proposal due date in Amendment 0002. 0002 16 Section (3) Factor 3, Past Performance

A

Just to clarify, is the Entity Clarifier Number (EIN) the number formerly known as DUNS? If not, please clarify.

That is correct 0002 6 Section 00100 Paragraph 2.2.1

Section 00100, Evaluation Factor for Award, paragraph B.3.a.(2)(a)(iii) states “All Offeror’s shall note firms will not be allowed to propose new HOOH or subcontractor overhead rates on task orders.” If a Task Order or modification exceeds the cost and pricing data threshold will HOOH be negotiated in accordance with FAR Part 31 and DFARS Part 231?

See Updated paragraph B.3.a.(2)(A)(iii) 0003 11 Section 00101 paragraph B.3.a.(2)(A)(iii)

Question: Will the Government modify the RFP to allow the HOOH to be adjusted annually in accordance with approved cost accounting procedures?

This contract is exempt from FAR Part 31 CAS coverage as this MACC falls under exemption 15, firm‐fixed Price contracts or subcontracts awarded under the basis of adequate price competition.As stated in FAR 31.102, Home Office Overhead (HOOH) is guided under the principles of Part 31 but the application of cost principles to fixed price contracts and subcontracts shall not be construed as a requirement to negotiate agreements on individual elements of cost in arriving at an agreement on the total price. Proposed HOOH is to follow the guidance in Part 31 and will not be adjusted annually. However an adjustment may be possible under certain cercumstances see solicitation upatde in section 00801 paragraph 22, pg. 70.

0003 11 Section 00102 paragraph B.3.a.(2)(A)(iii)

Section 00100, Evaluation Factor for Award, paragraph B.3.a.(2)(a)(iii) states “All Offeror’s shall note firms will not be allowed to propose new HOOH or subcontractor overhead rates on task orders.” The intent of an IDIQ is allow for future undefined work and therefore it is not possible to determine the subcontractors required for the next five (5) years. This requires the Offeror to project/establish rates for unknown firms and how their cost accounting systems are established.

Other than price competition for the initial seed project, what other criteria will the Contracting Officer use to determine allocable, allowable, and fair and reasonable for generic subcontract HOOH rates?

B.3.a.(2)(A)(iii) refers to the Primes mark up on subcontractors not the subcontractors overhead on costs.

0003 11 Section 00100 B.3.a.(2)(A)(iii)

Section 00100, Evaluation Factor for Award, paragraph B.3.a.(2)(a)(iv) states: “All Offeror’s shall note the Change Order markup rate will become part of the successful Offeror’s resultant contract and will be applied to the direct costs price of contract modifications that do not exceed the certified cost and pricing data threshold.” Historically, the percentage method does not provide adequate consideration when projects suffer excessive time delay. If the Contractor can substantiate the proposed percentage (FOOH pool/direct costs), will the contractor be allowed to use a daily rate (FOOH pool/period of performance) in lieu of a percentage?

No, Contractors can not change Field Office Overhead (FOOH) compensation methods. Additionally this solicitation is not requesting FOOH rates from Offerors submitting rates using the Normal Method; for Normal Method FOOH will be established at the task order level.

0003 11 Section 00100 B.3.a.(2)(A)(iv)

Section 00801, paragraph 21 requires “Firms awarded a contract shall submit credentials identified below for an Environmental Manager that will oversee all Task Order projects for waterfront work within 30 days of award of the basic contract.” This is identified as Key Personnel Requirement. This is a direct cost to this contract and is not be an HOOH expense. As a mandatory position, the cost for this position will not be covered by the minimum guarantee of $5,000.00. Accordingly, this will be a direct cost for each Task Order. Will the Government modify the requirement for an Environmental Manager as a Key Personnel on each Task Order to allow selection of, and cost for, individuals on a project‐by‐ project basis?

The Environmental Manager is a contract‐level key personnel requirement and may impact a contractor's home office overhead.

As this is a contract level requirement, it will not be compensated at the task order level as a direct cost or via the contractor's field office overhead.

0003 70 00801 Paragraph 21

Section 00801, paragraph 21 (Key Personnel) requires “The Environmental Manager will be responsible for the following on all task orders: Supervising field and lab work.” Please define “supervising” field work.

Supervising with respect to the Key Person – Environmental Manager shall be the responsible corporate officer for ensuring the company has sufficient qualified staff and supporting resources to ensure full compliance with contract and regulatory requirements. This person will also be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of their program and have the authority to correct any deficiencies with the field executed environmental monitoring and/or regulatory compliance.

0003 70 Section 00801 Paragraph 21