N6247314R0001__Clarification_One_11-4-11.pdf

N6247311R0041 CLARIFICATION ONE

N6247314R0001 CLARIFICATION ONE dated November 4, 2013

Question 1: Part 1 Instruction to bidders; Factor 2 Experience para. #1:

a. Please confirm if the projects submitted for Factor 2 experience are required to be within the Southwest Region (CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO) to be acceptable.

b. Furthermore, please confirm if they are in fact within the Southwest Region that they would be considered more favorably than projects that are not within the Southwest Region.

Response to Question 1: The projects that are submitted for Factor 2 - Experience do NOT need to be performed within the Southwest Region to be acceptable. The purpose of Factor 2 - Experience is to determine the Offeror and Lead Design Firm(s) experience and depth of experience with relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract.

Projects performed in the Southwest Regions will NOT be considered more favorably than projects that are performed outside of the Southwest Regions. Projects that are determined to be relevant will be considered equally regardless of what state in the country that they are performed.

Question 2: Please clarify if we are to list the names of Superintendents, QC Managers, and Safety Officers in addition to key members of the organization or is the intent to simply list the key executives such as president, vice president, Senior project management, chief estimator and other team key members such as design firms and / or construction team firms and simply list a "Superintendent, QC Manager, Safety Officer" categories as general bubbles/boxes?

If Superintendents, QC Managers, and Safety Officers are to be listed, should all of them be listed or simply 1 for each position?

Response to Question 2: This factor does NOT request a list of names of the key personnel in any of the firms (Offeror or Design Firm) - only identify the FIRM(s) and a clear description of how what that FIRM will provide as an important participant of the contract. Factor 1 - Technical Approach is to evaluate the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

The factor clearly requests "a narrative describing the proposed primary construction FIRM(s) and primary design FIRM(s) for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various FIRMS (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the ENTITIES".

Question 3:

Response to Question 3: The Offeror(s) (Prime General Contractor) are the only firm(s) involved with this contract that is required to be a small business. The Lead Design Firm(s) (design partner) that you choose are not required to be small businesses.

This procurement is 100% set-aside for Small Business concerns for general construction projects at various locations within the NAVFAC…”

Is the 100% set-aside for Small Business concerns applicable to the Design partner (and their sub-consultants) or only the General Contractor?

N6247311R0041 CLARIFICATION ONE

Question 4: We would like to inquire as to whether NAVFAC Southwest will amend the RFP on this solicitation to 10 years for Past Performance in lieu of 5 years?

Response to Question 4: Factor 2, Section A; Para 1: We are not intending to extend the 5 year consideration for Experience and Past Performance. Projects that are included in the proposal that were completed more than 5 years before October 25, 2013 will not be considered for evaluation.

Question 5: Is the minimum aggregate bonding capacity for this Small Business Set Aside truly $30 million, as indicated in the solicitation dated 25-Oct-2013 or is this an error?

Response to Question 5: NAVFAC Southwest’s intent in stating the $30 million bonding capacity is based on ensuring that a contractor on the MACC has the ability to bond for multiple concurrent construction projects for task orders awarded at the higher value within the task order range of $8 million to $15 million. Proposals will be evaluated regardless of the bonding capacity but the bonding capacity will be considered in assessing the Offeror’s responsibility.

Question 6: The RFP indicates that one of the 5 exemplary projects needs to be a renovation project. Would the Owner consider reducing the construction cost requirement for the renovation project to $5,000,000 or $6,000,000?

Or perhaps extend the completion time range from 5 years to 10 years?

Response to Question 6: The intent of the construction cost requirement is for projects submitted for experience and past performance to be within the task order range for the contract - $8million to $15million. As stated in the Frequently Asked Questions contained in the Solicitation Documents: “Projects that fall outside of the Task Order range will still be evaluated; however, they will not be considered as “similar in size (project dollar value)” to projects shown in the project description for this solicitation. When preparing your proposal, please keep in mind that we are looking for experience/past performance with projects similar in scope, size, type, and complexity to the projects shown in the RFP.”

This contract is for general construction, and not specialized construction, therefore we are not intending to extend the 5 year consideration for relevant Experience and relevant Past Performance. However, please note, if the projects submitted fall outside of the 5 year consideration they will not be considered for evaluation. The 5 year consideration is based on the completion date of the construction project and is calculated by counting back five years from the initial RFP issuance date (October 25, 2013).