N6247314R0001__Clarification_Three_11-18-13.pdf

N6247314R0041 CLARIFICATION THREE

N6247314R0001 CLARIFICATION THREE dated November 18, 2013

Question 1: “Section 00700 states, “52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR (APR 1984) The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least 20% for construction”

Section 00801 – Item 7 states, “PERFORMANCE OF WORK/LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING: e. Total Small Business Set-Aside: In the case of a contract for general construction, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219- 14, Limitation on Subcontracting, at least 15% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel will be spent on the concern's employees (not including the costs of materials).”

Please confirm that Contractor is to perform 15% of the contract with its own organization.

Response to Question 1: To clarify the difference between these two clauses.

FAR 52.236-1 PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR refers to work performed on the site, i.e. a construction project site, work equivalent to 20% of the general construction.

FAR 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting, refers to 15% of the cost of contract performance – which is not for the work performed at the site of a construction project, but the actual performance of the overall MACC contract which is spread out over the five-year period (if all options are exercised). Besides the contractor personnel that perform the construction effort the contract performance may also include the cost of the construction personnel effort that perform work with the contract such as: program managers, contract personnel (those that are responsible for contracting with the government and subcontracting), administrative personnel (bookkeeping, report submittals, timekeeping, invoicing), quality assurance, etc.

The intention of both clauses is to ensure that the Offeror (awarded contractor) is intending and actually performing the contract requirements and not using the contract as a “pass through” to another firm that will perform the contract requirements.

Question 2: According to Clarification 2, Question 2, projects smaller than $8,000,000 will still be evaluated but may receive a weakness for being smaller in size. Projects exceeding $15,000,000 are typically of higher complexity and thus would still be a valid indication of an offeror’s capability to successfully perform task orders between $8,000,000 and $15,000,000. Please confirm that projects larger than $15,000,000 will not receive a weakness.

Response to Question 2: 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. The project that exceeds the higher task order value of $15,000,000 will not receive a weakness for the project price alone but we are still evaluating the project to determine if it is similar in scope, size, type, and complexity to projects that may include, but are not limited to: administration buildings, school buildings, hospitals, auditoriums, fire stations, gymnasiums, office buildings, hangars, laboratories, and parking structures as shown in the RFP. Other types of facilities may be as noted under the NAICS Code 236220.

Question 3: SECTION 00100 and Clarification 2; 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements and Question # 1.

Response to Question 3: It is advisable that all agreements and consent forms be included under Tab 1 but if they are submitted in the proposal immediately following the Cover Letter they will still be considered. The location of the items is secondary to having the agreements and consent forms included in the proposal.

For design-build projects, especially NAVFAC Southwest projects, can the date be changed from 5 years after design completion to the end of construction or at least extended to 7 years after design completion?

Response to Question 4: The 5-year period, calculated by counting back five years from the initial RFP issuance date remains as stated in the RFP Section 00210. The definition of complete for the design is as follows:

100% COMPLETE:

For design projects: 100% plans and specifications signed off by an Architect-Engineer and ready for construction with final cost estimate. Does not include any Post Construction Award Support (PCAS).

Question 5: RFP – Page 11 Factor 2.a.(1) vs the FAQ Document Question/Answer 10, Para (a):

Which dollars are going to be used to determine a relevant project? $8 million or greater or, $8 million or greater, but no more than $15 million? Total Construction value

The solicitation states: “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction and/or renovation of commercial and institutional buildings, primarily by design-build or secondarily by design-bid-build, with a project construction cost of $8,000,000 or greater.”

Question 10 of the FAQ document states: “Question 10: The RFP states that the 5 projects that we submit need to be “similar in size (project dollar value).” The RFP also states the Task Order range of $8million to $15million for the dollar value of the projects. Does that mean that in order for the 5 projects to be considered “similar in size,” the projects need to fall within that Task Order range? Answer: Yes. 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

SECTION 00100 - page 4 states, “The format for the proposal is as follows:

-Cover Letter -Offeror’s Team Consent Form(s) -Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)”

However, SECTION 00100 - Page 5 states that the agreements should be placed under Tab 1; and Clarification 2, Question 1 states that the consent forms should be included under Tab 1.

Please confirm that all agreements and consent forms should be included under Tab 1.

Question 4: RFP Section 00210; Factor 2, Design Experience. For the design firm, the 5 year clock starts at the end of design which makes sense for a design-bid-build project. However, for a design-build project, especially one for NAVFAC Southwest where the designer is required to remain active in the project through the end of construction, it would seem that the clock should start at the end of the designers involvement, the end of construction. On some NAVFAC Southwest RFP’s, the designer was not able to count the project until construction was complete to make sure the design was actually constructible, but the 5 year clock still started back at the end of design causing the designer to lose the entire construction period from the five years. This seems to penalize the designer on NAVFAC Southwest design-build projects where you require us to remain a part of the project through the end of construction but don’t allow us to use the end of construction as the start of our five year period.

looking for experience/past performance with projects similar in scope, size, type, and complexity to the projects shown in the RFP.

Response to Question 5: The project with a total construction value that exceeds the higher task order value of $15,000,000 will not receive a weakness for the project price alone. Consider that we are evaluating the project to determine if it is similar in scope, size, type, and complexity to projects that may include, but are not limited to:

administration buildings, school buildings, hospitals, auditoriums, fire stations, gymnasiums, office buildings, hangars, laboratories, and parking structures as shown in the RFP. Other types of facilities may be as noted under the NAICS Code 236220.

Question 6: RFP Section 00210, Factor 2 Experience and 2. Definitions.

Under Factor 2: Experience, the requirements for the project experience are given. My question is in regards to the following requirement:

At least one construction project shall demonstrate the Offeror’s experience with renovation (see definition).

When I refer to the definition on page 9 for “renovation” work, it states the following: “RENOVATION, REPAIR, ALTERATION PROJECT TYPES: Refers to projects where the work primarily involves the modification of existing facilities.” My specific question is could a large demolition/abatement project of multi-family housing and alteration of associated utilities on a military base be classified as “renovation” work?

Response to Question 6: Unfortunately, a large demolition/abatement project and alteration of associated utilities would not be considered a renovation of a general construction project under the NAICS 236220 that is applicable for this contract. Per the 2012 NAICS table (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch ) demolition would be considered under the NAICS as follows:

238910 Demolition, building and structure, 238910 Demolition contractor

238910 Concrete breaking and cutting for demolition

238910 Building demolition

238910 Blasting, building demolition

238990 Concrete sawing and drilling (except demolition)

562910 Mine reclamation services, integrated (e.g., demolition, hazardous material removal, soil remediation)

Question 7: Factor 2: Experience, (1) Construction Experience & a. (2) Design Experience.

The RFP allows 2 pages (single-sided) per project for a total of 10 pages for Construction Experience and 10 pages for Design Experience. Will the government allow an even distribution of pages as long as we don’t exceed 10 pages each for Construction and Design Experience?

Response to Question 7: The limit of two (2) pages per project remains as stated. Any additional pages beyond the two pages will not be considered. The Offeror has a choice of font size for the projects description that can be used.

Question 8: RFP Section 00210, Paragraph 4: Regarding the relevant construction projects, would the gov’t consider reducing the project complete requirement to 95% complete in lieu of 100% complete?

Response to Question 8: For a project to be considered a relevant construction project the completion date stated on Exhibit “B” must be within the 5 year period. The 5-year period, calculated by counting back five years from the initial RFP issuance date remains as stated in the RFP Section 00210. The definition of complete for the design is as follows:

100% COMPLETE:

For construction projects: The facility is completely constructed and ready for the intended use.

Question 9: RFP Section Exhibit "B" Form, Last Sentence in Section 1, Contractor.

On the Exhibit B form where you fill out this form for each project, there is a question that states; "Explain how this firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract"

The answer to this question would be "Exhibit A" that shows the roles of the participants.

Are you looking for a 1 line answer such as; "A&D will be the Prime General Contractor"? The answer will be the same for all exhibit B's filled out for A&D. Same thing with our A/E. This question on Exhibit B seems redundant to the explaining the roles and responsibilities on Exhibit A. We want to be sure we are understanding the question.

Response to Question 9: Exhibit “A” requests the name of the firm but not another location of that same firm, if the firm has relocated since the PPQ/CCASS evaluation form was completed, a satellite office of another firm, etc.

Please note that in Exhibit B the block preceding the line stated in your question is as follows:

Note: For evaluation purposes the address provided in Block 14 of the SF 1442 must match the address included on the Cover Sheet and/or PPQ/CCASS evaluation for this project. If it is a different address a complete explanation must be provided below.

Explain how this firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract:

The explanation of the meaningful involvement of the firm would be if the ADDRESS of the Offeror or LDF is not the same as that on the cover sheet or PPQ/CCASS for the Offeror or PPQ/ACASS evaluation form.

Question 10: RFP Section FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE, a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

“Submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit “C”) and CCASS/ACASS evaluations under Tab “2” immediately following each of the project data sheets to which they pertain. Submit any other past performance information under Tab “3.”

If CCASS/ACASS and Exhibit "C" is to be inserted directly behind Tab "2" Exhibit "B" Projects, please explain the purpose of Tab "3". Please define "any other past performance information" as stated in the RFP.

Response to Question 10: RFP Section FACTOR 3: Past Performance also states that the “Offerors/LDF may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) in total.” The choice of where to provide that information is at the discretion of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

N6247314R0041 CLARIFICATION TWO

N6247314R0001 CLARIFICATION TWO dated November 8, 2013

Question 1: "Please confirm that Exhibit" A" is what we submit as our Technical Approach narrative. Or is Exhibit "A" to be considered an attachment to our own one double sided page Technical Approach Narrative?"

Response to Question 1: Exhibit "A" is to be used to submit the Technical Approach Narrative. The form is editable so you can take out the lines for Team members that you don't require and that would provide you more room for the actual narrative. The Exhibit "walks" you through all the information that we request in the Factor 1.

In the top part of the form you provide the name of the Offeror, JV team member, affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm and Proposed Design Firm(s) (Team Members) and what the role and responsibilities are in the team (don't just put A-E - add information how they will be involved through the complete design process and through construction -demonstrate meaningful involvement here and in the narrative). At the bottom of the form there is an expandable area that requests "rationale for proposing this team arrangement". This is where the narrative would go and could expand into two pages. The narrative should address the Offeror's rationale for proposing this team arrangement -expand on the information in the blocks above to provide the "primary members, composition, and management of the proposed design-build team" and include "the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms" and how this team will benefit the government so that the Source Selection Board can evaluate "the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP" (the Factor 1 basis of evaluation).

The organization chart and team consent forms are to be included as a separate page under tab 1.

Don't forget that if the experience of an entity (JV team member, affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm, lead design firm) is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the Exhibit "A" narrative and organizational chart.

Question 2:

- Question 2 -1. To meet the Offeror’s past experience criteria of the RFP, all representative projects must be $8M or more in value and 100% complete. If we establish a legal partnership with a large construction firm as provided under FAR 9.6’s partnership agreement, can we use their past experience as noted on Exhibits A & B? The legal partnership will be outside of the Mentor-Protégé program.

- Question 2 -2. Offerors are required to submit Teaming Agreements, Partnership Agreements, and/or Joint

Venture Agreements as part of the proposal, which suggests that NAVFAC SW is interested in the Team members who are going to be working on the task orders. Consequently, will NAVFAC SW consider and evaluate the key subcontractor’s past performance to meet requirements under Factor 2?

Response to Question 2:

The Definitions in Section 00210, Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors, for Offeror and Offeror's team are as follows:

OFFEROR: Refers to the Contractor submitting the proposal as Offeror, including Joint Ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Offeror’s name cited on the SF 1442 and any other part of the proposal, the SF 1442 is the conclusive document in determining the Offeror who is submitting the proposal.

OFFEROR'S TEAM: Applies to the Offeror, the Offeror's outside Lead Design Firm, and/or in-house Lead Designer(s) only; does not include subcontractors, consultants or members of a partnership/teaming agreement.

As stated in the definitions, and for this MACC, an Offeror that has a legal Joint Venture Teaming Agreement or SBA approved Mentor Protégé will be recognized - formal partnerships or legal partnerships will not be considered as an Offeror. Both members of a legal Joint Venture must be a small business for the JV to be considered a small

N6247314R0041 CLARIFICATION TWO

business Offeror for this MACC. The Offeror's experience that will be considered is a small business general construction firm's experience, JV team members experience, and Mentor Protégé members experience.

Please note that in Clarification 1, Question 6 the response to a question about the size of projects submitted for experience being smaller than the task order range of $8 to $15 million: "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.”" The project may receive a weakness for being smaller in size but it will still be considered for evaluation.

The team and team members we refer to in the Factors 1, 2 and 3/Exhibits A, B and C are the Offeror (JV members or Mentor Protégé members, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company) and the Lead Design Firms that are included in the proposal. As stated in the RFP Factor 1 and on Exhibit A – “If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.” If experience for the Offeror, joint venture team members, mentor protégé team members, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company and lead design firms has been included in Factor 2 you must provide the name and role of that firm in this contract on Exhibit A and organizational chart.

Question 3: The SF 1442, item 13 states that we are to submit an Original and 2 copies of the proposal. Page 5 of the RFP states that the offeror is to submit an Original and three (3) Copies of the proposal. Please clarify the number of copies that we are to submit for Phase I.

Response to Question 3: The correct number of copies for proposal submittal is as required on the SF-1442, item 13 - an Original and 2 copies of the proposal.

Question 4: Do you want the firms that are submitting a proposal or receive a contract award to work in the entire area that is stated on the contract?

Response to Question 4: Although the majority of the projects will be located in the San Diego area the area of responsibility that is under NAVFAC Southwest’ cognizance includes California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado. The intention is for the Offerors that are awarded a contract on this MACC to have the intention and capabilities of proposing and performing on construction projects in any of the six state area.

Question 5: I was notified by FBO that a modification to the subject solicitation was issued. There was not a description in FBO, but a link to NECO. I clicked the link but cannot find any modification on November 7, 2013.

Can you please inform me about this modification, especially if the proposal due date or anything has changed?

Response to Question 5: I am sorry for this update that was posted. I did not change any items in the documents. I believe it was a "system" change. NECO was not fully operational at the time I uploaded this solicitation in FBO so I could not use the NECO website in my links for this solicitation. The RFP, and all associated documents, in both NECO and FBO, and all items, are identical in both systems.

My belief is that on that day (November 7, 2013) the two websites are able to link again so the NECO website link was added by the system.

N6247314R0041 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?

N6247314R0041 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).