N6247314R0001__Clarification_Two_11-8-13.pdf

N6247311R0041 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

N6247311R0041 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.

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).