HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_11_February_2014.pdf

SOLICITATION NO: N62473-14-R-0003

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT (MACC) SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND

RENOVATION OF HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS AND

ASSOCIATED WORK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE NAVFAC SOUTHWEST AREA OF

RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA,

COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEW MEXICO

Questions & Answers

February 7, 2014

Question 1: RFP states: If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, at least one relevant project shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. If no shared project experience is demonstrated, proposals that fail to submit at least one relevant project for each partner in the Joint Venture will be rated Unacceptable. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

We presume similar rules as in Joint Venture apply for companies in Teaming Agreement?

Please clarify.

Answer: As stated the RFP (Basis of Evaluation for Factor 1, Experience): "The basis of evaluation will be the Offeror's demonstrated experience in performing five (5) relevant construction projects as defined in the proposal submission requirements above. The assessment of the Offeror's relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP."

Offeror is defined in the RFP as "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."

The requirements for Joint Venture Offerors are only applicable to Joint Venture Offerors.

They do not apply to companies in Teaming Agreements. As stated in the RFP, a Joint Venture is defined as "A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together."

Question 2: If two companies are in Teaming Agreement with a formal Teaming Agreement signed and submitted as part of the proposal, will past performance projects submitted (total five projects combined for both the members of the Team in the Teaming Agreement) be evaluated? Though SF 1442 will have only one company as Prime. Please clarify.

Answer: As stated in the RFP, (Basis of Evaluation for Factor 2 – Past Performance), “This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.” Again, Offeror is defined in the RFP as "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."

Question 3: How do we determine if we are a Small Business for this procurement?

Answer: The SBA establishes Small Business Size Standards based on North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) codes for various industries. As stated in the RFP for this procurement, the NAICS code is 238220, which has a size standard of $14 million.

More information on size standards and how to calculate small business size can be found on the SBA's website at the following link: http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.

Question 4: RFP Section 00210 paragraph 3.b.a states:

“For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Please confirm if 100% complete HVAC projects with a construction cost in excess of $5,000,000 will be considered relevant.

Answer: The referenced RFP section (Factor 1: Experience, a. Proposal Submission Requirements) explicitly defines projects that will be considered relevant under this procurement.

Further, Factor 1: Experience, b. Basis of Evaluation, states:

“Any project submitted which is (1) in excess of the five (5) required projects, (2) combined projects (see definition), (3) not 100% complete within the five-year period specified (see definition), (4) outside the scope of work of this solicitation, or (5) outside the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000, will not be evaluated.”

(Emphasis added)

Question 5: PTO 0001 RFP Section 05 50 13 Mentions 07 54 00 Ketone Ethylene Ester Modified

Polyvinyl Chloride Single Ply Membrane Roofing System. We are unable to locate this specification section or any roof specification section. Please provide a roofing specification to be used for the roof patching.

Answer: See Amendment 0001 which incorporates Section 07 54 00 into the PTO 0001 RFP.

February 11, 2014

Question 6: The one line electrical diagrams do not clearly indicate the names of the Main Distribution

Boards or Secondary Distribution Boards. Will the government be able to provide the contractors with amended one line diagrams clearly indicating the titles of all electrical equipment?

Answer: The government will not be providing an amended one line diagram.

Question 7: The electrical panel schedule doesn’t clearly indicate which electrical panel are existing and which panels are to be installed new. Will the government be able to provide the contractor’s with amended one line diagrams clearly indicating which panels are existing and which are to be installed new?

Answer: All electrical panels shown on the drawings are existing.

Question 8: The current one line diagram doesn’t clearly delineate the limits of new work versus existing work. Can the government provide the contractors with a more detailed one line diagram clearly indicating the limits of new work?

Answer: The electrical scope of work is to provide power to the new HVAC equipment from the existing electrical panels shown on the drawings. No additional drawings will be provided.

Question 9: Will the selected bidders be required to bid on every task order procured through this contract?

Answer: No. As stated in the Basic Contract RFP in Section 00803 (Task Order Issuance

Procedures), paragraph 1. f.: “Each Contractor is required to submit a reasonable number of good faith proposals for PTOs. Contractors are not obligated to propose on all Task Orders; however, they are required to contact the Contracting Officer within two days of notification if they cannot participate in the walk through or submit an offer. Failure to provide this notification may impact future consideration for PTOs and exercise of an option.”

Question 10: The solicitation states to provide (3) previous complete calendar years (2010, 2011, and

2012) EMR. 2014 EMR should be available to all companies now, should we be providing 2012, 2013, and 2014?

Answer: No. Offerors shall provide EMRs for the three (3) previous complete calendar years [2010, 2011, and 2012], as stated in the RFP.

Question 11: The solicitation allows the use of experience information form affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. Is experience of key employees gained under previous employment acceptable as well?

Answer: No.

Question 12: We are a Small Business formed as a result of break-off from a large Mechanical Contractor. Can we use our experience and projects performed under their name in addition to our own projects?

Answer: No.

Question 13: The solicitation states a DART rate of 3.00 or higher is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable. OSHA has a Site Specific Targeting (SST) program targeting what they consider high DART rates, for non-manufacturing industries that is a rate of

15.0 or higher.

Is the 3.00 rate listed accurate or is it a typo?

Answer: As stated in the RFP, “A DART Rate of 3.00 or higher is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates.”

The DART rate stated in the sentence above is accurate and is not a typo.

Question 14: Specification 01 35 26/1.6.2.2 states that a Certified Industrial Hygienists it to “be on-site at least weekly whenever work or testing is being performed.” Does the CIH need to be on-site full time in addition to the SSHO or can the CIH be on-site weekly to perform project safety and health inspections?

Answer: The CIH can be on-site weekly to perform project safety and health inspections.

Question 15: Under additional submission requirements RFP calls:

Submit at least 2 projects with construction cost of $1,500,000 or above

Is it a construction cost referencing the total project value, or just our scope?

Answer: For a project to be considered relevant, it must meet the definition of a relevant project, as defined in the RFP. As stated in the RFP, “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Question 16: Under additional submission requirements RFP calls:

Submit at least 1 project to demonstrate self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants

Is this project should be dedicated boiler/chiller plant project or chiller/boiler plant can be a part of larger project?

Answer: A project submitted to demonstrate self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization may be part of a larger relevant project. The submitted project must still meet the definition of a relevant project in order to be considered for evaluation. As stated in the RFP, “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Question 17: Can the same project be submitted to satisfy several requirements?

Answer: A single project may satisfy several of the “additional submission requirements;” however

Offerors are still required to submit five (5) 100% complete construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract. As stated in the RFP: “Proposals which submit fewer than five (5) relevant construction projects or fail to demonstrate experience as required above will be rated Unacceptable.”