About this file

Questions Answers - 7 February 2014

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_10_March_2014.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Amendment_0003.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Exhibit_D_-_LEED_checklist_-_Revised_5MAR2014.xls XLS spreadsheet
N6247314R0003_-_PTO_0001_RFP_-_Drawing_A101.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_5_March_2014.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_PTO_0001_RFP_-_Drawing_A505.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_4_March_2014.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_26_February_2014.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_21_February_2014.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Amendment_0002.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_19_February_2014.pdf PDF
HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_11_February_2014.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_PTO_0001_RFP_-_SECTION_07_54_00.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_PTO_0001_RFP_-_Updated_Wage_Decision_CA140029_-_2014_Jan_31.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Exhibit_D_-_LEED_checklist.xls XLS spreadsheet
N6247314R0003_-_Amendment_0001.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_FAR_Clause_52.209-7_ _DFARS_Clause_252.209-7999.docx DOCX document
N6247314R0003_-_RFP_-_Basic_Contract.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Exhibit_C_-_Safety_Data_ _Narrative.docx DOCX document
N6247314R0003_-_Financial_Questionnaire.doc DOC document
N6247314R0003_-_Surety_Form.doc DOC document
N6247314R0003_-_RFI_Form.doc DOC document
N6247314R0003_-_MACC_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_RFP_-_PTO_0001.pdf PDF
N6247314R0003_-_Exhibit_A_-_Experience_-_Offeror.docx DOCX document
Show all 25

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

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.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .