RFI Questions and Answers - 5-5-2020.pdf

SOLICITATION NO: N62473-19-R-1237

PHASE ONE

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY UNRESTRICTED MULTIPLE AWARD

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND RENOVATION OF

COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES AT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT

INSTALLATIONS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, UTAH, COLORADO, AND

NEW MEXICO

Questions & Answers

April 14, 2020

Question 1: RFP proposal submission and evaluation requirements for Factor 2: Experience require all projects submitted to be over $15-M in construction cost.

In order to increase opportunities to Small Business firms interested in the two small business reserved awards, would the Government consider adjusting the criteria to require projects that are over $7-M construction cost just for small business Offerors?

Answer: The Government does not intend to change the minimum dollar thresholds for the relevant project construction costs specified in the RFP under Factor 2 (Experience). The minimum experience requirements are based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC, which has an estimated task order range of $15,000,000 to $250,000,000.

Question 2: RFP proposal submission and evaluation requirements for Factor 2: Experience require one project submitted to be over $50-M in construction cost.

In order to increase opportunities to Small Business firms interested in the two small business reserved awards, would the Government consider adjusting the criteria to require one project over $15-Ms just for small business Offerors?

Answer: The Government does not intend to change the additional minimum submission requirements specified in the RFP under Factor 2 (Experience). The requirements are based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC, which has an estimated task order range of $15,000,000 to $250,000,000.

Question 3: Will the past performance requirements for the well qualified small businesses be the same as for the unrestricted Offeror’s?

Would the Government consider 1ea project of $30,000,000 and 6ea $10,000,000 projects, 2ea Design Build?

Answer: The experience and past performance requirements stated in the RFP are based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC. The requirements are applicable to all Offerors, regardless of business size.

The Government does not intend to change the RFP requirements for Factor 2 (Experience) or Factor 3 (Past Performance).

Question 4: The SF 1442 states that the Government anticipates 3 or more awards and that there will be up to 2 set-aside awards for Small Businesses that are “highly qualified.”

Will there be 3 or more awards to medium/large businesses – AND – an additional 2 awards to highly qualified SBs?

Answer: No. As stated in the RFP, “The Government anticipates three or more multiple award construction contracts.” This is an unrestricted procurement with two awards reserved for highly qualified small businesses. It does not include separate small business set-asides.

Question 5: The SF 1442 states that the Government anticipates 3 or more awards and that there will be up to 2 set-aside awards for Small Businesses that are “highly qualified.” Additionally, the following evaluation criteria apply:

• Firms must have bonding capacity aggregate of at least $150M.

• Firms must have 3-7 projects each of which is greater than $15M in total value.

• At least 1 such project shall have a construction cost of $50M or above.

The current size standard for NAICS 236220 is $39.5M, meaning in order to qualify as a Small Business, businesses must have $39.5M or less in annual receipts averaged over either a 3 year or 5 year period.

The Experience and Bonding requirements are very high as currently stated. How does the Government anticipate awards to Small Businesses under this NAICS code given that the minimum requirements for multiple evaluation factors are incompatible with the definition of Small Business and possibly even impossible to reconcile?

Answer: This is an unrestricted procurement with two awards reserved for highly qualified small businesses. It does not include separate small business set-asides. The minimum experience requirements and minimum bonding requirements are based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC, which has an estimated task order range of $15,000,000 to $250,000,000.

Question 6: Per PHASE ONE Basis of Evaluation/Submission Requirements/Criteria Description FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH - a. Proposal Submission Requirements

The composition and management of the firms proposed for a typical design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

We interpret the statement above as it being acceptable for a General Contractor to include Lead Design Firm (s) and their relevant experience as a part of the submission to this RFQ and using Exhibits A and B to feature that experience. Please confirm.

Answer: For this solicitation, Lead Design Firm project experience will not be evaluated Under Factor 2 (Experience). Under Factor 2 (Experience), Offerors are to “Submit a maximum of seven (7) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract.” There is no RFP requirement to submit design project experience for the Offeror’s proposed Lead Design Firm(s). As stated in the RFP under the Basis of Evaluation for Factor 2 (Experience), “Any projects submitted in excess of the seven (7) for Construction Experience will not be considered.”

Question 7: Regarding “Additional minimum submission requirements – Submit at least one (1) relevant project with a construction cost of $50,000,000 or above.” – Most small business have performed a project of such magnitude. Will the government considering lowering this amount to something that is more likely for a small business to have performed?

Answer: The Government does not intend to change the additional minimum submission requirements specified in the RFP under Factor 2 (Experience). The minimum experience requirements are based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC, which has an estimated task order range of $15,000,000 to $250,000,000.

Question 8: Is there a way to get the contact list for the solicitation?

Answer: You can register your company as an “Interested Vendor” for the solicitation on the

Beta.SAM.gov website at the following link:

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/85f4fc1351d744bfa6f6117554780ae9/view

This will allow you to view the contact information for other interested firms and will also allow them to view your company’s contact information as well. Instructions for registering as an Interested Vendor are included under the “Attachments/Links” section for this solicitation.

Question 9: This MACC states that there are two slots for qualified small business concerns- However, the evaluation factor requires at least one project with a cost of $50,000,000, completed within the last 5 years – it would be extremely rare that any small business in the applicable NAICS code would have a single project of more than 50 million in a 5 year period –Also, the dual requirement of a 50 million dollar project – and an “Aircraft or vehicle maintenance hangar facility” over 15 million, both completed within the last 5 years, is very, extremely, unlikely for a small business size standard under 39.5 million.

Please consider extension of the evaluation criteria to a 7 year period to provide small business a chance to compete for this MACC.

Answer: See Amendment 0001, which extends the period of time for which projects may be submitted for experience, past performance, or for prior support for small business to seven (7) years from the initial RFP issuance date.

Question 10: Can a Large Business submit two separate Phase 1 Proposals? Meaning can [the large business] submit as a stand-alone Offeror, and then also submit another proposal with our Mentor-Protégé Company?

Answer: No. Per paragraph #9 of the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP, “9. No Alternate or

Multiple Proposals: Neither multiple proposals, nor proposal variations or options, nor alternate or alternative proposals will be considered in the evaluation.”

Question 11: If we do submit as [a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture], does [the protégé] also need to provide a Relevant Construction Project of at least $15,000,000 or would [the mentor’s] relevant projects be sufficient to meet RFP requirements?

Answer: As stated in the RFP under the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 2 (Experience), “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, projects shall be submitted for the Joint Venture members.

Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture members may be rated lower.

Offerors are still limited to a total of seven (7) projects combined.”

There is no requirement for each Joint Venture member to separately meet the additional minimum submission requirements stated in the RFP. Regarding the specific additional minimum submission requirement to “Submit at least one (1) relevant project with a construction cost of $50,000,000 or above,” an Offeror (whether proposing as a Joint Venture entity or not) is only required to submit one (1) relevant project with a construction cost of $50,000,000 or above.

Question 12: Are the highly qualified small businesses referred to in Item 10 required to be HUBZone

SB firms, or is this open to all small businesses?

Answer: This is an unrestricted procurement with two awards reserved for highly qualified small businesses. The reserves apply to any small business concerns identified at FAR 19.000(a)(3), (i.e., small business (SB), 8(a) participants, HUBZone small business (HUBZone SB) concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns, economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concerns, and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns eligible under the WOSB Program).

The HUBZone Small Business price evaluation preference only applies to HUBZone SB firms, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4.

Question 13: Will the Construction Experience requirements listed on Pages 12 and 13 of the Phase I

RFP be expected of the highly qualified small businesses? Specifically, would the project size be required to be $15 Million for all projects with at least one relevant project with a construction cost of $50 Million or above?

Would you consider changing the requirement for projects to be completed within the past five (5) years to the past ten (10) years?

Answer: The RFP requirements for Construction Experience are applicable to all Offerors, regardless of business size.

See Amendment 0001, which extends the period of time for which projects may be

Question 14: Considering specific project type requirements, we are requesting the project completion timeframe be extended from 5 years to 10 years in order for the proposers to utilize a more robust project history with valuable, similar projects while providing the Government with the highest level of competition. This will allow highly qualified firms with the bonding capacity, project history, and available capacity to participate in the pursuit.

April 21, 2020

Question 15: Under Factor 2 Experience indicates that the projects submitted under this factor for the

Offeror shall be 100% complete within the past five years. Can NAVFAC revise this requirement to include projects that are less than 100% complete, but 90% complete or substantially complete?

Projects are still required to be 100% complete, per the definition stated in the RFP.

Question 16: We respectfully request that the timeframe for past project experience be moved from seven years from the date of RFP issuance (raised from five to seven years in Amendment 0001), to ten years prior to issuance of the RFP. Ten years for prior experience is more in line to the durations allowed in other recent MACCs issued by NAVFAC, including the recent Waterfront MACC by Southwest and noticed the evaluation criteria is slightly different seven (7) year Past Performance period of validity versus a ten (10) year Past Performance period of validity for recent MACCs advertised and/or awarded by NAVFAC PAC for Guam and Mamizu MACC (each $990M), MidLant MACC $975M and the MILCON D-B Packages 1-7 for Hurricane Florence recovery. Opening the experience factor to a ten year duration will also allow contractors to show prior experience working in remote desert regions, and more particularly NAWS China Lake, which has not had any significant construction over the past eight years. A ten year duration is also more realistic in considering the slower economic years that occurred during the last recession and subsequent limitations in the quantity of projects which were available for contractors to propose on during that period.

Answer: The Government does not intend to further extend the period of time for which projects may be submitted for experience, past performance, or for prior support for small business.

Question 17: Factor 1 – Technical Approach states to use Exhibit A to “provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement.” Within the Exhibit A document, it states to “Modify form as necessary to include all primary construction and design team members.” Are Design Team members to be listed during Phase 1 (including corresponding commitment documents)? Page 115/116 states that “Lead Design Firm Name(s) will be filled in at time of award of individual task order, if applicable.”

Answer: There is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify design team members or to provide corresponding commitment documents for design team members in their Phase One proposal. A revised Exhibit A has been posted to the solicitation announcement on the Beta.SAM.gov website. The revised Exhibit A removes the reference to design team members.

For this solicitation, Lead Design Firms will not be evaluated as part of the MACC source selection process. Experience of Lead Design Firms may be an evaluation factor at the task order level.

Question 18: The RFQ states “In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved Mentor- Protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above.”

What is required in the letter of commitment for each design partner?

Answer: There is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify design team members or to provide corresponding commitment documents for design team members in their Phase One proposal. A revised Exhibit A has been posted to the solicitation announcement

Question 19: Per the SF1442, Block 13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and 0 copies to perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 02:00 PM local time 13 May 2020 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time. Sealed envelopes containing offers shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time offers are due.

Please confirm if Offerors are to submit an Original and if so, please provide the submission location?

Answer: Due to the current pandemic, we are requiring only electronic proposals (through DoD

SAFE) for Phase One. No original/hard copy submission is required for Phase One.

Phase Two may require Offerors to submit their original price proposal (offer) in a sealed envelope. As stated in the Instruction to Offerors, proposal submission instructions for Phase Two will be provided (via amendment) to those Offerors selected to proceed to Phase Two.

Question 20: The SBA small Business limitation as shown on Form SF1442 is $39.5 Million.

Can the Bonding capability of $150M be reduced to comply with the SBA limitation amount of $39.5M?

Answer: The Government does not intend to change the minimum aggregate bonding requirement of $150M. The minimum aggregate bonding requirement is based on the preponderance of work for the projects planned to be awarded under this MACC and to ensure that the awarded contractors have sufficient bonding capacity to allow for the management of multiple, concurrent projects within the task order range.

Question 21: We request NAVFAC SW increase the prescribed timeline for projects submitted for experience and past performance to ten (10) years.

The prescribed timeline for projects submitted for experience and past performance for large (~$1B+) D-B and DBB MACC contracts across NAVFAC (and USACE as listed below) have been ten (10) years and we would request this contract solicitation, because of its size and broad scope, have the same project timeline:

2019 NAVFAC Atlantic $1.06B GCCC – being used at NAWS China Lake 2019 NAVFAC Pacific $990M DBMACC for Guam, 2020 NAVFAC Pacific $990M DB Mamizu MACC, 2020 NAVFAC MidLant $975M Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point MACC, 2020 Seven (7) separate solicitations for MILCON DB Packages totaling ~$1.7B at Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune for Hurricane Florence recovery.

2019 USACE Omaha $8.999B Rapid Disaster and Infrastructure (RDI) MATOC contract

Answer: The Government does not intend to further extend the period of time for which projects may be submitted for experience, past performance, or for prior support for small business.

Question 22: The solicitation states “Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with new construction or repair of an aircraft or vehicle maintenance hangar facility.”

Does the Government mean an aircraft hangar or vehicle maintenance facility? That is, will a project that includes a vehicle maintenance facility meet the requirements of the

RFP?

Answer: See Amendment 0002, which revises the third bullet under the “Additional minimum submission requirements” for Factor 2 (Experience) to state “aircraft hangar or vehicle maintenance facility.”

Question 23: This MACC requires that the prime contractor, in Factor One, submit the name and description of other “team members” and describe their role in the execution of the

MACC.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

RFP Excerpt- “a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed for a typical design-build (DB) team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.”

Would this be similar to a typical ORG chart – including your lead design and design engineering team members, design quality control, subcontractors, etc.?

Or is this meant to discuss an instance where there may be 3 prime contractors all going in as a team, how the management would be shared/divided amongst those team members?

This is vague as to what exactly we are being asked to provide for this factor, and to who it applies.

Answer: The intention of this factor is to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed construction team and the rationale for proposing this arrangement to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

There is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify design team members or to provide corresponding commitment documents for design team members in their Phase One proposal. A revised Exhibit A has been posted to the solicitation announcement

The narrative to be provided on Exhibit A is required for all Offerors.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, list each joint venture member as a separate team member on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the joint venture Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms.

If the Offeror is proposing as a single prime contractor with no additional team members, list the Offeror on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the role and responsibilities of the Offeror.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience (under Factor 2) of an affiliate, subsidiary, or parent/LLC/LTD member company (name and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), list the Offeror and the applicable affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm(s) on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms.

As stated in the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 1 (Technical Approach), Offerors may also address construction subcontractors on Exhibit A; however, Offerors are reminded that experience submitted for construction subcontractors will not be evaluated under Factor 2 (Experience). Per the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 2 (Experience), “The Offeror may not utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor.”

The following definitions (stated in the RFP) are relevant to this response:

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.

JOINT VENTURE (JV): A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreement” or “strategic alliance,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

Question 24: The Offeror shall submit the following information under Tab “1”:

“(1) Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative.”

Does the government consider it an advantageous for a proposer, to have multiple prime contractors included on one team? Would it be considered a weakness, if a single contractor proposes, without other prime contractors on the team?

Is Paragraph one (1) above – stating “provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement.” Intended to be specific to Joint Venture proposals?

Answer: The narrative to be provided on Exhibit A is required for all Offerors.

An Offeror may propose as a single contractor or as a joint venture. The Government does not have any preference for whether an Offeror chooses to propose as a single contractor or as a joint venture. An Offeror proposing as a single prime contractor with no additional team members is not considered a weakness under this factor. Conversely, an Offeror proposing as a joint venture comprised of multiple prime contractors is not considered a strength under this factor.

Offerors are reminded, per the definitions stated in the RFP, a joint venture is “A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreement” or “strategic alliance,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.”

Question 25: “(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved Mentor-Protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). If the Offeror is proposing as a Mentor-Protégé joint venture, the Offeror shall submit the SBA approved Mentor Protégé joint venture agreement with the SBA approval letter of the Mentor Protégé agreement and any subsequent extensions.”

It is unclear as to what entities would be required to have a teaming agreement submitted with this Factor- IE- should all subcontractors, all Lead Design firms, all engineering design firms, be included? Can NAVFAC expand the description of what it is looking for in this FACTOR?

Answer: Offerors are required to submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved Mentor-Protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified on Exhibit A. The type of commitment document depends on the Offeror’s proposed arrangement with each entity identified on Exhibit A.

There is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify design team members or to provide corresponding commitment documents for design team members in their Phase One proposal. A revised Exhibit A has been posted to the solicitation announcement

For additional information, please see the answer to Question #23.

Question 26: Paragraph (1) above directs us to FAR 9.6

9.602 General. Excerpt:

(a) Contractor team arrangements may be desirable from both a Government and industry standpoint in order to enable the companies involved to -

(1) Complement each other's unique capabilities; and

(2) Offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery for the system or product being acquired.

(b) Contractor team arrangements may be particularly appropriate in complex research and development acquisitions, but may be used in other appropriate acquisitions, including production.

(c) The companies involved normally form a contractor team arrangement before submitting an offer. However, they may enter into an arrangement later in the acquisition process, including after contract award.

(C) sounds as though we could form a team arrangement after award – this adds even more confusion- could NAVFAC clarify what portion of this FAR clause is applicable or desirable to this MACC competition?

Answer: See Amendment 0002, which deletes the reference to FAR Subpart 9.6.

Question 27: For a Large Business

Reference Minimum Small Business Subcontracting Targets “Table” page 18. The Small Business (SB) Percentage of Total Subcontracting Value is shown as 68% and appears to be a significantly higher value than past requirements and for DOD type projects. Please confirm if this % will be adjusted to a lower value.

Answer: The minimum Small Business (SB) subcontracting target of 68% of the total subcontracting value is quite typical for NAVFAC Southwest’s unrestricted multiple award construction contracts (MACCs) for commercial and institutional building construction. The Government does not intend to change this percentage.

Reminder: The 68% referenced above reflects the minimum small business subcontracting target in terms of the total subcontracting value (not in terms of the total contract value).

April 24, 2020

Question 28: Can you clarify where and when A-E design firms are supposed to be named by proposing contractors? We do not see where contractors are supposed to list these firms in Phase 1.

Is something that will be done in Phase 2?

Answer: There is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify design team members in their Phase

One proposal or in their Phase Two proposal. Experience of Lead Design Firms may be an evaluation factor at the task order level.

Question 29: In Section 00210 Item 3a. - Relative Importance of The Evaluation Factors, Phase One, there is no mention of Small Business Utilization/Participation as an evaluation factor.

Item 3b. Phase Two includes Small Business Participation as part of Factor 6 for Phase 2

RFP Page 5, Section 00100 Item 2. – Phase One, Tab 3 lists “Exhibit D Past Performance

– Small Business Utilization” as part of the submission package for Phase One.

Please clarify if Small Business Utilization/Participation will be part of the evaluation factors for Phase One.

Answer: Small Business Utilization and Small Business Participation are two different, separate things.

Per the RFP:

Small Business Utilization:

Will be evaluated in Phase One, under Factor 3 (Past Performance) to determine the extent to which the Offeror has utilized small businesses in the listed socioeconomic categories when awarding subcontracts, as well as their efforts and successes in compliance with established small business subcontracting goals (if applicable), on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 (Experience). Per the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 3 (Past Performance):

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall submit, on Exhibit “D” (Past Performance – Small Business Utilization) under Tab “3,” the requested information for each project submitted in Factor 2 (Experience) in order to validate their prior utilization of small business subcontracting. Past performance information submitted for projects other than those submitted in Factor 2 will not be considered.

Small Business Participation:

Will be evaluated in Phase Two, under Factor 6 (Small Business Participation) to determine that the Offeror has identified and demonstrated a commitment to use small business concerns in each specific small business category and has demonstrated the maximum practicable participation of small businesses in the performance of this contract.

Per the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 6 (Small Business Participation):

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall use Exhibit “F” (Small Business Participation Plan) to submit (under Tab “6”) the requested information to demonstrate the Offeror’s commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract and to demonstrate the maximum practicable participation of small businesses.

April 30, 2020

Question 30: Regarding Exhibit A – Offeror Team Composition and Management. Both the Exhibit A

(rev 2/17) and the Exhibit A Revised (rev 4/21/2020) appear to be the exact same form and require design team member information. According to the answer of question #28 (and others), there is no RFP requirement for Offerors to identify the design team members. Please advise.

We have attached a copy of the revised Exhibit A for your convenience. Please look at rows 2-6...there are 5 places to enter possible Team Member entries. If these aren’t for Design Team Members, who are they for? In addition we reviewed both versions of Exhibit A and couldn’t tell what had been revised. We want to make sure we aren’t missing something.

Answer: The revised Exhibit A (rev 4/21/2020) is NOT the same as the original Exhibit A (rev 2/17). As stated in Amendment 0002, Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management) is revised to correct the third sentence, as shown below:

DELETE:

Modify form as necessary to include all primary construction and design team members.

REPLACE WITH:

Modify form as necessary to include all primary construction team members.

The revised Exhibit “A” reflects the change noted above. There is nothing on the revised Exhibit A (or in Factor 1, Technical Approach) that requires Offerors to identify design team members. Again, Offerors are only required to identify the primary construction team members. The additional “team member” blocks on Exhibit “A” are for Offerors to identify additional construction team members, if applicable.

As stated in the answer to Question #23:

If the Offeror is a joint venture, list each joint venture member as a separate team member on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the joint venture Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms.

If the Offeror is proposing as a single prime contractor with no additional team members, list the Offeror on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the role and responsibilities of the Offeror.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience (under Factor 2) of an affiliate, subsidiary, or parent/LLC/LTD member company (name and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), list the Offeror and the applicable affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm(s) on Exhibit A, discuss the rationale for proposing this arrangement (i.e., how the Offeror will meet the requirements of the solicitation), and identify the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms.

As stated in the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 1 (Technical Approach), Offerors may also address construction subcontractors on Exhibit A; however, Offerors are reminded that experience submitted for construction subcontractors will not be evaluated under Factor 2 (Experience). Per the Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 2 (Experience), “The Offeror may not utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor.”

The following definitions (stated in the RFP) are relevant to this response:

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.

JOINT VENTURE (JV): A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together. This does not include other arrangements such as “teaming agreement” or “strategic alliance,” which are not recognized as bona fide joint ventures for the purposes of this solicitation.

Question 31: Will NAVFAC SW provide a 10-day extension to the Phase 1 proposal due date. As a result of the high level of our DoD client’s activity responding to time critical COVID projects, we have been unable to get commitments from client key personnel to prepare PPQs for projects that do not have CPARS ratings. The additional 10 days will provide relief to these client contacts, enabling them to respond to our requests.

Answer: The Government does not intend to change the Phase One proposal due date.

Offerors are reminded that previously submitted PPQs are acceptable (i.e., if you already have a completed PPQ for a project, you can re-submit that same PPQ for this procurement; you do not need to obtain a new one). As stated in response to Question #12 in the MACC Frequently Asked Questions Document:

Question 12: Will the government allow Offerors to include previously completed Past

Performance Questionnaires from the same customer points of contact in lieu of new Past Performance Questionnaires? Can these be US Army Corps of Engineers surveys that have slightly different questions?

Answer: Yes, it is acceptable to submit previously completed Past Performance

Questionnaires, as long as the evaluations assign an overall rating and cover the same criteria as the PPQ form included with the RFP.

Offerors are also reminded that clients may submit PPQs directly to the Government’s point of contact, Michelle Sanders at michelle.sanders@navy.mil.

May 5, 2020

Question 32: Regarding the RFP exhibits that are to be used in the proposal (e.g., Exhibit A Offeror

Team Composition, Exhibit B Experience, Exhibit D Past Performance - Small Business Utilization, and Exhibit E Safety Data Sheet), please confirm that offerors may provide this information in the format shown on the forms provided or in another format so long as the information is clearly presented and all sections of the exhibits are addressed.

Answer: We recommend that you not alter the content or format of the Exhibits. Individual blocks on the Exhibits may be expanded; however, page limits, if stipulated, must be adhered to.

Question 33: RFP reads “Offerors shall include a copy of their confirmation notification email in their proposal as verification of submission for the current reporting period.” As the place of performance for this contract covers multiple states, can the Government please clarify which state(s) for which the VETS 4212 report confirmation should be provided?

Answer: VETS-4212 reports are not submitted per state; they are submitted per the DUNS number of the contractor, regardless of where the actual work is performed. The confirmation email provided should correspond to the report submitted for the DUNS number of the Offeror submitting the proposal.

Question 34: For the formation of a Joint Venture; [offeror] has taken steps to create a Joint Venture for the NAVFAC SW IDIQ (Solicitation N6247-19-R-1237). Unfortunately, the joint venture will not be formed prior to the submission date of 13 May 2020.

The FAR was amended in October 2018 to stipulate that the Joint Venture must be completed with CAGE Code and registered in SAM prior to submitting “bids or offers” (as shown below).

Does this apply to the Phase I qualification? Our Joint Venture will be complete prior to the submission of the first task order but not prior to the Phase I qualification submission.

Everything is taking more time than previous due to the current pandemic situations which has slowed all operations and processing. We expect it will take until the beginning of July 2020 to finalize the Joint Venture.

Answer: FAR 4.1102 requires Offerors to be registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted.

Per the definition of “offer” at FAR 2.101, “Offer means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract.”

The subject procurement utilizes two-phase source selection procedures. As a result, formal offer does not take place until submission of the Phase Two proposal, which includes the Offeror’s price proposal for the seed project. Therefore, Offerors are required to be registered in SAM at the time of submission of their Phase Two proposal for this procurement.