N6247319R2436 Questions and Answers Feb 10 2019.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6247319R2436
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for a multiple award construction contract to provide new construction, repair, and renovation services for commercial and institutional facilities at various government installations in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. The contract has an estimated maximum value of $495 million to be awarded to multiple HUBZone small businesses. The base contract period is two years with an option for an additional three-year period. Task orders will range between $3 million and $9 million for work such as construction of airport buildings, office buildings, communications facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities, barracks, fire stations, hospitals, warehouses, schools, and retail facilities. Proposals are due February 19, 2020 by 2:00 PM Pacific Time and will be evaluated based on technical approach, experience, past performance, and safety, with award based on a best value determination. The document provides questions and answers to clarify requirements of the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6247319R2436 Questions and Answers Feb 17 2019.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| N6247319R2436 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| RFI Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit C - PPQ.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit A Offeror Team Composition & Management.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit B Experience Designer.docx | DOCX document | |
| Offeror's Team Consent Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit B Experience Offeror.docx | DOCX document | |
| MACC Frequently Asked Questions.pdf | ||
| Surety Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit D Safety Data.docx | DOCX document | |
| Rev Financial Questionnaire.doc | DOC document | |
| N6247319R2436 HUBZONE SB MACC.pdf |
Show all 14
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: N62473-19-R-2436
PHASE ONE
INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE 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
February 10, 2020
Question 1: Please explain how the Government plans to utilize Phase I, Factors 2, 3, and 4 in the evaluation of Phase II proposals. Will the ratings assigned to Factors 2, 3, and 4 during Phase I evaluations carry over to Phase II for those Offerors who are invited to Phase II, or will those factors be evaluated separately/again, and if so, what are the ratings and criteria to be used for evaluating Factors 2, 3, and 4 during Phase II proposal evaluations?
| Answer: | The ratings for Factors 2, 3, and 4 will carry over to Phase 2. They will not be re-evaluated during Phase 2. The ratings will be weighted as detailed in the Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors on Page 11 of the solicitation. |
| Question 2: | 1. Is there any preference or higher rating between teaming agreement or letter of commitment? If so, how are they rated? |
| 2. Are there standard requirements including specific language needed for a letter of commitment to be acceptable and/or does NAVFAC have a standard form letter that is required or utilized for this type of requirement? |
Answer: 1. There is not a preference or higher rating for either item.
2. There is not specific language required or a standard form for letter of commitment/teaming agreement. The only requirements are the letter shall convey the agreement/commitment between firms and be signed.
Question 3: This section requires that we submit Exhibit D – Safety Data Sheet, our EMR for the three previous years and our OSHA DART. Will the completed OSHA 300A form suffice for the OSHA DART requirement, or is there something more that we should submit to satisfy that requirement?
| Answer: | Please provide only the OSHA DART rate. You are not required to submit the OSHA 300A sheet. |
| Question 4: | Please confirm that the signed teaming agreement will not count against page count requirements. |
| Answer: | Teaming agreement(s) will not count against the page count for Factor 1. |
| Question 5: | Because the RFP was released so far in advance of the estimated/stated release date, and due to issues with the new beta.SAM.gov site, we respectfully request a three-week extension to the due date for Phase I proposals to March 3 at 12 Noon local time. This would be consistent with the expected due date based on the originally stated RFP issuance date of January 31, which is three weeks after the RFP was issued. |
Additionally, the current stated due date/time is 12AM (midnight) on February 11. Was the intent to set midnight as the deadline or was noon (12 PM) intended?
| Answer: | The January 31, 2020 on or about post date for the solicitation was listed in the Pre-solicitation Notice was only an estimate, not a date of issue. The Government could release the solicitation any time prior to the January 31, 2020 noted in the Pre-solicitation Notice. The proposal due date of February 19, 2020 (per Amendment 1) remains unchanged. The due time for proposals is changed to 2:00 p.m. (PST). |
| Question 6: | What rating system is in place for Factors 2, 3, and 4 in Phase I? For Phase I, are the rating categories as follows: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable? If so, please provide the evaluation criteria to achieve each for each Factor. If not, what are the possible ratings for each Factor 2, 3, and 4 and what criteria will be used to determine those ratings? |
| Answer: | Answer pending. |
| Question 7: | Will other design-build and design-bid-build projects not included in the Government’s list on page 13 and page 90, that were performed on DoD facilities be considered relevant as long as they meet one or more of the “additional minimum submission requirements”? |
Answer: Per the RFP, only relevant construction and design projects will be considered in the evaluation of the Offeror's Team's demonstrated experience. The examples of project types listed in Factor 2 and in Section 00801 of the RFP are not an all-inclusive list of projects that will be considered for evaluation; as stated in the RFP, they are "examples" of relevant projects. Relevant projects are clearly defined in the RFP as "new construction, renovation, and/or repair of commercial and institutional facilities, by design-build or design-bid-build, with a construction cost of $3,000,000 or more." If a project does not first meet the definition of a relevant project (as defined in the RFP), it will not be considered to meet any of the "additional minimum submission requirements."
As stated in the MACC Frequently Asked Questions Document provided as an attachment to the RFP, “Examples of project types included within the scope of this MACC are identified in the RFP Section 00801 under the Description of Work. This is not an all-inclusive list of projects nor is it an indication of specific projects that will be procured under this MACC. The projects listed are a small sampling of the types of projects that may be included under this MACC. Only projects within the NAICS code shown on the SF1442 are within the scope of this MACC. To view additional examples of the various project types that fall under that NAICS code, you can visit the following website and enter the appropriate NAICS code into the "2017 NAICS Search" field.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch
| Projects which are outside of the NAICS code shown on the SF1442 are not considered within the scope of this MACC and will not be considered for evaluation.” | |
| Question 8: | The solicitation states that “Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Our company has recently been made aware that the Government is considering changing the total performance period of future MACC’s to eight years. In order to meet the minimum submission requirements and represent our past performance experience, some contractors project portfolio’s will need to extend beyond the five (5) years. On behalf of those Prime Contractors, will the Government extend the project completion period to the past eight (8) years. |
| Answer: | There will be no change to this requirement. |
| Question 9: | Similar IDIQ/MACC RFP’s have required a narrative describing the Offeror’s technical approach to safety, Factor 4: Safety and Exhibit E does not ask for this. Please confirm that a narrative describing the Offeror’s technical approach to safety is not required. |
| Answer: | Factor 4: Safety does not have a technical narrative requirement. |
| Question 10: | Exhibit E – Safety Data Sheet: Exhibit E – Form is for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 – Shouldn’t it be 2017, 2018, and 2019? |
Answer: Please provide the safety data for the years listed on Exhibit E (2016, 2017, and 2018).
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .