Consolidated RFI Log Secure Spaces MACC 4-1-21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6247321R1011
View the file
Other files
Show all 28
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
RFI (pre-award) Form_For KTR
SOLICITATION: N62473-21-R-1011
IDIQ UNRESTRICTED SECURE SPACES MACC NAVFAC SW AOR
DOCUMENT DATE: 04 APRIL 2021
| TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE BIDDING KTR | TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE GOV'T | |||||||||||
| RFI # | RFP Part # | Chapter or Section | Sub-Section # | CLARIFICATION REQUEST | RFI reason from KTR's Perspective | Comment [fill out if "Other" was chosen, specify reason(s)] | RFI Topic most closely relevant to: | Government Response | DATE RECEIVED | DATE TO KTR | Amendment Number | |
| 1 | Part 1 | Instruction to Offerors | ||||||||||
| 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements | Under Proposal Submittal Requirements section on page 6 of 117, it states, "Proposals shall be submitted in three ring binders or bound, with tabs or separators. Page limits, if stipulated, must |
be adhered to. Proposals shall be submitted on 8.5” X 11” paper, utilizing both sides of the paper."
The following page 7 of 117 states that proposals shall be submitted using DODSAFE, and "Submissions outside of DoD SAFE will not be considered."
| Please confirm that proposals are only to be submitted electronically via DODSAFE, and hard copy proposals are not required. | Intent needs clarification | Other/Unsure | Confirmed, the submission instructions for the Phase One proposal are revised to reflect the electronic submission of Phase One proposals using DoD SAFE only and hard copies are not required. Changes incorporated in Amendment 0001. | 3/26/21 | 4/1/21 | 0001 | ||||||
| 2 | Part 1 | Factor 2: Experience | ||||||||||
| (2) Design Experience | Please confirm that Design Experience projects should be 100% design complete within the required timeframe. | Intent needs clarification | Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past seven (7) years (see definition) of the date of issuance of this RFP. Definition of 100% COMPLETE: The facility is completely constructed and ready for the intended use. Due to the importance of evaluating a design that has achieved ICD/ICS 705 accreditation, it is allowable for the design to be completed prior to the seven year period, assuming the construction portion of the project was completed (including achieving ICD/ICS 705 accreditation) within the seven year period. | 3/26/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | ||||||
| 3 | Part 1 | Factor 3: Past Performance | If a project featured meets completion requirements but has not yet received a CPARS evaluation marked as "Final" under Evaluation Type, will an Interim CPARS evaluation with Contract Percent Complete over a certain percentage (ex: 90%) be acceptable or should a PPQ instead be provided? | Intent needs clarification | Other/Unsure | If there is not a completed CCASS, ACASS, or CPARS evaluation, submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit “C”) for each project included in Factor 2 for both Construction Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. | 3/29/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||
| 4 | Part 1 | Factor 3: Past Performance | If the Offeror was both the Prime Contractor and Designer of Record on a project and was not issued a separate AE CPARS evaluating the DOR effort, shall the same CPARS be provided for both Construction and Design Experience – or – is it preferred that a PPQ evaluating solely Design performance be provided? | Intent needs clarification | Other/Unsure | If the CPARS specifically discusses the design effort and it’s clear as to who the designer is, then a single CPARS can be used to evaluate the Offeror and designer for that project. Otherwise a PPQ is needed. | 3/29/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||
| 5 | Part 1 | Factor 2: Experience | (a) | Our firm has almost 20 ICD/ICS 705 completed and accredited NAVFAC projects, however our past project experience is with new design and construction. The process needed to ensure that a project is able to be accredited for ICD/ICS 705 is the same whether the project is new construction or renovation. In order to increase the competition within this MACC program, please consider deleting the baseline requirement for both design and construction which states; “-Submit at least one (1) relevant project demonstrating experience with primarily renovation/repair (see definition).” | ||||||||
| (b) | If the Government will not consider deleting this baseline relevancy item, will the Government please consider adjusting this item to be considered as a higher rating and not a baseline requirement? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Request | Other/Unsure | (a) No Change | |||||||
| (b) No change | 3/29/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||||||||
| 6 | Part 1 | Factor 2: Experience | Reference: Factor 2 Experience |
(a) Our firm has completed a significant amount of NAVFAC projects which were designed and built in accordance with ICD/ICS 705 requirements however as the project is being built the end user made the decision to not implement the process of accreditation. In order to increase competition within this MACC program will the Government please consider allowing Offerors to submit acceptable projects in which the projects were designed and built to ICD/ICS 705 requirements but were not accredited due to the end user decision to not implement the accreditation process?
(b) If the Government will not consider this allowance, please consider adjusting the experience requirements to allow the Offeror to submit acceptable projects in which the projects were designed and built according to ICD/ICS 705 but did not receive accreditation.
(c) If the Government will not adjust any of the requirements as requested above, will the Government please allow the Offeror’s to submit past experience of a key subcontractor to be counted towards the Offeror’s experience, similar to the allowance that is given to the design qualifications portion of this Factor? Other; Please specify in the next column Request Other/Unsure (a) Projects shall have been constructed and accredited in accordance with ICD/ICS 705.
(b) Projects shall have been constructed and accredited in accordance with ICD/ICS 705.
| (c) Reference Factor 2: EXPERIENCE, a. Proposal Submission Requirements, (1) Construction Experience: "A small business Offeror may utilize the experience of a small business first tier subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor if that small business Offeror cannot independently demonstrate its own experience. The small business Offeror shall provide a letter of commitment from the first tier small business subcontractor that expressly commits them for the entirety of the contract (all task orders awarded). The letter shall also provide an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the first tier small business subcontractor will have in performance of PTO 0001. Note: Small Business Concerns may not utilize the experience of large business concerns to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor." | 3/29/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | ||
| 7 | Part 1 | Chapter-1 | 00210 Basis of Award | Factor 2: Design Experience | |
| Please clarify whether offeror is to submit design experience, (5) projects for each primary design firm or (5) aggregate projects from all primary design firms | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | Reference Factor 2: EXPERIENCE, (a) Proposal Submission Requirements, (2) Design Experience: "Submit a maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team that best demonstrate design experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract. The relevant scope of work shall have been performed by the proposed lead design firm(s). Failure to submit relevant projects for all proposed Lead Design Firms/Design Teams may result in a lower | ||
| rating for this factor." A maximum of five (5) relevant design projects for the design team shall be submitted. Ensure all Lead Design Firms/Design Teams are represented in the design projects submitted (maximum of 5 design projects in aggregate). | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||
| 8 | Part 2 | Factor 2, (1), p. 14 | The RFP says, "For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects . . . shall have been constructed and accredited in |
accordance with ICD/ICS 705." Later on p. 17 under the basis of evaluation, the RFP says, "Relevant projects that demonstrate additional experience with projects that have been constructed and accredited in accordance with ICD/ICS 705, beyond the two (2) required projects (one (1) primarily new construction and one (1) primarily renovation/repair), may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate additional experience of facilities that have been constructed and accredited in accordance with ICD/ICS 705."
| How many of the 5 projects need to be in accordance with ICD/ICS 705? (This question also applies to the design experience section) | Intent needs clarification | SCIF/SAPF | All projects submitted for experience shall have been constructed and accredited in accordance with ICD/ICS 705. A maximum of five (5) projects may be submitted to demonstrate design experience and a maximum of five (5) projects may be submitted to demonstrate construction experience. | 3/30/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||||
| 9 | Pre-Solicitation | Will there be a pre-bid for this project? Also, will these be split into the individual locations or stay as one? | A pre-proposal conference and site visit will not be conducted at this time. Please refer to Instructions for Viewing the “Interested Vendors List” for a Solicitation on Contract Opportunities. There will no be a split into individual locations, construction projects will be at various Government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. The area of coverage may also extend to the entire NAVFAC area of responsibility (AOR) as approved by the NAVFAC Southwest (SW) Chief of Contracting Officer (CCO). However, it is anticipated that the majority of the work will be performed in California. | 3/31/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | |||||
| 10 | Part 1 | Pre-Solicitation | Is there going to be a pre-bid or, pre-proposal meeting for subcontractors like us to understand who the Primes will be? | A pre-proposal conference and site visit will not be conducted at this time. Please refer to Instructions for Viewing the “Interested Vendors List” for a Solicitation on Contract Opportunities. | 3/31/21 | 4/1/21 | N/A | ||||
| 11 | Part 1 | FACTOR 2 | Under Factor 2 : Experience it call to Submit Exhibit “B” (Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet) |
Are we to only Submit for Offeror’s Experience for both Construction & Design Experience in Exhibit B?
So there isn’t anything required from our Design Team ( Architects or DoR) for us to Submit?
| Exhibit B for Design Experience has been incorporated as attachment to Amendment 0001 and Exhibit B Construction Experience has been revised and incorporated as part of the attachment. | 3/31/21 | 4/1/21 | 0001 | |
| 12 | ||||
| 13 | ||||
| 14 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 16 | ||||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | ||||
| 19 | ||||
| 20 | ||||
| 21 | ||||
| 22 | ||||
| 23 | ||||
| 24 | ||||
| 25 | ||||
| 26 | ||||
| 27 | ||||
| 28 | ||||
| 29 | ||||
| 30 | ||||
| 31 | ||||
| 32 | ||||
| 33 | ||||
| 34 | ||||
| 35 | ||||
| 36 | ||||
| 37 | ||||
| 38 | ||||
| 39 | ||||
| 40 | ||||
| 41 | ||||
| 42 | ||||
| 43 | ||||
| 44 | ||||
| 45 | ||||
| 46 | ||||
| 47 | ||||
| 48 | ||||
| 49 | ||||
| 50 | ||||
| 51 | ||||
| 52 | ||||
| 53 | ||||
| 54 | ||||
| 55 | ||||
| 56 | ||||
| 57 | ||||
| 58 | ||||
| 59 | ||||
| 60 | ||||
| 61 | ||||
| 62 | ||||
| 63 | ||||
| 64 | ||||
| 65 | ||||
| 66 | ||||
| 67 | ||||
| 68 | ||||
| 69 | ||||
| 70 | ||||
| 71 | ||||
| 72 | ||||
| 73 | ||||
| 74 | ||||
| 75 | ||||
| 76 | ||||
| 77 | ||||
| 78 | ||||
| 79 | ||||
| 80 | ||||
| 81 | ||||
| 82 | ||||
| 83 | ||||
| 84 | ||||
| 85 | ||||
| 86 | ||||
| 87 | ||||
| 88 | ||||
| 89 | ||||
| 90 | ||||
| 91 | ||||
| 92 | ||||
| 93 | ||||
| 94 | ||||
| 95 | ||||
| 96 | ||||
| 97 | ||||
| 98 | ||||
| 99 | ||||
| 100 |
Drop Down List
| RFI Topic Relevant to: | RFP Part # | RFI Reason (for QA) - from KTR perspecrive |
| Architectural-related | Part 1 | Outdated Reference |
| Civil Engineering | Part 2 | Conflicting Information |
| Contracting | Part 3 | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided |
| Electrical Engineering | Part 4 | Intent needs clarification |
| Environmental | Part 5 | Typo |
| Fire Protection | Part 6 | Other; Please specify in the next column |
| Geotechnical Engineering | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | |
| Interior Design | ||
| Landscape | ||
| Mechanical Engineering | ||
| Structural Engineering | ||
| Other/Unsure | ||
| SCIF/SAPF | ||
| Crane | ||
| Elevators | ||
| ATFP |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .