RFI Log_Airfield Paving MACC 10.4.23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N62473-23-R-0408
About this file
This document contains a log of requests for information (RFIs) and responses related to a solicitation for an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple award construction contract for airfield and heavy duty paving projects at various government installations. The solicitation is for a maximum total contract value of $495 million over 10 years and is issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Key details include questions regarding missing attachments to the solicitation, the scope and pricing of proposed task order 0001, methodology for small business participation commitments, and clarification of design-build versus design-bid-build requirements. The RFI log indicates the government will provide additional documents and revisions to address conflicts and omissions via three amendments. Responses to RFIs clarify requirements for site visits, qualifications of quality control managers, stormwater permitting needs, and traffic restrictions during construction.
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
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:N62473-23-R-0408
Airfield Paving MACC
| 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 | Per the Solicitation Page 6 - Proposal Submittal Requirements Tab 6 - Factor 6 Price, price is based on Proposed Task Order 0001. The Solicitation also references price based on Proposed Task Order 0001 on Page 13 - Item 4 Evaluation Factors - Factor 6, Price and Page 22 - Factor 6: Price - Based on PTO 0001. Please confirm that supporting documents will be provided for PTO 0001 for Offerors to be able to provide pricing as stipulated per the solicitation. | Confirmed. See Amendment 0001. | 9.12.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0001 | |||||||
| 2 | 00 10 00 - Solicitation | Item No 0002 | Please provide drawings and specifications for the referenced project under Schedule of Pricing Item No. 0002 (Repair Flightline Apron at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Naval Base Ventura County, CA). | No drawings or specifications included in bid documents for bid item 0002. | See Amendment 0001 | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0001 | ||||
| 3 | Section | |||||||||||
| 00 10 00 | RFP references Proposed Task Order (PTO) 0001 but there are no documents relating to the PTO 0001. | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided | Other/Unsure | See Amendment 0001 | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0001 | |||||
| 4 | Section | |||||||||||
| 00 21 16 | 3. Pre-Proposal Conference | RFP references A list of Frequently-Asked-Questions (FAQ) This document isn't one of the files available on SAM.gov. | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided | Other/Unsure | Amendment 0002 is forthcoming and will include the FAQ as an attachment. | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0002 | ||||
| 5 | Section | |||||||||||
| 00 21 16 | 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements | RFP states "Proposals shall be submitted electronically using the Department of Defense (DoD) Solicitation Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE)." |
Currently, this solicitation isn't in PIEE.
| Will it be added to PIEE for proposal submittal? | Conflicting Information | Other/Unsure | See Amendment 0001 for updates to Instruction to Proposers. | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0001 | |
| 6 | Section | ||||||
| 00 21 16 | 1. Inquiries | RFP states "The Government does not intend to respond to inquiries submitted less than 10 days before the proposal receipt date." |
| Please clarify calendar days or business days. | Intent needs clarification | Other/Unsure | days = Calendar days | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | ||||||
| 7 | Factor 6 is the price proposal for PTO 0001. We do not find any documents related to PTO 00001, plans or specifications on the sam.gov site. When and how will documents for PTO 00001 made available for review? | Amendment 0001 was posted to SAM.gov on September 19, 2023. | 9.18.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0001 | ||||||
| 8 | Part 1 | Pricing Item 0002 is requesting a hard bid for "Repair Flightline Apron at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Naval Base Ventura County, CA", however plans and specs have not been provided with the RFP. | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided | Contracting | Plans and Specs have been provided in Amendment 0001. | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 | ||||
| 9 | Part 4 | The techncial approach submission specifies a narrative regarding contract rational between primary contractor and primary design firm. The current and past versions of this MACC have been base buid build, is the intent for this contract to be design build in nature? | Conflicting Information | Changed to: |
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH, paragraph a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements, sub-paragraph (1)
| Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a technical approach narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The technical approach narrative (Exhibit “A”) shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages), excluding the organizational chart. The information requested in item (2) below is not included in this page limitation. | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0002 | |
| 10 | Re: Offeror's Team Consent Form(s): |
Page 5 of 126 of the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers, Item 2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS states “In addition to the cover letter, the Offeror shall submit an Offeror's Team Consent Form for each major subcontractor/teaming partner (e.g., team member, subcon-tractor (i.e., Lead Design Firm(s)), parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) identified in the Offeror's proposal.”
| I could not locate this form either as an attachment for download or as part of the Solicitation document. Can you please provide a copy of this form? | Attachments are referenced but missing/not provided | Amendment 0002 is forthcoming and will include the Offeror's Team Consent Form as an attachment. | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0002 |
| 11 | Re: Separate PDF file for Tab 6: |
Page 6 of 126 of the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers, Item 2. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS / “Instructions for electronic submission of proposals are provided below” states “Proposals shall be submitted electronically using the Department of Defense (DoD) Solicitation Module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) located at https://piee.eb.mil/. Offerors are instructed to electronically submit their complete proposal in one (1) single file, formatted in Port-able Document Format (PDF) with a .pdf file extension.”
Page 22 of 126 of the Solicitation, Section 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers / BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS / 4. EVALUATION FACTORS / FACTOR 6: PRICE - Based on PTO 0001 / “a. Solicitation Submittal Requirements” states “The Offeror (see definition) shall complete and submit the following in the order shown as one (1) complete separate PDF file.
> SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) > Bid Bond (in the amount of 20% of the proposal price for PTO 0001 or $495,000,000, whichever is less)”
| The request for a separate PDF file for the contents of Tab 6 appears to be in conflict with the instruction for offerors to submit their “complete proposal in one (1) single file.” Please advise whether we can include the contents of Tab 6 within the single PDF which will be submitted via the PIEE. | Conflicting Information | Contracting | Please refer to Amendment 0001, paragraph 1 " 1. To revise Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers" for revised instructiions to proposers. | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 |
| 12 | Re: Methodology for Exhibit F: |
Exhibit F - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD): Item “3. Subcontracting Breakdown” asks offerors to state:
> the “Total contract value (TCV)” > the “Total value of the work to be self-performed by the prime offeror” and > the “Total value of work to be subcontracted”
Item “4. Small Business Participation” asks offerors to “Complete the participation table below with dollars and % of total contract value to be subcontracted.”
| Does the TCV described on this form represent the total contract value of $495,000,000 or is it intended to represent the offeror’s amount for Line Item 0002 of Section 00010 Solicitation for PTO 0001? | Intent needs clarification | Total contract value of $495,000,000 is the maximum dollar value for the life of the basic contract. There is no scope associated with this total contract value. | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 | ||||||
| 13 | Re: Methodology for Exhibit F - continued: | |||||||||
| If the TCV on the form is intended to represent the total contract value of $495,000,000, what scope of work should offerors use to base their responses on? | Intent needs clarification | See response to RFI #12 | 9.22.23 | 9.26.23 | ||||||
| 14 | After downloading the documents posted on SAM.GOV we noticed that we are unable to bookmark or copy text from the documents furnished in PDF format, as we typically would when structuring our pursuit-related documents. Perhaps the versions uploaded were scanned documents? Can you please provide me with or upload the original PDF versions of the files? | Yes, reposting original solicitation (SF 1442) with Amendment 0002. | 9.21.23 | 9.26.23 | Amendment 0002 | |||||
| 15 | Part 1 | 3 | a. | Topic: Site Visit - Will the Government reconsider its decsion not to permit the conduct of site visits/investigations? |
| FAR 523.236-3 Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting The Work (APR 1984) | Site Visit | The government is not conducting a site visit for this PTO. | 9.27.23 | 10.4.23 | |||||||
| 16 | Part 1 | 3 | a. | Topic: Site Visit - Absent the opportunity to visit the site for PTO 0001 will the Governemnt consider removing FAR 52.236-3 Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting The Work (APR 1984) from the solicitation? | KTR inability to comply with FAR 523.236-3. | Site Visit | |||||
| FAR 52.236-3 remains included in solicitation N6247323R0408. However, since there is no site visit for PTO Part 1, the clause will be removed from the Part 1. See Amendment 0003. | 9.27.23 | 10.4.23 | Amendment 0003 | ||||||||
| 17 | The SAM.GOV solicitation notice posting asserts the following …” Projects on this MACC will be primarily design-bid-build, but the design-build process may be used in specific circumstances, as approved by NAVFAC SW Subject Matter Experts”. Section 5. Description of Work on RFP Pg. 113 asserts the following “The work to be acquired under this contract is …primarily by design-build or secondarily by design-bid-build”. | ||||||||||
| Which is correct “primarily design-bid-build” or “primarily design-build”? | Corrected. See Amendment 0003 | 9.26.23 | 10.4.23 | Amendment 0003 | |||||||
| 18 | In Amendment 2, primary design firm was struck from instructions to Exhibit A. Please confirm that the Offeror does not need qualifications or any information from a design firm for the November 10 submittal to be considered for an award? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | Confirmed. | 10.2.23 | 10.4.23 | |||||
| 19 | Please confirm that there could be future design-build projects in the IDIQ issued as task orders? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | Confirmed. | 10.2.23 | 10.4.23 | |||||
| 20 | Please confirm that Offerors will be allowed to choose and submit qualifications from a design firm if a specific task order is design-build as previously done on other NAVFAC Southwest IDIQs? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | Confirmed. | 10.2.23 | 10.4.23 | |||||
| 21 | Will the President's Executive Order (14063) - Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects, for projects larger than $30M be enforced for task orders that meet this criteria? | Other; Please specify in the next column | In the past the Government has evaluated the individual task order. Offeror needs to prepare for PLA at each task order above $30M | Contracting | The government is required to follow all applicable laws and executive orders. PLA will be determined on a project by project basis. | 10.2.23 | 10.4.23 | ||||
| 22 | Due to the size of the project (less than 10,000 cubic yards) is the use of a local Redi Mix plant acceptable? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 23 | Specification section 01 45 00.00 20 1.5.1.2 Qualifications specifies the QC Manager must be a graduate of a four-year accredited college or university program in one of the following disciplines... Is a QC Manager with 15 years or more experience as a QC Manager on Airfield Paving projects acceptable in lieu of being a graduate of a four-year accredited college or university? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 24 | Specification section 01 45 00.00 20 1.4.1 defines commissioning (CA) as the systematic process of ensuring that all building systems meet the requirements and perform interactively according to the Contract. This contract doesn’t include any building system. Is Commissioning or the use of a Commission Authority (CA) required? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 25 | Demolition Plan Sheet XD101B defines the limits of demolition. The plan sheets do not provide written dimensions but scale to approximately 398’. Joint Layout sheet C103A does not scale to the same dimensions. C103A and C103B match lines do not coincide with each other. Please advise if C103A is scaled correctly? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 26 | Please clarify the typical panel size listed as size is not listed on plan sheet C103A & C103B. | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 27 | Plan sheets C103A & C103B indicate existing utilities (Storm Drain) run through the parking apron. Is the Contractor to assume the utilities are installed to the proper depth to allow for the proper construction of the new pavement section to be installed? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 28 | Specification section 32 17 23 Pavement Markings and the RFP don’t reference lead paint, or any testing required for Lead Paint. Is the Contractor to assume that lead paint is not present in the existing paint? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 29 | Is there an on-site disposal site for excess materials to be removed from the project or are excess materials to be hauled off station? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 30 | Do the contract days allocated provide for ample time to obtain all necessary permits required? | pending response | 10.3.23 | ||||||||
| 31 | STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION & DUST CONTROL General Notes on G0002 Air Quality permits for Batch plant and crushing operations: |
a. What is the estimated time frame to obtain permits? 1.7.8 Regulatory Notification and permits: List what notifications and permit applications that must be done some permists may require up to 180 days to obtain.
b. Is Modeling required to obtain air permits?
| pending response | 10.3.23 | |||
| 32 | Specification section 01 57 19 1.2.10 MS-4 Stormwater compliance. This is a higher level of compliance than what has been required on previous projects in California. Will a SWPPP firm be required to do a weekly SWPPP inspection? | |||
| pending response | 10.3.23 | |||
| 33 | Specification section 01 57 19 1.6.4 will a Qualified Stormwater Practitioner (QSP) be required for inspecting the construction activities? | |||
| pending response | 10.3.23 | |||
| 34 | Specification section 01 57 19 3.2.1 Construction General Permit - Will a Construction General Permit need to be obtained under the State of California for Stormwater discharges associated with construction activities (CAS000002)? | pending response | 10.3.23 | |
| 35 | Specification section 01 57 19 will the submittal of an approved NOI and appropriate permit fees to SWRCB for approval be required? | pending response | 10.3.23 | |
| 36 | Will rush hour restrictions listed in specification section 01 50 00 3.4.4 do not interfere with peak hour traffic (0630 to 0800 & 1530 to 1700) be enforced for construction activity traffic? | pending response | 10.3.23 |
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 .