RFI Log_Airfield Paving MACC 11.15.2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N62473-23-R-0408
About this file
This solicitation is for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) for new construction, repair, and renovation of airfield paving and heavy duty paving projects at various government installations located within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility. The total contract value is $495 million to be awarded to three or more contractors. Projects will involve primarily design-bid-build construction, but design-build delivery may be used in some cases. The proposal due date is November 21, 2023, with award anticipated in early 2024. The initial task order is for repair of a flightline apron at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, with a planned notice to proceed of August 1, 2024. The solicitation outlines evaluation criteria for technical approach, experience, past performance, safety, and small business participation, as well as instructions for proposal submission.
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 technical 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 build 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? | The plans and specifications require the use of an on-site batch plant. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.23 | ||||||||
| 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? | Airfield pavement quality control manager shall meet the requirements listed in specification 32 13 14.13, via specification 01 45 00.00 20, para 1.5.1.2.1. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.24 | ||||||||
| 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? | Requirement for Comissioning Authority (CA) is not a requirement of this project. Revised Specification will be included as part of amendment. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.25 | Amendment 0005 | |||||||
| 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? | Dimensions added to sheet XD101A and XD101B. Please base demolition quantities off this information. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.26 | Amendment 0005 | |||||||
| 26 | Please clarify the typical panel size listed as size is not listed on plan sheet C103A & C103B. | Standard panel size is 12.5ft x 15ft. Information added to amended sheets. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.27 | Amendment 0005 | |||||||
| 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? | Bidding Kars to assume that existing storm drain lines are below the pavement section, including depth needed for scarification and recompaction per planset. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.28 | ||||||||
| 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? | Bidding contractors to assume that existing markings do not contain lead. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.29 | ||||||||
| 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? | Excess materials must be removed from Government property and disposed of in accordance with project specifications. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.30 | ||||||||
| 30 | Do the contract days allocated provide for ample time to obtain all necessary permits required? | The contract completion timeframe is standard for a project of this size. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.31 | ||||||||
| 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?
| It is the Contractor's responsibility to contact the appropriate air quality authority (CARB, Ventura County Air Pollution Control, other, etc.) to determine typical timeframes, needed documentation (i.e. modeling and/or equipment information, etc.). The contractor must contact the appropriate authority to determine what equipment (i.e. batch plant, crusher, equipment engines, etc.) requires permitting. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.32 | ||||||
| 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? | |||||||
| Inspections are not required under the MS4 permit requirements. This does not absolve the Contractor from potential inspections under the California General Construction Permit. The Contractor must comply with the requirements set forth in NPDES CAS000002. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.33 | ||||||
| 33 | Specification section 01 57 19 1.6.4 will a Qualified Stormwater Practitioner (QSP) be required for inspecting the construction activities? | |||||||
| Please follow the requirements of NPDES CAS000002 regarding QSDs, QSPs and delegated personnel. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.34 | ||||||
| 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)? | Please follow requirements of specification 01 57 19 for guidance of the California General Construction Permit. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.35 | ||||
| 35 | Specification section 01 57 19 will the submittal of an approved NOI and appropriate permit fees to SWRCB for approval be required? | The notice of internet is sufficient, along with the proof of purchase. A copy of the approved SWPPP must be kept onsite for review). | 10.3.23 | 10.16.36 | ||||
| 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? | Route shown on plans is designated for commercial traffic and should be effected to a minimal degree by civilian rush hour traffic. | 10.3.23 | 10.16.37 | ||||
| 37 | Part 1 | RFP Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers describes several possibilities for the composition of, and experience submitted for, the Offeror entity. Page 10 of 126 defines a “CONTRACTOR TEAMING ARRANGEMENT” and specifically allows a team composed of a prime contractor and a subcontractor. Our intent is to submit an offer using such a Teaming arrangement. The submission requirements for FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE (Page 13 of 26) require “the Offeror” to submit a maximum of (5) relevant projects. At the bottom of Page 14 of 126, additional requirements are described for a JV entity, however our Teaming arrangement would not be a JV so the entire paragraph doesn’t apply. Near the top of Page 15 of 26, requirements are described for Offeror’s using “affiliates/ subsidiaries/ parent/ LLC/ LTD member companies”. Again, this entire paragraph does not apply to our Teaming Agreement between a prime contractor and a subcontractor. The next sentence states that the Offeror may NOT utilize the experience of a subcontractor. This seems to directly disqualify an Offeror entity with a Prime Contractor + Subcontractor Teaming Agreement. Please confirm that a Teaming Agreement is allowed and that the relevant project experience can be submitted from a teaming subcontractor. | Confirmed. Teaming agreements are allowed provided that you are a Small Business or Small Business JV. Please refer to page 15 of the solicitation, "The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under | |||||
| this evaluation factor unless the following applies: [...]" | 10.5.23 | 10.16.38 | ||||||
| 38 | Part 1 | In RFP Section 00 21 16 – Instruction to Proposers, Page 12 of 126 defines “SELF-PERFORMED WORK” AS PERFORMING “relevant and major construction trade work in-house without subcontractors. This does not include administration or management functions…”. Military Airfield Paving projects typically include performing geotechnical investigations, developing the mix design, significant earthwork (preparing the subgrade and subbase layers), placing the base course, and placement of the airfield concrete. Our proposed team includes two firms that have teamed together on common projects and have placed millions of square feet of Military Airfield Paving. One firm self-performs all the earthwork, subgrade, and base course, and the other firm paces the concrete. Please confirm that self-performing the earthwork, preparing the subgrade and subbase layers, and placing the base course are “relevant and major construction trade work” and a firm can use such experience for submission of FACTOR 2 experience. | Relevant work needs to include airfield pavement work, which must be self-performed. | 10.5.23 | 10.16.39 | |||
| 39 | PTO 0001 Point Mugu Plan Sheets C103A and C103B | Topic: Upon review of PTO 0001 Point Mugu Plan Sheets C103A and C103B we noticed that the match lines and scale found on C103A do not appear to align with the subsequent page C103B. Please review the referenced plan sheet, and any other sheets that may be similarly affected, and advise, or amend the plans to include corrected versions of the affected sheets |
| Attachments are referenced but are missing | Plan N/S and E/W stationing has been added and match lines now reference stations. Viewport scale on all drawings has been changed from 1:30 to 1:20. All revised sheets have been clouded and included in amendment 0005. Sheets that have corrections resulting from multiple RFIs have the sheet numbers clouded. | 10.11.23 | 10.24.23 | Amendment 0005 | ||||||
| 40 | PTO 0001 Point Mugu Plan Sheet C501, Detail A2, Note 2. | Topic: Reference PTO 0001 Point Mugu Plan Sheet C501, Detail A2, Note 2. The referenced note calls for undoweled construction joints. Plans for similar pavement sections typically call for undoweled contraction joints. Please review the referenced note and confirm that construction joints do not require dowels or amend the plans to include a corrected version of the affected Sheet C501, Detail A2, Note 2. | Conflicting Information | Note referenced in RFI is not applicable and has been removed from the planset. Note 1 references to additional dowel information have also been corrected. All construction joints require dowels per the contract planset. | 10.11.24 | 10.24.23 | Amendment 0005 | |||
| 41 | Is there an on-site dirt/soil disposal area available at NAS Point Mugu? If so, how far from the batch plant site? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Need to know how far to haul spoil material | Civil Engineering | There is no on-site disposal area at NAS Point Mugu. Please include all necessary costs for off-site disposal. | 10.12.23 | 10.24.23 | |||
| 42 | Can the concrete pavement subcontractor, who is currently onsite performing the “U.S. Coast Guard Station Point Mugu” use the same “means and methods” they are currently using for the PCC. Contractor is utilizing an Off site supplier, Associated Ready Mix and they are installing the concrete using a triple tube Allen Paver. | A triple tube Allen screed is not allowed for mainline paving per the Department of Defense Tri-Service concrete specification 32 13 14.13. As such, this equipment and subsequent means and methods will not be allowed for use on this project. | 10.12.23 | 10.24.23 | ||||||
| 43 | We are a small business contractor and would like to know if a large Prime Contractor is allowed to provide a teaming letter to a small business and if that would preclude the large business in any way on any of the task orders or this RFP. | Please see response to RFI #37 | 10.4.23 | 10.16.23 | ||||||
| 44 | Per Amendment 0001 - Instructions for Electronic Submission of Proposals: It is stated Offerors shall submit their POC name and email address to obtain a "Request Code;" may the Offeror have a secondary POC also obtain a Request Code to use as a back up in the event of a technical difficulty submiting the proposal? | Yes, the offeror may submit one additional POC to obtain a request code. | 10.16.23 | 10.30.23 | ||||||
| 45 | Current requirement: Factor 2: Experience “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. Projects which are not 100% complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP shall not be considered." |
| Airfield/airport paving projects that meet the minimum submission requirements are not frequently constructed. In order to provide more opportunity to include Prime Contractors with relavent experience, will the Government consider opening up the completion date for projects listed in Exhibmit "B" to be within the past 10 years? This will provide the Government with the opportunity to evaluate more qualified prime contractors with an emphasis in self-performance. | The required completion date will not be extended. Projects must be completed within the past five (5) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of the RFP (September 12, 2023) to be considered relevant in the evaluation. | 10.20.23 | 10.30.23 | |||
| 46 | Evaluation Factors: 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. | P. 14/126 | Question: | |||
| Will the Government consider the issuance of the final Amendment as the actual date of RFP issuance? | This would allow us to feature our most recent, relevant project for Government consideration. | The government will not consider the final amendment as the actual date of the RFP issuance. The RFP issuance date is September 12, 2023, which is the date the solicitation was uploaded via SAM.gov. | 10.25.23 | 10.30.23 | ||
| 47 | Part 1 | References: |
Solicitation Section titled: 00 73 00 - Supplementary Conditions, Part 1., Para. 1 in the second sentence which reads verbatim as follows …” This procurement consists of one solicitation with the intent to award three or more Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Construction Contracts to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s), conforming to the RFP, will be most advantageous to the Government resulting in the Best Value, price and other non-price related factors considered”, and the;
Solicitation Section titled: 00 73 00 - Supplementary Conditions, Part 1., Para. 3 in the first sentence which reads in part as follows …” This contract is unrestricted with one award reserved for highly qualified small businesses”, and the;
Solicitation Section titled: Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors, Definitions, Contractor Teaming Arrangement, which reads in part as follows “An arrangement in which …a potential prime contractor agrees with one (1) or more companies to have them act as its subcontractor(s), under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. A proposed contractor teaming arrangement will be recognized by the Government, provided the Offeror identifies, in its proposal, the type of arrangement …and includes a copy of the …teaming agreement with the proposal package”, and the;
Solicitation Section titled: 00 21 16 - Instructions to Proposers, Section 9. No Alternate or Multiple Proposals. The referenced section asserts that “Neither multiple proposals, nor proposal variations or options, nor alternate or alternative proposals will be considered in the evaluation”.
Question:
Is a Large Business Offeror/Prime Contractor that is otherwise determined eligible for the award of an IDIQ Prime Contract in the “unrestricted” category also permitted to enter into a teaming arrangement to serve as a key subcontractor to a Small Business Offeror/Prime Contractor for the “one award reserved for highly qualified small businesses” or do es the language found in Section 00 21 16-Part 9 prohibiting “multiple proposals, proposal variations, and alternative proposals” prohibit such an arrangement?
| Put in other words, given the prohibitions found in Section 00 21 16-Part 9 must the large business offeror choose between either pursuing an IDIQ award in the Unrestricted Category or serving in the role of Key Subcontractor to a Small Business pursuing an IDIQ in the Small Business Reserve Category or may the large business serve as a prime contractor I the unrestricted category and as a key subcontractor in the small business reserve category, provide both partner? | Please clarify if a large business offeror may participate in both opportunities if they are partnered accordingly, or if are they limited to one. | Teaming agreements are allowed provided that you are a Small Business or Small Business JV. Please refer to page 15 of the solicitation, "The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor unless the following applies: [...]". | 10.25.23 | 10.30.23 | |||||
| 48 | The proposal due date is November 10, 2023 and Veteran's Day (a Federal Holiday) is scheduled to be observed this day. Will the Contracting Office of this solicitation be observing the holiday? If so, will the due date be moved to accommodate the holiday? | Proposal due date was extended from November 10, 2023 to November 14, 2023. Please see Amendment 0004 posted on October 25, 2023. | 10.26.23 | 10.30.23 | |||||
| 49 | Our past experience with DoD SAFE only allows access one time to either retrieve or upload documents; I would like to confirm if this process will be the same? In the event we experience a technical difficulty with the proposed user can the request code be able to be forwarded to and accessed by another user? If not, may we have a secondary POC request a code before 10/31/23 per Amendment 0001? | Yes, the offeror may submit one additional POC to obtain a request code. | 10.26.23 | 10.30.23 | |||||
| 50 | 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers | 4. Evaluation Factors | FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE | The submittal requirements state: “If the JV does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each of the Joint Venture members.” This paragraph also states: “If a project was performed by a JV, and not all members from that JV are members of the JV proposed for this contract, the Offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV member offering on this contract and shall not include work performed by |
the JV as a whole.”
We understand this to mean that a JV Offeror can submit projects performed by each of the JV members, as well as projects performed by the JV member firms as part of another JV, as long as they clearly demonstrate the portion of the work performed by the JV member.
| Please confirm this understanding is correct. | Intent needs clarification | Confirmed. | 10.26.23 | 10.30.23 | ||
| 51 | 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers | 4. Evaluation Factors | FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE | The Note on the Exhibit “B” form states: ”The firm who performed the work of this project must be named on Exhibit “A” and fully described as a team member who will have meaningful involvement in performance of the relevant work of this contract. If the Offeror fails to demonstrate the firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated.” |
The instructions on Exhibit “A” state: If Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, or Prime-Subcontractor Arrangement, list each party as a separate team member.
| If the offeror is a Joint Venture, and submits projects from each JV member for Factor 2, do both JV members need to be listed individually on Exhibit “A”? | Intent needs clarification | In Exhibit “A”, if Offeror is a Joint Venture, Partnership, or Prime-Subcontractor Arrangement, list each party as a separate team member. | 10.26.23 | 11.2.23 | ||
| 52 | 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers | 4. Evaluation Factors | FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE | If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, and will be submitting a project performed by a JV member that was completed with a different JV, does that entity (the different JV) need to be listed on Exhibit “A”? It appears that it would be required based on the instructions of the form, yet this JV as a whole would have no meaningful involvement in the project. |
| Would this JV be required to complete a Team Consent form because it was identified in the proposal? It is not going to be involved, but its past performance is referenced. | Intent needs clarification | If submitted construction experience was performed as a part of a JV with a member that is not part of the Offeror's team, that member should NOT be listed in Exhibit “A” and a Team Consent form should not be submitted for that member. | 10.26.23 | 11.2.23 | ||
| 53 | 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements | The RFP 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, subcontractor (i.e., Lead Design Firm(s)), parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.) identified in the Offeror's proposal.” |
| If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, and the JV team member entities will be including projects in Factor 2, will the Offeror Team Consent Form be required for the JV member entities? | Intent needs clarification | Yes - The Offeror shall submit a signed copy of any joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, SBA 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, first-tier Small Business subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). | 10.26.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||
| 54 | Exhibit F - SBPCD, NO. 3 Subcontracting Breakdown Item C. Total Value of Work to be Subcontracted does not show the portion of the subcontracted Large Business concern therefore the Business Category Dollar Value Column will not total the $495,000,000 TCV since the Large Business contracting portion is not shown. Please confirm. | The form does not request a specific breakdown by categories. The offer, if they are going to subcontract to a large business has to calculate that amount into the Subcontracting Breakdown section. | 10.26.23 | 10.30.23 | |||||
| 55 | Financial Questionnaire | Instructions to Offerors | 2. Proposal Submittal Requirements | On page 5 of 126, #2 Proposal Submittal Requirements, a Financial Questionnaire is "to be completed and submitted by financial institution." |
| Please confirm that a letter from the offeror's financial institution can accompany the Financial Questionnaire on a separate sheet and that will be acceptable. | Yes, you may submit a letter from the offeror's financial institution with the Financial Questionnaire on a separate sheet. | 10.30.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||||||
| 56 | Sheet C103A appears to have been inadvertently shifted in the viewport such that the top and right sides of the proposed pavement areas have been cutoff from view. The joint details for the top and right sides of the proposed pavement are currently unknown. Further, it appears that the scale of the drawing does not match the published 1":30' scale in comparison to the corresponding joints on Sheet C103B. Please provide an updated/revised Sheet 103A showing the correct view and scale. | Typo | Civil Engineering | All sheet viewports have been changed from 1:30 to 1:20 for improved legibility. Project quantities have not changed. Sheet C103A viewport location adjusted. See Amendment 0005. | 10.29.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||
| 57 | Please clarify meaning/intent of Note 2 on Detail A2/C501? Are the joints for this pavement doweled or undoweled? | Intent needs clarification | Civil Engineering | Note 2 has been revised. Portion related to CCP has been removed. See Amendment 0005. | 10.29.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||
| 58 | Numerous detail references in the C500-series details refer to Sheets C506 and C507. The plan set provided ends at C504. Please provide missing detail sheets or update detail references with corrected Sheet numbers. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Missing plan sheets | Civil Engineering | Note 2 has been revised. Portion related to CCP has been removed. See Amendment 0005. | 10.29.23 | 11.2.23 | ||||
| 59 | Please confirm if construction equipment can remain with the Project Site Limits between shifts during non-working hours. | Intent needs clarification | Civil Engineering | Construction equipment may remain within the project site boundaries, pending approval from NAS Point Mugu Air Operations. | 10.29.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||
| 60 | 00 21 16 | RE: Instructions to Proposers - Factor 1, Page 13 of 126: "Exhibit A" is limited to two pages and requires a listing of team members including first-tier Small Business subcontractors, in addition to the technical approach narrative. Factor 5, Page 20 of 126: requires the identification of at least 3 planned subcontractors that will be used to support each small business category. Offerors utilizing first tier small business subcontractors to meet the requirements of Factor 5, will have very little space remaining in Exhibit A to address the information required to be included in the technical approach narrative. Can the page limited be expanded for Exhibit A? Or, can the requirement to list first tier small business subcontractors in Factor 1 be removed since the same information appears to be required in Factor 5? Factor 1 would then only include joint ventures, partnerships, etc. that are members of the Offeror/Offeror's Team (not subcontractors). | Conflicting information | Other/Unsure | The Offeror is not required to list all subcontractors noted in Factor 5 Small Business Utilization within Exhibit “A”. At a minimum, Exhibit “A” shall include all firms submitting experience for Factor 2 Experience. | 10.27.23 | 11.2.23 | ||||
| 61 | Exhibit D Safety Data Sheet / Safety Narrative is to be submitted as one exhibit, Exhibit D. Per the RFP Page 18, No. 3, Item D states the Technical Approach to Safety Narrative shall be limited to (2) single-sided pages or one-double side page. The Safety Data Sheet portion of Exhibit D has no page limitation requirements listed. Is there a total page limitation for Exhibit D combining the Safety Data Sheet / Safety Narrative? | The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative shall be limited to (2) single-sided pages or one-double side page. The Safety Data Sheet portion of Exhibit D has no page limitation. Include additional pages if required. | 10.27.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||||
| 62 | Concrete PCC | Per plans 103A, it calls for a separation of the construction joints at 37 ft. That would require an unusually large slipform paver, and due to the separation distance, possibly cause future stress cracks. Can the contractor utilize typical construction joint separations at 25ft. | A majority of the projects solicited in the past within the Southwest AOR have had construction lane widths of 37.5ft. Stress cracking from drying shrinkage has not been an issue due to the control (contraction) joint spacing, which follows the UFC standard for Navy pavements. 25ft construction joints may be considered through an RFI after contract award. | 10.27.23 | 11.2.23 | ||||||
| 63 | Part 1 | Will the Government extend the submission deadline to Monday November, 13 because November 10 is Veterans Day. | Other; Please specify in the next column | Because this day is a holiday our employees will not be working on Friday. | Other/Unsure | Proposal due date was extended from November 10, 2023 to November 14, 2023. Please see Amendment 0004. | 10.30.23 | 10.30.23 | |||
| 64 | 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers | 4. Evaluation Factors | FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH | The RFP states: "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." |
| No other information is provided about an organizational chart. Please clarify if an org chart is intended to be included, and if so, the level of detail to be shown. | Conflicting Information | Organizational chart is not required. | 10.30.23 | 11.2.23 | |||||||
| 65 | Instructions to Offerors | Factor 1 Exhibit "A" | Page 13 of 126, states in part: "Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a technical approach narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and primary design 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." Is the “technical approach narrative” to be contained in the area outlined in Exhibit “A”, “Discuss the rationale for proposing this team arrangement:” which appears to leave one single page for the “technical approach narrative.” Or may the offeror include a separate two page document for the “technical approach narrative.” | The entirety of Exhibit “A” shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) as stated in the RFP. Although the boxes can be expanded, the page limit cannot be exceeded. | 10.30.23 | 11.15.23 | |||||
| 66 | Instructions to Offerors | cover letter/CAGE Code | CAGE Code For JVs: The cover letter requests in section (c) The Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number, CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number | ||||||||
| (TIN) of the Offeror. However, in the FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach section (2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of any joint venture agreement,.... We currently have our JV entity established with a validated IRS TIN and a SAM assigned UEI, however, we do not have our CAGE code assigned from the DLA through SAM.gov. We additionally have our signed JV Agreement. If the CAGE code is not assigned by the time for submitting our proposal, may we submit the CAGE Code as "pending?" | Yes, you may include "pending" for the CAGE code information. However, award cannot be made without the firm being properly registered in SAM. | 10.30.23 | 11.2.23 | ||||||||
| 67 | 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. | Original plans and specifications were issued under amendment 0001. Revised plans and specification were issued under Amendment 0005. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 68 | Amendment 0001 | 00 21 16 | instructions for electronic submission | The instructions for electronic submission in the amendment state the offeror are instructed to submit their complete proposal in 1 single PDF file. However, Factor 6: Price on page 22 of the solicitation states that the SF 1442 and Bid Bond should be submitted in 1 complete separate PDF file. Please advice if one or two PDF files should be submitted | Conflicting Information | Contracting | A total of two (2) PDF files shall be submited. Factor 6 - Price requires its own separate PDF file. See Amendment 0005 for revisions to Instructions for electronic submission of proposals. | 10.31.23 | 11.2.23 | Amendment 0005 | |
| 69 | Sheets XD101A & XD101B | PCC Double Sawcut | Is the intention to remove each section of the apron independently with double sawcuts around each section? Is there a reason the contractor couldn't just make a double sawcut around the entire perimeter? | Intent needs clarification | The contractor can perform the double sawcut around the perimeter of the pavement area to be removed. The sectioned areas do not need to be removed independently or sequentially. Demolition sheets have been revised. See Amendment 0006. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | |||
| 70 | Sheet C103A | The scale appears to be off. Some of the layout is missing. | Intent needs clarification | Sheet C103A has been adjusted. Scale changed from 1:30 to 1:20 for additional clarity. No quantities have been altered. See Amendment 0005. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0005 | ||||
| 71 | Sheets C105A, C105B, & C503-A2 | Sediment Fiber Roll | The sediment roll is shown around the entire work area. Detail A2 shows stakes securing the sediment roll. How does the government want to handle the stakes on existing paving? Drill holes for stakes and grout when removed? | Intent needs clarification | Sandbags or other non-destructive anchoring mechanism can be used. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 72 | Div 31 | Does the Government have an Earthwork Specification for the project? | Intent needs clarification | Missing earthwork specification 31 00 00 included as part of Amendment 0006. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 73 | Div 02 | Does the Government have a Demolition Specification for the project? | Intent needs clarification | Missing demolition specification 02 41 00 included as part of Amendment 0006. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 74 | XD101A/B, C101A/B | Can the contractor utilize on-site soil for fill purposes (cut to fill)? | Intent needs clarification | Please refer to boring logs and specification 31 00 00. See Amendment 0006. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 75 | XD101A/B | Does the Government have an on-site disposal area for removed material or should the contractor figure removing all material off Government property? | Intent needs clarification | All cut and spoil materials will be removed off Government property. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 76 | XD101A/B | Does the Government require any analytical testing of materials prior to removal from the site? | Intent needs clarification | No analytical testing will be required for this project. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 77 | XD101A/B | Would any hazardous material, special waste, etc. be considered a differing site condition? | Intent needs clarification | Yes. Any hazardous or contaminated material encountered during construction shall be considered a differing site condition. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 78 | Should the contractor figure any additional site evaluation options such as biological or cultural studies? | Intent needs clarification | No biological or cultural studies or monitoring is required. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||||
| 79 | XD101A/B | Should the contractor figure any proof-rolling of subgrade following demolition? | Intent needs clarification | Proof rolling will be required in the event soft or unyielding materials are encountered during subgrade over-excavation, moisture conditioning and recompaction activities. See specification 31 00 00 (see amendment 0006) for additional information. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 80 | G0005/G0006 | What conditions should the contractor expect the laydown and batch plant site to be in when receiving the area? | Intent needs clarification | The prescribed laydown area should be cleared and available for use. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 81 | If Other - provide info in Column E | G0005/G0006 | How should the contractor figure restoring the batch plant & laydown sites following completion of construction? | Intent needs clarification | The contractor shall leave the batch plant and laydown area in the current condition (prior to Contractor mobilization). | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 82 | G0004 | Are all designated haul routes suitable to accommodate the required vehicular and construction traffic necessary to complete this project? | Intent needs clarification | Yes. The access gate shown on the plans is designated for commercial traffic. Contractor to confirm haul routes with NAS Point Mugu Air Operations prior to mobilization. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 83 | G0004 | What is the expected wait time for gate access for vehicular traffic, deliveries, etc.? | Intent needs clarification | Gate access wait times are dependant on day and time. The access gate shown on the plans is designated for commercial traffic. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 84 | G0004 | How should the contractor figure handling Time Sensitive deliveries? | Intent needs clarification | The access gate shown on the plans is designated for commercial traffic. Contractor shall coordinate with base operations and base security for time-sensitive deliveries. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 85 | G0008 | Detail C1, A3 | Does this project require a Runway Shutdown utilizing Runway closure Markers? | Intent needs clarification | Runway close makers are not required. They are shown on the closure detail sheet (G008), but are not shown for use on the project specific closure sheet (G007). | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 86 | C502 | Detail A4 | The contractor does not see any Isolation Joints outlined in the project plans. Please confirm that this detail is not warranted on this project. | Intent needs clarification | Isoation joints are included on this project and are shown on the joint plan sheets (C103A, C103B) as thickened edge expansion joints (TE EJ). | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 87 | C502 | Detail C4 | Please confirm that the AC/AC Joint does not require any routing & sealing. | Intent needs clarification | Confirmed. AC/AC joints will only require tack coating the vertical interface. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 88 | C503 | Detail A4 | Would the contractor be able to utilized a "Dandy Pop" or similar item in lieu of the build-up inlet protection detail? | Intent needs clarification | Please bid project per plans, alternative items can be considered during construction through the RFI process. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 89 | C504 | Detail C2 | Where should the contractor figure installation of the FOD Grate? | Intent needs clarification | FOD grate should be installed during demotion and subgrade DFOWs. The grate should be installed directly south of the project site, adjacent to the turn on to 11th street. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 90 | C501 | Detail C2 | What breakdown & thicknesses of asphalt pavement should the contractor figure? 2" Surface, 4" Base? | Intent needs clarification | Use 2 lifts: 1x 3" base and 1x3" surface. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | |||
| 91 | C501 | Detail C4 | In lieu of the #3 bar at 16" OC/EW, can the contractor utilize a WWF product? | Intent needs clarification | Please base bid per reinforcement detail. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | ||||
| 92 | C103A/B | In review of existing conditions for the project site taken from Google Earth, does the contractor need to include any Tie-Downs or Grounding Points in the proposed pavement? | Intent needs clarification | Please bid the project with no tie downs, grouding points or grounding grid. | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | |||||
| 93 | C103A/B, C502 | There is no detail for work around the existing storm structures. Should the contractor figure a straight (12") interface or a one-sided thickened edge similar to detail C1 on Sheet C502? | Intent needs clarification | Correct. Please install a "one-sided" thickened edge expansion joint around all utility structured. This information has been added to sheets C103A, C103B. Additional infotmation added to detail C1/C502. See Amendment 0006 | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 94 | C103A/B, C502 | There is no detail for the CJ joint designation. Should the contractor figure CJ = TCJ? | Intent needs clarification | Correct. Joint designation changed from "CJ" to "TCJ" on sheets C103A and C103B. See Amendment 0006 | 10.31.23 | 11.7.23 | Amendment 0006 | ||||
| 95 | C502 | Detail C1 calls out the PCC Expansion Joint Detail as C2-C507; there is no sheet C507. Should the contractor figure utilizing the Isolation Joint Detail (A4, Sheet C502) in lieu of C2-C507? | Intent needs clarification | Revised Response: |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .