RFI Responses - 04-10-2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6247325R3443
About this file
This document is an RFI (Request for Information) Response spreadsheet for Solicitation N6247325R3443, a Design-Build contract for Low Altitude Radio Communication System (LARCS) Communication Towers at Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command (MAGTFTC) in Twentynine Palms, California. The solicitation involves constructing new communication towers and restoring existing towers on remote mountaintops accessible only by helicopter, with no existing utilities. Multiple government agencies, including Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), are involved in the project.
Key details include a proposal due date of April 24, 2025, after multiple amendments that modified project requirements, including reducing the minimum project experience value from $10M to $2M. The contract is a full and open, Firm-Fixed-Price Design-Build procurement primarily targeting contractors with NAICS code 237130. Contractors are encouraged to form joint ventures to meet specialized engineering requirements, and the project involves complex logistical challenges such as daily radio check-ins, limited site access, and coordination with multiple DoD commands. The solicitation emphasizes specific experience requirements, including tower construction, phased construction, remote site access, and work without existing infrastructure.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 51 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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: N6247325R3443
PROJECT TITLE & LOCATION: P1241 Communication Towers - Twentynine Palms MCAGCC DOCUMENT DATE: 10 April 2025
| 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 3 | Chapter-1 | 4.6 | Please clarify who is supplying the Heavy Lift Helo. If Navsea is supplying, will that include a full ground crew at both the staging and delivery sites? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | The Contractor is expected to supply the Heavy Lift Helo. |
| Phase 1 RFP requires the contractor to provide Government approved helicopter services. NAVSEA is only providing helicopter services for site tower inspection that is already MAGTFTC range pre-approved for site and tower access. | 3/3/25 | 3/14/25 | |||||||
| 2 | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | if Others include info under Column E | Phase 1, Factor 2, Experience | We are a tribally owned, Small Disadvantaged, 8(a) Certified and HubZone Certified Company with direct experience working on the sites specified for repair and upgrade in this solicitation. Our experience directly related to this project is under the $10M threshold and was completed in 2008 but satisfies items 1-4 in the Phase 1, Factor 2 Construction Experience evaluation factors. Will NAVFAC lower the project value threshold to $8M, and extend the construction experience validity period back to 2008 so we can submit this construction experience example and have it rated/evaluated? | Other; Please specify in the next column | Phase 1, Factor 2, Construction Experience (Exhibit B) Evaluation Criteria - Project size and date | Contracting | The project value threshold is changed to $2 million per Amendment 0003 and the experience period will remain the same. |
Joint Venture (JV) partnership is strongly recommended.
| Due to the specialized engineering requirements of this project, Joint Venture partnership are strongly encouraged in meeting all project work items to include NAICS 237130 - "Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction" requirements and National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) "The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association" certification. JV provides complementary solution to the partnership strengths and synergy where individually, may otherwise not be qualified for proposal not accepted. Furthermore, JV leverage each partner's financial stability, resources, expertise, reputation and legal standing thereby increasing success of the bidding team's proposal acceptance for consideration. | 3/4/25 | 3/14/2025 | ||||||||||
| REV 03/24/2025 | 0003 | |||||||||||
| 3 | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | if Others include info under Column E | RFP - Phase 1 (Qualification Phase) - Page 6 . RFP Phase 1, Factors 1-4, Pages 20 - 27 | The Phase 1 Qualification Phases lists multiple documents, forms and exhibits that were not included in the RFP. The missing forms, documents and exhibits include: Offeror's Team Onsent Forms, Financial Questionnaire, Surety Form, Factor 1 (Exhibit A - Offeror Team Composition and Management), Factor 2 (Exhibit B - Construction Experience Project Data Sheet, and Exhibit C - Design Experience Project Data Sheet), Factor 3 - (Exhibit D - Past Performance Questioinnaires), and Factor 4 - (Exhibit E - Safety Data Sheet / Safety Narrative) | Other; Please specify in the next column | RFP - Phase 1 (Qualification Phase) - Page 6. RFP Phase 1, Factors 1-4, Pages 20 - 27 | Contracting | These exibits are provided per Amendment 0001 | 3/4/25 | 3/14/25 | 0001 | |
| 4 | If "Others" - include info under Column E Clarification Request | if Others include info under Column E | Page 3 | Please clarify “P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule” compared to the “P1241 FRP ATT 2_Installation IMS Expanded” the Proposed Installation Schedule #3 c. indicates Crampton, Creole, Bullion are to be completed one at a time, yet the included schedule on Page 3 appears to show an exact overlap of these sites. Also, the MSProject based schedule on the IMS Expanded document does not have this overlap and shows a true Finish to Start sequential format. | Conflicting Information | Question includes two separate attachments as reference | Contracting | The "P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule" and "P1241 RFP ATT 2_Installation IMS Expanded" serve distinct purposes and are not meant to match exactly. |
P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule provides a general overview of the approved construction duration for the MAGTFTC range, which includes a broader timeline for each site. The colored schedule on Page 3 of P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule indicates a window of opportunity for the work to be done and should not be interpreted as a precise construction schedule. The overlap shown in this schedule is approved and does not impact the more critical IMS deployment phasing sequence outlined in P1241 RFP ATT 2_Installation IMS Expanded.
P1241 RFP ATT 2_Installation IMS Expanded, on the other hand, details the IMS/IMP LARCS deployment phasing sequence, which is a more specific and critical schedule. This schedule, as shown in the MSProject-based timeline, indicates a true Finish-to-Start sequential format for the construction of Crampton, Creole, and Bullion Towers. As stated, these towers will be completed one at a time, with Bullion Tower being the last site in the full construction schedule, as requested by government stakeholders.
In summary, the "approved" overlap in P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule is meant to show that the approved construction duration is within the IMS constraint, and it does not conflict with the sequential construction schedule outlined in P1241 RFP ATT 2_Installation IMS Expanded. Offerors should follow the instructions and schedule outlined in the RFP, ensuring that the construction of Crampton, Creole, and Bullion Towers is completed one at a time, as specified. (END)
| 3/10/25 | 3/24/25 | ||||||
| 5 | Part 1 | if Others include info under Column E | Page 3 | For the performance of the work, is it a requirement that we work through the checkpoint each day? Or is it possible we operate through the checkpoint at the beginning and end of each week and we camp on/near site to reduce the travel each day? Total travel each day for some sites may be 5-6 hours which will dig into the working time on site and will be a major factor in scheduling. | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | 1) Yes, daily check-in is a requirement, Contractor shall check-in via radio upon any departure from and arrival to destinations on the base.. Daily check-in shall be fulfilled through radio communication with Bearmat Range Control. Physical check-in at a designated point is not necessary, and range-contractor radio communication checks will be conducted throughout the workday, with details to be provided after the award of the contract. |
2) No, there are no weekly or other multiple days check in/ out other than daily available. Due to the 24-hour daily operation of the range live-fire training, physical security and safety, range requires Contractor to check in and out daily through radio communications. No overnight Contractor encampment is allowed. Due to scheduled training that could impede in other parts of the Ranges/Training Areas, camping on MAGTFTC Ranges/Training Areas is strictly prohibited. Contractors must exit Ranges/Training Areas daily once workday is complete.
Contractor access to checkpoints and landing zones shall start from 0400 and end 30 minutes after sunset. Daily check-in at arrival and check-out at departure shall be by radio communication with designated government representative. Helicopter operations shall start no earlier than 30 minutes before sunrise and end no later than 30 minutes after sunset.
Contractor shall plan range movement and logistics accordingly.
DAILY REQUIREMENTS
On Day 1, Contractor shall check in with the base Program Management Office (PMO) to receive approved base passes.
On Day 2 and through the end of the contract, Contractor shall present approved base passes to the PMO gate guard to enter the base.
• Before traveling to the training ranges, you will check in with Bearmat Hill via radio communication for approval to enter the ranges.
• Contractor shall follow the same process for leaving the ranges and the base.
• Contractor shall conduct daily radio communication checks with Bearmat Range Control as required. (END)
| 3/10/25 | 3/24/25 | |||||||
| 6 | Part 3 | if Others include info under Column E | Page 1 | Please clarify “P1241 RFP ATT 1_Approval of Proposed Installation Schedule” #3 d.(1) – is this a single interruption of 3 days? Or 3 interruptions of up to 3 days each (9 total days)? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | 1) Due to the possibility of live fire training in the area, adverse conditions, emergency situations, etc., the range would like to ensure the Contractor is aware that there may be more than a single interuption that would be classified as 'non-workday(s)." This is not a demobilization and if interuptin is duiring live fire training, this is a strict no-human access to the site location for the specified time by the Government. | |
| 2) During each Site Work Phase, the project may be subject to up to three (3) different interruptions for one to three (1-3) days for each interruption. (END) | 3/10/25 | 3/24/25 | ||||||
| 7 | Part 3 | if Others include info under Column E | Page 1 | Based on the “P1241 RR Matrix” can we assume that we are the NAVFAC MILCON Contractor, KTR-M? Is there another Contractor not yet listed or known that is the KTR-N NAVSEA Contractor? Is it possible that this Contractor is one and the same? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | 1) Yes, this solicitation once awarded to the contractor will be P1241 NAVFAC MILCON Contractor (KTR-M). As noted in the legend of the P1241 RR Matrix (20241115), KTR-M is the NAVFAC MILCON Contractor that is bidding on this soliicitation. As noted in the legend of the P1241 RR Matrix (20241115), KTR-N is the NAVSEA Contractor who has already been awarded the NAVSEA scope of work. |
2) Per the RFP there will be multiple DoD agencies and their contractors during the project duration, NAVSEA will have site oversight for all contractors and will be P1241 main point of contact to other agencies representatives if needed.
| 3) This solicitation is for the procurement of P1241 MILCON contractor (KTR-M). (END) | 3/10/25 | 3/24/25 | |||||||||
| 8 | Part 3 | if Others include info under Column E | Page 1 | Based on the LEGEND within “P1241 RR Matrix” there is a KTR-M and KTR-N Contractor. Yet within the table below on the same document, the “LEAD” at some locations is listed as “KTR” (no “M” or “N” designation). Please clarify, is there another Contractor not shown in the LEGEND that is “KTR” or is this a typo? | Intent needs clarification | Contracting | Any locations where KTR is indicated without an "M" for MILCON contractor or "N" for NAVSEA contractor is a typo. See Attachment 3 in Amendment 0003 P1241 RR Matrix Rev 1 for corrections and clarifications as KTR-M or KTR-N only. There is not a 3rd KTR entity intended. (END) | 3/10/25 | 3/24/25 | 0003 | |
| 9 | Can the Prime Contractor use a subcontraor partner to meet the Phase 1 Factor 2 Project Construction Experience for all (4) areas listed? 1. At least one (1) project involving construction, renovation, or repairs of communication towers. |
2. At least one (1) project involving phased/sequencing of construction based on end user requirements or coordination with simultaneous construction efforts by others.
3. At least one (1) project including construction on remote site(s) accessible only by helicopter.
| 4. At least one (1) project with no utility infrastructure. | Per Phase One - Factor 2: Experience of section 15. Evaluation Factors For Award of the RFP: "The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a supporting JV agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract." A subcontractor partner can be used to meet the experience factor for all four (4) areas listed, as long as the RFP is followed. | 3/11/25 | 3/14/25 | ||||||||
| 10 | Part 1 | Chapter-2 | Experience | Would the government clarify that past performance exceeding the $10M value executed as a subcontractor is qualifying? | Intent needs clarification | Other/Unknown | Past Performance exceeding $2M value, per Amendment 0003, executed as a subcontractor is qualifying. | 3/13/25 | 3/27/25 | ||
| 11 | Part 1 | Chapter-2 | Instructions to proposers | Would the government consider adding additional NAICS codes to the list for contractors to demonstrate past performance in tower design, construction, rennovation and repair? | Other; Please specify in the next column | There are multiple NAICS codes used for tower construction & design, refurbishment, upgrade, repair. 333318, 517110, 333310, 333319, 541330 are examples. This would bring a more competitive field. | Other/Unsure | No. This recommended NAICS code cannot be substituted for NAICS code 237130. However, the offeror is strongly encouraged to consider JV partnership to augment missing NAICS code 237130 "Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction" requirement. Refer to RFI#2 response for details. |
Recommended NAICS code for consideration 333318, 517110,333319 does not cross to a known NAICS title therefore not considered.
Recommended NAICS code 333310-“Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing” and 541330-“Engineering Services” are not viable alternate to NAICS code 237130 therefore not considered.
| 3/27/24 | 3/24/25 | |||||
| 12 | Part 1 | The questions pertain to Past Performance. We have a substantial portfolio of projects with a single client that exemplifies our capabilities. The wording on the Exhibits refers to “project.” I want to clarify that if we submit a collection of projects from a portfolio, the portfolio of contracts or projects was not completed in a single contract, but still demonstrates our ability to perform the scope of work. Would this be considered a disqualification if we submit a portfolio of projects for single past performance (as opposed to a single contract or single project for single past performance)? We obviously have several clients with similar project portfolios with past performance that meet the needs of your project not just the one example above.” | Per Paragraph 14 of the RFP Part 1, "Project" is defined as "a construction activity or task, with a single starting point and a single end point." A project refers to a single project. Submitting a portfolio in lieu of a single project for past performance or experience factors would not meet the RFP requirements. | 3/21/25 | 3/27/25 | |
| 13 | In order for contractors to provide the Navy with the best possible proposal, and in consideration of the difficulties of forming an appropriate team for this type of project, we request a two-week extension of the due date for Phase One to April 10. | Phase One Proposal Due date is revised to 04/10/2025 per Amendment 0004 | 3/24/25 | 3/27/25 | 0004 | |
| 14 | The Original Proposal released on 27-Feb-2025 was due March 27 , 2025, for N6247325R3443 as a full and open procurement for companies that have NAICS code of 237130. The construction experience in Factor 2: Experience required relevant construction projects that demonstrated experience in similar size (minimum $10MM final construction cost), scope and complexity to the project described in the RFP. This requirement was subsequently modified to $2MM project size in Amendment 4 which was released on March 25, 2025. The due date was subsequently modified to April 10, 2025. We would request that it be moved to April 24th |
| We would like to request a three-week extension of the due date as this major requirement change from $10MM to $2MM for project experience has made the project viable for our company to prepare a response with our partners. The change in the prior construction limit allows the larger bidders an unfair opportunity to respond as they were able to start one month earlier on the proposal response and preparation of the submittals required for a compliant response. We believe that our request will allow us to respond with a compliant response and create an opportunity for smaller size competitors to effectively compete on this opportunity. | Phase One Proposal Due date is revised to 04/24/2025 per Amendment 0006 | 4/1/25 | 4/4/25 | 0006 | |||||
| 15 | Part 3 | General | We are interested in the construction and overall management of this proposal. Our concern is regarding the designer experience. After several weeks of research, we feel the design experience is too stringent because communication towers are not a commonly built structure. We have sent inquiries to 10 design firms to consider teaming, but none meet the designer experience of completed projects within 10 years. We respectfully request the design experience qualification be changed to allow projects to be both: (1) substantially complete (50% or more), and that (2) the timeframe be expanded to 15 years’ experience. | The Design Experience qualification will not be revised. | 4/8/25 | 4/10/25 | |||
| 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 .