21R1345-Note1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-21-R-1345

Notice No. 1

22 July 2021

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

WATERFRONT MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRIMARILY FOR

THE SHIPYARD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM AT HAWAII,

WASHINGTON AND OTHER AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF NAVFAC PACIFIC

NOTE: The following questions and answers are provided for INFORMATION ONLY. The RFP remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing on a Standard Form 30.

1. Seed Project states all MACC awardees will receive a contract if the seed project pricing is less than $100,000.

a. Will the government award a single seed project for P-209 Pre-Construction Services and that firm will carry out the scope?

b. At the conclusion of the Pre-Construction Services, will a single firm selected for the P-

209 seed project then negotiate a firm fixed price contract for the completion of the entire construction directly with the government?

c. Or is the government planning to ask each MACC awardee to perform the Pre-

Construction Services scope?

Page 171 of 175 states under TASK DESCRIPTION, All designs and work product generated by the selected MACC contractors and delivered to the Government as part of the P-209 Constructability Review Task Order will be the property of the Government.

NAVFAC, in its discretion, may incorporate any non-proprietary concepts, plans, designs or other work product generated in these constructability reviews into the final P-209 design and the solicitation for P-209. However, other information provided by a MACC contractor to the Government as part of its P-209 constructability review will not be shared with any of the other MACC contractors.

(Please note the “s” on contractors (emphasis added) in (a.) above and the singular of contractor (emphasis added above) in the last line.

ANSWER:

a. No. As stated in Part 7, document 00 41 00, Note 2, “all MACC awardees will be awarded the seed project, if price for CLIN 0001 does not exceed $100,000.

b. No. P-209 will be competed among all MACC awardees.

c. Yes, see response to a. The cited paragraph is grammatically correct.

2. The RFP requires that where an Offeror is submitting as a joint venture, that all members be identified at the time of qualification. However, the RFP specifically references only the FY23 MCON Project P-209, Dry Dock 3 Replacement at JBPHH, Hawaii for the initial Task Order (RFP N62742-21-R-1345). Please confirm whether there is a process to substitute out team members, subject to NAVFAC’s approval, for task orders related to P-454 FY24 Dry Dock 3 Replacement at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Please also confirm whether NAVFAC requires that prior to the release of the RFP, all members of the joint venture are identified irrespective of their level of participation on the initial or future task orders.

ANSWER: The Offeror shall remain unchanged (transfer of the contracts is prohibited) throughout the MACC performance period unless the Government recognizes a novation agreement. As stated on the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442), “by submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., subcontracts with teaming agreement, etc.)

will be enforced for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award will be equal or better than as proposed and shall require Contracting Officer’s approval prior to implementation.”

3. Please confirm whether NAVFAC requires that in the case of a joint venture, all members be jointly and severally liable for each task order separately or for the entirety of the contract (which includes all task orders)?

ANSWER: Joint ventures shall be jointly and severally liable for the entirety of the contract.

4. Does "any entity other than the Offeror" in Document 00202 (SF1442) include teaming subcontractor? Will the Government accept teaming subcontractor experiences?

ANSWER: Document 00202, Factor 2, Note 4, defines the Offeror as “as the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442). If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is now part of the Offeror (separate legal entities are not considered part of the Offeror).” Therefore, a subcontractor is considered “any entity other than the Offeror”. The RFP does not prohibit subcontractor experience.

5. Does each MACC awardee get a CLIN 0001 fund available amount of $100,000 or is the $100,000 an aggregate amount between all MACC awardees?

ANSWER: Part 7, Document 00 41 00 requires the Offeror to submit a price for the seed project (preconstruction services for P209). Document 00 41 00, Note 2, indicates all MACC awardees will be awarded the seed project if the price for CLIN 0001 does not exceed $100,000.

Therefore, each MACC awardee will be awarded the seed project task order in the amount proposed for CLIN 0001 (not-to-exceed $100,000).

6. What is the anticipated breakdown of Task Orders? Does NAVFAC foresee the DBB construction scopes at each location being divided into numerous pieces or grouped together?

ANSWER: We do not have a breakdown of task orders. It is anticipated that the construction for P-209 Dry Dock 3 Replacement, Pearl Harbor, and P-454 Multi-Mission Dry Dock Puget Sound will be separate task orders for the entire construction scope. There may be other task orders for design, construction, environmental and services related to waterfront facilities.

7. Are bid guarantees required for every Task Order bid?

ANSWER: No. As stated in Document 00801, paragraph 1.5, bid, performance and payment bonds are required for construction task orders only.

8. Will a MACC contractor who performs design or pre-construction services under a Task Order be conflicted out of and thus precluded from bidding on a Task Order for the construction associated with those services (i.e., a potential Conflict of Interest situation)?

ANSWER: No.

9. We request that the RFP be amended such that a parent company and company affiliate projects (other business units under the same parent company) be considered as past performance for full credit provided the bidder identifies such parent or affiliate resources and/or personnel to be used on the anticipated projects under the MACC. Use of affiliate experiences should not be restricted to specific legal entities involved in prior projects.

ANSWER: Since the parent company and company affiliate does not meet the definition of the “Offeror (Document 00202, Factor 2, Note 4), the Offeror shall provide a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted.

10. We would like to confirm that SIOP MACC contractors are allowed to form joint ventures (JVs), including among MACC Contractors for individual Task Orders where such joint ventures would enhance competition consistent with FAR Subpart 9.6. We believe that it is in the Navy’s best interest to provide for maximum competition for the MACC Prime Contract which would otherwise be limited if bidders were obligated to form new entities or JVs by the

August 12, 2021 deadline to submit their initial proposals. Importantly, we believe that some degree of JV will be likely for the bidders to be in a position to be qualified to execute two mega projects -- Pearl Harbor and Puget Sound. These two tasks alone will have different execution requirements at each location and will not take place for up 2-4 years after MACC proposal submission. In addition, prospective MACC bidders do not yet know how the Navy plans to divide up the work by Task Orders, which also impacts these teaming structure decisions.

Bonding requirements alone could require potential bidders to joint venture today to be in a position to bid on these requirements in the future if joint venturing for the Task Orders is not permitted – which teaming could substantially limit competition for the MACC and its future Task Orders. FAR 9.602(c) acknowledges that companies involved in a “contractor team arrangement” normally form them before submitting an offer but provides that “they may enter into an arrangement later in the acquisition process, including after contract award”.

ANSWER: The Offeror may be in the form of a joint venture; however, joint venture agreements cannot be with other Offerors that intend to submit an offer.

11. Given that Task Orders may run from $100,000 to 5,000,000,000, we assume the time required to submit a bid for a given Task Order will vary to a large degree based on the value or anticipated cost of the relevant scope/project. Please confirm our assumption is correct.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

12. The RFP includes FAR 52.236-23, which per FAR 36.609-2(b) is appropriate for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Architect & Engineering (A&E) service contracts, rather than construction.

We assume this clause would apply only to Task Orders solely for A&E services. Please confirm if this is not the case

ANSWER: FAR 52.236-23 will apply to design-build task orders.

13. Document 00202, Evaluation Factors for Award, requires bidders to include up to 5 construction projects demonstrating the Offeror’s experience similar in size, scope and complexity to the relevant project definition included in the RFP. However, Note 4 under this factor defines “Offeror” as “the exact name in Block 14” of the SF 1442 and, if an offeror is utilizing experience and past performance of any entity other than “the exact name in Block 14” then it must submit a teaming agreement between the entity who performed the referenced project and the Offeror. These RFP requirements, which was only recently announced and where bids are due within in August and at least 1-3 years before any major project scope will be awarded -- and before bidders know how NAVFAC plans to subdivide the project into Task Orders -- may have unintended negative consequences for the MACC program. This situation and the terms of the RFP may well drive up bidder costs as it will force bidders to set up non-optimal execution arrangements now to meet the past performance qualifications. Consider that:

there are few mega projects of the scale and scope of the various aspects of the current RFP;

many of the more relevant projects may well have been performed internationally by affiliated entities in consortia with others—and those entities could not meaningfully participate in the work at Pearl Harbor or Puget Sound (if they have any substance beyond the execution of the project for which the consortia were formed); it is inconsistent with how large global engineering and construction firms manage their work; and primes will need to arrange for teaming subcontractors to participate in the MACC simply to cover past performance scope because they may not be able to rely on a project performed by an affiliated entity – even if the managerial personnel that led those projects with that affiliate may now be supporting a bid for the MACC projects.

In the best interest of the program, we recommend that use of affiliate experiences should not be restricted to, or teaming agreements required from, specific legal entities involved in prior projects. Rather, it should be for the bidder to specify the affiliate resources and personnel to be used on the anticipated projects. It should be for bidders to identify here -- or more importantly demonstrate as part of a specific Task Order submission -- the use of and meaningful involvement of affiliate resources and/or personnel for specific projects. We request that the RFP be amended to permit the bidder to specify the affiliate resources and personnel to be used on the anticipated projects without the requirement of a teaming agreement between specific affiliated entities.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

14. Document 00202, Evaluation Factors for Award, provides at Section 2.4 that the Price Evaluation Factor will be evaluated as follows: “The total of the seed project price and price model will be utilized for the price evaluation” The Seed Project (Part 7 of the RFP) includes a document for bidders to complete to provide the requested services for a firm fixed price (awarded if FFP does not exceed $100,000), which must be signed as an offer by the contractor.

This Part 7 also includes a separate “Price Model” document about which we have the following questions:

a. The RFP is not clear as to how the price model is to be utilized for purposes of the evaluation. Please can this be explained.

b. We assume the Price Model is for evaluation purposes only, will not be included in or incorporated into the MACC Contracts and is not binding on MACC contractors. Please confirm if this is not the case.

c. Note 5 of the Price Model says that “[t]he intent is to utilize the mark-ups proposed” for “Prime Overhead on Subcontractor” and for “Prime’s Home Office Overhead” for “the duration of the Contract.” If these are NAVFAC’s intentions, the RFP should be clearer and more explicit on these points. We assume that the Navy is not seeking to cap/limit the fee/profit elements of future Task Order bids. Please confirm if this is not the case.

d. Line 11 of the Price Model is titled “Prime Overhead on Subcontractor (of line 10)”, however line 10 is the sum of Prime Contractor’s Work and Subcontractors work. Should line 11 say “… (of line 9)” or is it correct as written?

e. In order to maintain compliance with audited forward pricing rates for overhead and general & administrative costs, please provide a breakdown for each Government-provided direct cost value by year of modeled spend and by location. For example, staff involved in the project may perform a portion of the work in a home office, the overhead rate for which is different than the rate applicable to staff at the job site, with each of those rates varying from year to year.

ANSWER:

a. As stated in Document 00202, paragraph 2.4, “the total of the seed project price and price model will be utilized for the price evaluation.” The total of CLIN 0001 of the seed project plus Line 19 of the price model will be used to evaluate prices for reasonableness against the government estimate and the other offers received.

b. Yes, Note 8 of the price model indicates the price model will be used for price evaluation purposes.

c. The intent is not to limit the profit rate on task orders.

d. An amendment will be issued to correct the price model to indicate line 9.

e. The RFP will not be revised. The RFP is not asking for a field overhead rate. The RFP says to assume a five-year period.

15. As Task Orders are awarded to other MACC contract holders, does NAVFAC expect, and allow, modifications to the Master Small Business Subcontracting Plan based on the scope awarded, reduction or removal of stated companies/dollars/socioeconomic classes the unawarded MACC holders planned to utilize for those scope elements? Per page 114 Section 1.1, all MACC holders will receive at least one Task Order valued at $2,000,000, this reduces the total budgeted amount of $8B, thereby altering the Small Business (SB) Participation Plan documents with each Task Order award.

ANSWER: An amendment will be issued to delete Factor 5 - Small Business Participation from this solicitation. Offerors past performance utilizing Small Business concerns will be evaluated in Factor 3 - Past Performance.

Request for Task Order Proposals that have small business subcontracting opportunities will include an evaluation factor for small business participation. A Subcontracting Plan will be required to be submitted by awardees prior to award of the first Task Order that has subcontracting opportunities. The Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the Contract.

Subcontracting Plans may be amended if necessary.

16. Since the $8B is hard-coded in RFP SB templates, and our understanding is that Task Order work is guaranteed to be awarded to multiple MACC awardees, please provide guidance on how offeror is to complete SB templates with consideration of the above. To emphasize, is offeror expected to complete SB Subcontract Plan, and subsequent SB Participation Commitment Document, with the assumption that all scope for both Pearl Harbor, Puget Sound and other locations will be awarded to the single offeror? If so, can scope of work/drawings/specs for both locations be added to RFP?

ANSWER: See response to question 15.

17. Would customer consider allowing offerors to submit SB Subcontracting Plan narratives, and subsequent execution strategy documents, without requiring SB names, scope, or dollars, be defined for award of the MACC, while then requiring offerors submit SB Subcontract Plans, with SB names, dollars, and scope specific to Task Order RFPs, with MACC awardee’s proposal for said Task Order?

ANSWER: See response to question 15.

18. Would TBDs be reasonably considered and evaluated in completion of the current SB templates for the MACC portion of the contract as scope and dollars are not yet fully defined in the RFP? It would then be expected that a SB Subcontract Plan would be completed for each specific RFP providing names, scope, and dollars applicable to that specific Task Order RFP.

ANSWER: See response to question 15.

19. The Task Order procedure in the RFP (Document 00803, page 137 of 175 of PDF, Sec 1.3.c) mentions that “Task Order projects may be non-complex service or construction performance oriented tasks requiring minimal design, may be complex construction requiring design development for design-build construction, design-bid-build, or a combination thereof”.

In this respect the following clarification questions may be relevant:

a. For design-build Task Orders, will the offeror be the designated A&E as well (Engineer of Record)?

b. For design-bid-build task orders, does the statement above mean that the design may not be 100% complete? If the design is not 100% complete, will the government (or designated A&E) be responsible for completing the design and preparing the final plans, shop drawings and specifications? If the design is not 100% complete, will all procurement decisions (including those for long-lead items) be contingent upon completing the design to 100% by the designated A&E?

c. For a Task Order that employs a combination, as stated above, will the Task Order clarify which entity retains the A&E responsibility?

ANSWER:

a. For design-build task orders, the Offeror will have the overall responsibility of the contract including the design. However, the design will be prepared by the Offeror’s designer-of record.

b. If the task order is design-bid-build, the plans and specifications will be 100% complete.

If it is a design-build task order, the Offeror will be responsible for completing the design through its designer-of-record. It is the contractor’s decision whether 100% design is required to make procurement decisions. However, please note that the proposal preparation period will not allow for the contractor to complete a 100% design to submit a proposed price.

c. If it is a design-build task order, the Offeror and its designer of record retains the responsibility for the design and construction.

20. Is NAVFAC expecting the MACC bidders to review 2,000 +/- drawings in the Task Order Constructability Review period (28 days) from 1 December 2021-29 December 2021?

ANSWER: Yes.

21. Drawing/Detail: Solicitation, Document 00100, Instructions to Proposers, Pages 11-12.

Specification: 1.17 FAR 52.222-23, NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION TO ENSURE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSTRUCTION

(FEB 1999) *

Question: Do the goals for minority and female participation of 69.1% and 6.9%, respectively, for work performed in Honolulu, Hawaii apply to management staff working on preconstruction service task orders under the MACC?

ANSWER: No. As stated in FAR 52.222-23, the goals are expressed in percentage terms for the Contractor’s aggregate workforce in each trade on all construction work in Honolulu Hawaii.

The pre-construction services work is not construction and therefore not subject to the percent participation.

22. Document 00801, Special Contract Requirements, Section 1.7 (Organizational Conflicts of Interest).

In review of Section 1.7 (Organizational Conflicts of Interest) of Document 00801 (Special Contract Requirements) and FAR Subpart 9.5, we understand that firms who participated in preparation of the statement of work or plans and specifications may be ineligible to bid or participate, in any capacity, in any contractual effort which is based on such statement of work or specifications and plans, including that work which a firm may have previously prepared or assisted in preparing.

It is our understanding that a number of firms may have previously worked or are currently working with NAVFAC to help prepare the statement of work or specifications and plans for the SIOP MACC Project and therefore are prohibited from participating in a team in bidding or participating in any contractual effort associated with the SIOP MACC and associated future task orders. To help avoid potential conflicts of interest, we request that NAVFAC please provide a list of firms who have assisted or are currently assisting NAVFAC that either are prohibited or may be prohibited from participating in this contract.

ANSWER: Amendment No. 0001 revises Document 00801 to incorporate new paragraph 1.19

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

23. Document 00100 (Instructions to Proposers), Section 1.2 (Number of Copies/Time of Receipt), Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

We believe the current proposal preparation period is very tight and may not be feasible considering the size of the SIOP MACC and all the requirements of the RFP. In particular, securing final teaming arrangements, establishing joint venture agreements, registering the joint venture entity, receiving surety approvals and the required bonding commitment, and obtaining our respective firms’ internal approvals will be challenging within the current allotted timeframe.

We request that the proposal preparation period be extended by four weeks.

ANSWER: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

24. Focus of presentation seems to be on P-209 for Pearl, but does solicitation indicate this will also be used for new Bremerton Dry Dock? How will selection be determined between two very different locations with different environments and construction markets?

ANSWER: Yes. The main purpose of the SIOP MACC is to award task orders for military construction projects P-209, FY23 Dry Dock 3 Replacement at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and P-454 FY24 Multi-Mission Dry Dock Replacement at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Individual task order request for proposals will include appropriate evaluation factors for the award of the task order.

25. Guam Dept. of Labor wage rates were referenced in the RFP. Is related project support work anticipated to occur in Guam?

ANSWER: Guam is in the NAVFAC Pacific Area of Responsibility, so work could potentially be in Guam.

26. How many contractors are you planning to prequalify for the MACC?

ANSWER: Since this is a single-phase, there are no pre-qualifications. However, as stated in Document 00202, paragraph 1.4, the intent is to award a maximum of five IDIQ type contracts.

27. It appears that some significant portion of the work will be procured through Design/Build, yet the selection criteria do not appear to ask or rate offers' Design/Build experience, nor do the selection criteria appear to seek any designer qualifications. It would be unfortunate if the selected offers had little or no design/build experience, and ask them to execute a very large design/build project.

ANSWER: Task Orders will include a Task Order evaluation factor for the Designer of Record if necessary.

28. The seed project is for $100k or less, which seems in conflict with the stated range of $100k to $5B.

ANSWER: Acknowledged. The RFP identifies the typical range of $100K to $5B.

29. "Forthcoming Amendment" was mentioned - is one currently prepared and if so, what is the timing (is there an approximate date established yet) for the issuance of that first Amendment?

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0001.

30. Due to many companies still working remotely, will the government consider accepting electronic signatures?

ANSWER: No.

31. Will any past project cost escalation be allowed, showing the relative value in today's dollars of work done 10 or more years ago? If so, will you establish a standard escalation rate?

ANSWER: No. An escalation rate will not be provided.

32. How soon after proposal submission will you contact the customer name listed on the PPQ? This would be good to know so offers can coordinate with our customer point of contacts so they do not miss the call from NAVFAC.

ANSWER: The Government may contact the customer at any time.

33. Mr. Mizue mentioned in his explanation of Factor 4, slide #55, 3rd bullet...for and DART and TRC explanations "for ANY year." Please confirm that "any" year is also relative to the 5-year timeframe.

ANSWER: Confirmed. It is for years 2016 - 2020.

34. Will the selected firm for the seed project be "conflicted out" of proposing on the eventual drydock construction deliver order?

ANSWER: No.

35. Typical construction contracts with Navfac on Naval facilities always include some level of coordination and involvement of base operations or other "non-Navfac" navy, representing the ultimate customer of the project. Based on the opening comments of Admiral Korka, it sounds like Navsea is going to more involved than that typical scenario. Can you elaborate on Navsea's role in administering the MACC contract?

ANSWER: NAVFAC Pacific will be administering the MACC contract.

36. Regarding the completion of the Price Model sheet, additional instruction was provided during the pre-proposal conference, such as the price model sheet may be altered to fit the Offeror's accounting system, that is not currently stated in the RFP. As that information is definitely helpful as well as critical to an Offeror's proposal submission, kindly consider revising the RFP to provide those instructions or provide that instruction in a Notice response. Thank you!

ANSWER: Instructions provided during the pre-proposal conference reflect the current RFP.

Please refer to note 2 of the price model. See also amendment no. 0001 for revised price model.

37. The 5-year MACC contract period – is this really enough time to cover the full contract duration of both mega-projects (P-209 and P-443) slated to be awarded under this contract? Facilities are anticipated to be fully designed, constructed and delivered by December 1, 2026?

ANSWER: Task orders under the SIOP MACC shall be issued within the 5-year maximum ordering period. Each task order will include a specific delivery or performance schedule, which may exceed 5 years.

38. Factor 2- Experience (a), states that relevant construction projects shall include “Construction of large marine facilities including, dry docks, piers, bulkheads, wharves, quay walls, bridges or water-retaining structures…” Please consider adding “pre-casting large precast units” and “floating into place pre-cast units” to the list of relevant experience.

ANSWER: No change to relevant construction project definition. Follow Document 00202.

39. Factor 2 – Experience (a), states a maximum of 5 relevant construction projects where relevant is defined as “Construction of large marine facilities including …….approximately $100,000,000 or more …..” while Factor 2 Experience (b) states “Projects significantly higher that $100,000,000;…” will be evaluated more favorable. Please clarify if projects meeting the other relevant criteria but under $100,000,000 in value will be considered relevant or if NAVFAC is looking for projects with a minimum value of $100,000,000.

ANSWER: Projects less than $100,000,000 in value will only be considered relevant if they have an approximate value of $100,000,000.

40. Document 00100 para 1.2.d requires an electronic copy of the price and non-price proposals to be submitted on a CD-ROM. Will the Government please consider allowing Offeror’s to submit the electronic files via USB drive or via DoD Safe.

ANSWER: No. Electronic proposals will not be accepted.

41. While the description of a relevant project in the RFP mentions marine facilities that include water-retaining structures, we would like to request if NAVFAC will consider revising the description of a relevant project to any facility types that contain similar water-retaining structures of equitable magnitude and scope. In particular, we would like to inquire if NAVFAC will consider a waste-water treatment plant relevant as described below, as it involved very similar characteristics to the construction of a marine facility. This is especially due to the limited available past projects across the US, much less Hawaii, which are both similar in nature to the upcoming drydock and within the required time frame.

The subject waste-water treatment plant being proposed included massive water-retaining structures with a collective capacity of nearly 22 million gallons. These structures were nearly 30 feet high, in which the majority of the volume was situated below grade, and therefore, extended down past the water table where continuous de-watering measures were required.

These measures included the placement of tremie concrete across most of the underground facility floor, where its widespread footprint expanded over the area of four (4) football fields in comparison, and reached depths of over 44 feet below grade. This extensive excavation also required significant soil retention methods around the entire perimeter, which included the sections beneath the water table. The total soil excavation and removal to accommodate this facility and its underground structures surpassed over 550,000 cubic yards of hard coral, and the total concrete placement exceeded 50,000 cubic yards.

As described above, this waste-water project involved very similar means and methods to a marine project and it especially included nearly identical features to this upcoming drydock. In addition, the total contract value for this facility was approximately $300 million, which also far exceeds the relevant requirement of $100 million. As such, please confirm if NAVFAC would be agreeable to revise the description of a relevant project to “Construction of large marine facilities including, dry docks, piers, bulkheads, wharves, quay walls, bridges or any facilities that include water-retaining structures of similar magnitude and scope approximately $100,000,000 or more and completed or substantially completed within the last fifteen (15) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.”

ANSWER: No change to relevant construction project definition. Follow Document 00202.

“Construction of large marine facilities…” pertains to structures constructed in the sea.

42. Reference RFP section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form.

Per the description of work provided in the RFP, the “main purpose of the SIOP MACC is to award task orders for military construction project P-209, FY23 Dry Dock 3 Replacement at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and P-454 FY24 Dry Dock 3 Replacement at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.” This information was reinforced during the Industry Day presentation, which noted the focus on construction and preconstruction of the two dry dock facilities at Pearl Harbor and Puget Sound. The only vertical building construction noted in the presentation was directly related to the dry docks. These facilities included substations, pumphouses, one restroom building, and a diesel generation plant to support the new dry docks.

It is anticipated that both Naval Shipyards will also have other future building construction needs, including warehouses, shops, administrative facilities directly and indirectly related to these new drydocks. Please confirm that future building construction needs, including warehouses, shops, administrative facilities directly and indirectly related to these new drydocks will be awarded outside of this MACC, and contractors not involved in this SIOP MACC will have the opportunity to compete independently for those awards.

ANSWER: Work under this SIOP MACC may include task orders for construction of waterfront facilities such as warehouses, dry docks, and piers/wharves directly related to the waterfront facilities at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Puget Sound Naval Base and other areas under NAVFAC cognizance.

43. Document 00700.

With the current volatility of construction material prices (steel, lumber, copper, etc.), manufacturers and suppliers are unwilling to commit to holding prices beyond a week. This nationwide problem could greatly impact the amount of risk contingency the contractor and subcontractors will have to carry on a mega contract such as this. FAR 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment -Labor and Material clause offers a fair resolution in these times, protecting both the Contractor and Government from upward or downward price fluctuations. Please consider incorporating FAR 52.216-4 to the RFP solicitation requirements for task orders that are issued as FFP.

ANSWER: Document 00700, Contract Clauses, incorporates FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment – Labor and Material (JAN 2017) and may be incorporated in applicable task orders.

44. Document 00202 (Evaluation Factors for Award), Section 2.2 (Non-Price Evaluation Factors), Factor 3 Past Performance, Paragraph (b).

As this MACC incorporates large marine structures that are infrequently built in the U.S. and Offerors most likely need to utilize international projects to qualify, in lieu of a CPARS, CCASS or the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ, is an Owner’s Evaluation form with similar graded evaluation factors in lieu of a NAVFAC/USACE PPQ acceptable in meeting the Past Performance Criteria evaluation? Specifically, International Government Agency forms (translated to English) in the case where Government Agency representatives for a project have retired or left the agency and are no longer available to complete a new PPQ.

ANSWER: No. Follow Document 00202 past performance submittal requirements.

45. Document 00202 (Evaluation Factors for Award), Section 2.2 (Non-Price Evaluation Factors), Factor 3 Past Performance, Paragraph (b).

If one of the members in a Joint Venture does not have qualifying experience and past performance in large marine facilities, but does bring other equally important value and resources as a member to the JV, will be the JV be evaluated unfavorably? In Document 00202, Factor 3 (b) it states that “Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will …. receive a Neutral rating” however, if MORE relevant projects are put forth by other JV members or Teaming Partners showing significant experience and past performance, will that outweigh the neutral rating?

ANSWER: The RFP does not require each joint venture partner to demonstrate relevant project experience. The neutral rating applies to Factor 3 Past Performance and not Factor 2 Experience.

Failure to demonstrate relevant project experience will be a deficiency.

46. Document 00202 paragraph 2.4 (a) states that the total of the seed project price and price model will be utilized for the price evaluation. Since the Government plans to award P-209 as a FFP or FFP EPA contract, how will the Offeror Rates, which are shown as yellow blanks on the price model form, be used or considered during evaluation and award of future task orders, including the award of P-209?

ANSWER: The evaluation criteria for task orders have not been established yet.

47. Will the performance of preconstruction services by the MACC holders (i.e. the seed project) be considered in the evaluation and award of the task order for construction of P-209? If so, how will their performance be evaluated and how much weight will it carry?

ANSWER: No.

48. Document 00202 paragraph 2.2, Factor 1 indicates that the basis of evaluation is the Offeror’s ability to be considered for bonding for a single project in the amount of $2,000,000,000 and that this factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. Given the short period for responding to this solicitation, and that a longer time period would be needed to modify a prospective contractor’s existing bonding program, would the Government consider accepting letters from corporate sureties for a smaller bonding capacity (e.g. $500,000,000), with the understanding that evidence of bonding capacity of $2,000,000,000 would be required as part of the evaluation and award for the task order for construction of P-209?

ANSWER: No. The RFP will not be revised.

49. Has the Government determined whether P-454 will be part of this MACC program?

Based on the significant differences in geography and the extended timeline, we are concerned that different business arrangements would be beneficial to the government for P-454 versus P-

209. If not awarded a MACC contract under this program, would a prospective contractor be precluded from pursuing P-454?

ANSWER: The main purpose of the SIOP MACC is to award task orders for military construction projects P-209, FY23 Dry Dock 3 Replacement at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and P-454 FY24 Multi-Mission Dry Dock Replacement at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Task orders will be restricted to SIOP MACC awardees.

50. [company name] is one of the largest sureties in the United States. We have multiple contractor clients interested in the Waterfront MACC Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program at Hawaii, Washington and other areas. Section 1.104 FAR 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bonds sections (b) (1) and (b) (2) and Special Contract Requirements Paragraph

1.5 Bid, Performance and Payment Bond for Construction Task Orders both require that the Performance and Payment Bonds be in the amounts of 100% of the contract. Our understanding is that one or more of these task orders may exceed $2 Billion, or even $3 Billion, in contract value. We have participated in writing almost every large project in the US over the last twenty years and we believe the maximum bonding capacity available in the market for a single project is roughly in the $2 Billion range for qualified construction teams. When setting the amounts of the Performance and Payment Bonds for this project, we ask that you exercise your authority under 40 USC 3131. With respect to the Performance Bond, a penal sum equal to the lesser of 100% of the task order or $2 Billion should adequately protect the Government. With respect to the Payment Bond, we ask that you make a written finding that bonds in excess of $2 billion are impractical and also set the payment bond amount at the lesser of 100% of the task order price or $2 Billion.

ANSWER: Bonding requirements will be established when task orders are issued.

51. Reference: Request for Proposal Section 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt.

Due to the extensive size and complex nature of this project, please extend the RFP due date four weeks to provide adequate time to formulate partnerships.

ANSWER: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

52. Will NAVFAC find it acceptable for a MACC qualified contractor to only participate in the Puget Sound Shipyard task order and not participate in the task orders outside of Washington State?

ANSWER: No. MACC holders shall participate on all task orders. See Amendment No. 0001.