24R1308 Note 1.pdf

Notice No. 1 20 March 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1308

FY23 MCON P-923 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON, FY25 MCON P-941 MAINTENANCE

SUPPORT FACILITY, AND FY25 MCON P-949 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR,

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, DARWIN, AUSTRALIA

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. Based upon the information below and having retested the market given the imminent RFP release, we have not been able to secure a vertical builder able to provide a fixed price per the typical RFP criteria for possible award within 365 days after award of the apron.

If this proves correct for other bidders that P923 is the only priced project, will NAVFAC be able to award only P923? Guidance on this will allow industry to decide to even pursue P923.

ANSWER: As stated in the RFP, SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (SF1442), Note 4, “A firm-fixed-price is required for all line items. The following NAVFAC language applies:

ALL OR NONE OFFERS - Offers are solicited on an “all or none” basis and FAR 52.215-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION in Document 00 21 16, is hereby modified. Failure to submit offers for all line items listed shall be cause for rejection of the offer.”

2. Design Model - Will NAVFAC provide the design 12d native models from the designers to allow accurate volume checks of earthworks and pavements?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

3. Design Drawings - drawing description errors - missing letters in words and doesn’t make sense. Tables are missing numbers. Is this a download issue? Examples are P-923 volume 1 - drawings CP101 to CP130 and P-923 drawing MF – 0? details the widths of the fire water tanks but the table is missing numbers – i.e. don’t know the width of the tanks. Request to have them reissued to avoid any confusions.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

ANSWER: Drawings will be revised to correct errors. Amendment forthcoming.

4. RFP, Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: Would the Government reconsider its request for hard copy proposals and instead allow for electronic proposals to be submitted via the DoD SAFE site or via email to reduce bidder paperwork burden? This has been the common practice for proposals submitted to the DoD since the onset of COVID in March of 2020

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.

5. RFP, Section 00 21 16, Paragraph 1.1.d: Would the Government reconsider its request for a copy of the proposal on CD-ROM to eliminate dated media storage? Or allow bidders to provide a CD-ROM within 5 calendar days following the bid due date to allow bidders production time after finalizing pricing which will provide the Navy with the most up to date and competitive pricing?

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.

6. RFP, Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2(a) Factor 1 – Experience, Notes 2: Request the GOVT amend the definition of “substantially complete” to mean “at least 50% physically complete,” which will allow the bidders the opportunity to assess our most recent and relevant experience for this project.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.

7. Standard Form 1442, Item 13.D: The GOVT requests that proposals be valid for 150 calendar days. Would the Government reconsider this length of time and opt for a 90-day validity? This reduction in bid validity has potential to save the Government a significant amount of money, as contractors will reduce contingency monies to cover currency fluctuations.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.

8. RFP, Document 00 21 16, Section 1.3: Please confirm that the last day the Government will entertain questions, the 10th business day before the proposal receipt due date, is 03 April 2024.

ANSWER: In accordance with the RFP, Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.3, “The Government may not respond to questions submitted less than 10 business days before the proposal receipt due date.”

9. General: Construction material costs have increased significantly in recent times, and the construction material market continues to be volatile and unpredictable. It is anticipated that construction material costs will continue to increase into the foreseeable future; however, it is not possible to predict how much prices will increase by the time the contract is awarded and work starts. Under the current market conditions, subcontractors and vendors are hesitant to commit to holding their prices at currently reasonable rates for the extraordinarily long 150-day bid validity period. To protect both the Government and the Contractor, would the Government consider incorporating FAR 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material or a substantially similar and suitable price adjustment clause into the solicitation for inclusion into the resulting contract? This will allow for an adjustment to the FFP in the event of significant and unpredictable material costs fluctuation during the term of the contract. Inclusion of this clause will protect and benefit the Government, as offered prices will not need to account for contingencies associated with the elevated risk of unknown future material cost escalations for the extended 150-day bid validity period.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.

10. RFP, Document 00 45 00, Section 1.2: A red asterisk (*) is placed at the end of the section header and occurs in 26 locations in the document. Will the Government please clarify what these asterisks represent?

ANSWER: Red asterik (*) will be removed in a forthcoming amendment.

11. RFP, Document 00 70 00, Section 1.60 Bid Guarantee: If awarded the contract, we are considering providing an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC) from our Bank that would comply with FAR 52.228-14 as our performance guarantee. Would a Letter of Assurance (LOA) from our Bank, be acceptable as the bid guarantee with the proposal (this is the equivalent of a bid bond)?

ANSWER: In accordance with RFP Doc 00 70 00, contractor is required to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, and on the date of award of this contract, the successful offeror shall furnish performance and payment bonds. If the offeror intends to use an ILC in lieu of a bid bond, or to secure other types of bonds such as performance and payment bonds, it must comply with the requirements of FAR 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit and must be in the format prescribed in paragraphs (e) through (f). If the LOA does not comply with FAR 52.228-14, it will not be accepted as an alternative to the bid or performance and payment bonds. Please note, only federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade by a commercial rating service shall issue or confirm the ILC.

12. RFP, Document 00 70 00, Section 1.60 Bid Guarantee: If an Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) and uses a Letter of Assurance (LOA) as the bid guarantee and either Irrevocable Letters of Credit or Performance Guarantee Letters for performance guarantees, would multiple LOAs (provided on behalf of each member of the LLC) be acceptable, assuming each LOA complies with the requirements of FAR 52.228-14 and the sum of the LOAs, when added together, meet the minimum dollar required dollar amounts?

ANSWER: See response to Question 11.

13. General: We are normally required to acknowledge receipt of amendments on the SF 1442. Are we required to also acknowledge receipt of Notices issued?

ANSWER: No, notices are provided for information only.

14. RFP, Document 00 70 00, Page 8 of 21, 1.68 FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS—CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020) (DEVIATION 2020-O0016): This section provides an option for the offeror to provide an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC) under “(d) Surety or other security for bonds.” However, the Government did not specify a percent (normally 10% of the contract awarded amount). Please specify this percentage amount if the contractor wishes to use the ILOC “other security” option.

ANSWER: Reference RFP Document 00 70 00, FAR 52.228-15, which states under paragraph

(b) Amount of required bonds “shall be 100 percent of the original contract price.” Submitting an alternative type of security does not change the amount required.

15. RFP, Document 00 22 00, Page 4 of 7, Factor 2 – Safety, Paragraph (a): This paragraph requires “separate OSHA300 logs, OSHA Form 300A, TRC and DART rate” information for each partner/member. Please confirm a partner or JV member firm that is not a US company subject to OSHA reporting is exempt from submitting the requested OSHA 300 logs and OSHA Form 300As. Please also confirm DART rates and TRC rates are required for all US and non-US firms, as instructions for calculating these rates are provided in the RFP.

ANSWER: Confirmed, OSHA 300 and 300A logs are not required for non-US companies. RFP Document 00 22 00 states, “TRC and DART Rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member…” Further, “If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has TRC and/or DART rates, then TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member).”

16. RFP, Document 00 70 00, Page 8 of 21, 1.68 FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS—CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020) (DEVIATION 2020-O0016): We have seen other DoD contracts where the GOVT has accepted Performance Guarantees in lieu of P&P bonds. In such circumstances, the GOVT has stated that: “The Performance Guarantee shall be an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the contract and shall be deposited into a banking institution, as acceptable to the CO, which will then issue an irrevocable letter guaranteeing (the “Performance Guarantee Letter”) the payment of the amount deposited to the US GOVT, upon demand by the CO. Demand may be made if the Contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill its undertaking in whole or in part. Payment to the CO will be by check made payable to the "United States of America…”.

The Performance Guarantee shall take effect upon the date of signature of the Performance Guarantee Letter and shall remain valid and irrevocable until 1 year after the work has been finally inspected and accepted by GOVT. The Performance Guarantee Letter shall be accompanied by a notarized document authenticating the financial institution's authority to sign the letter… Upon acceptance of all work by GOVT; however, Contractor may, with the approval of the CO, replace this guarantee with a reduced guarantee in the amount of four percent (4%) of the then existing [contract] price, with modifications, if any. Such replacement guarantee will then remain in effect for one (1) year after the final acceptance of the work by the GOVT.”

Would the GOVT accept a 10% Performance Guarantee, with a notarized Performance Guarantee Letter, similar to the one described herein, in lieu of P&P bonds?

ANSWER: No, as previously stated, in accordance with the FAR 52.228-15, paragraph (d), “The bonds shall be in the form of firm commitment, supported by corporate sureties whose names appear on the list contained in Treasury Department Circular 570, individual sureties, or by other acceptable security such as postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, in accordance with Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.” And as such, shall be 100 percent of the original contract price. No other types of alternative security will be accepted in lieu of bid or performance and payment bonds.

17. We refer to the three projects that are the subject of the above RFP and the nominated closing date being 18th April 2024. We respectfully request this be significantly extended to allow our team to compile a comprehensive offer that ultimately provides Government with the best value offer along with an increased degree of confidence that the scope is fully understood and captured in the bid. We do not believe at this time that we can achieve the above in the time allocated due to the following reasons:

• Many of the drawings have incomplete or inconsistent details and we are compiling a comprehensive set of RFI’s to address these over the next week.

• The scope across the three projects is complex and multidisciplinary and no Bill of Quantities or 3D models have been provided. This necessitates a full quantity take-off for the whole of the scope before we can productively engage the supply chain.

• Key subcontractors and suppliers across the Northern Territory of Australia have indicated they will be unlikely to provide input pricing in the time available. This is exacerbated by the non-working days captured in the period for the Easter and Anzac Day long weekends.

• The specifications are not business as usual for Australian industry and it will take time to get the Australian supply chain to understand and give compliant offers.

• While we understand the time imperative for the project, additional time would allow more detailed assessment of all project elements negating the need for adding significant risk/contingency amounts to the pricing.

A four week extension to the closing date from 18th April 2024 to 16th May is requested and we trust you understand our reasoning and give our request due consideration.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

End of Notice