24R1321 Note 1.pdf

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

Notice No. 1

22 July 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, INDO-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. According to the Full and open requirement, could you please consider specifically allocating some portion as a Small Business set-aside for this opportunity? Could you please lower the single bond capacity requirement? Additionally, could you please lower the past performance requirement to $20 million?

ANSWER: The procurement remains as Unrestricted. The single bond capacity and past performance requirements remain unchanged.

2. Document 00 22 00, Factor 3 Construction Experience "Relevant projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within 15 years of the date of issuance of this RFP."

We respectfully request that NAVFAC consider extending this period from 15 years to 20 years.

Allowing for an additional five years of experience will enable us to present a broader and more comprehensive porfolio of relevant construction projects.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

3. Given the mission critical requirements for the PDI, it seems it would be in the government's interest to require an Offeror to have a SECRET clearance due to the sensitivities of the envisioned projects. Recommendation: Will the government consider addressing the national security issues associated with this contract and requiring Offerors to have at a minimum a SECRET FCL as part of the evaluation criteria?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

4. Similar to the NAVFAC Pacific SIOP MACC, RFP N62742-21-R-1345, which has mission critical projects under the SIOP IDIQ MACC. NAVFAC designed the SIOP RFP to make certain the government selected companies which can actually bond at the scale of the projects, when task orders are released. Thereby ensuring contract awards are made to responsible firms who can meet NAVFAC urgency and not waste a contract seat to an awardee unable to bond larger projects. This $15B PDI MACC, RFP N6274224-R1321, we understand will be the primary contract to execute larger PDI mission critical projects throughout the remote and vast geography of the Indo Pacific. The solicitation states task orders could be $2 billion or more. Recommendation: It seems logical for NAVFAC to require similar or the identical bonding language in the SIOP RFP by having the contractors demonstrate they can obtain a $2 billion single project bond. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit one of the four required RFP construction projects for Factor 3, Construction Experience, where a bond was required. The Offeror should demonstrate a project where the value was over $500 million, and provided a bond, as this reduces the government risk.

SIOP Bonding Language. Factor 1 - Bonding Capacity: (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a letter(s) from a corporate surety(ies) listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570 "Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies" indicating the Offeror's single project bonding capacity in the amount of $2,000,000,000 or more. If the single project bonding capacity is subject to an aggregate uncompleted backlog, indicate the Offeror's current aggregate uncompleted backlog and current available bonding capacity. (b) Basis of Evaluation: 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. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity. The RFP remains unchanged.

5. The definition of relevant projects for construction experience is restrictive. These relevant projects should demonstrate Offerors' ability to execute $1B plus projects that include diverse types of scope that the Government may require under this MACC. Would the Government consider expanding definition of relevant construction projects? (Paragraph 2.2, Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF page 32-33)

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

6. Can a contractor submit projects where they performed as a general contractor and subcontracted construction tasks for relevant experience and past performance? (Paragraph 2.2, Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF page 32-33)

ANSWER: Response deferred.

7. The RFP specifies that past experience must include projects that require Portland Cement Concrete greater than 20,000 square meters in area and 300 mm in depth. Contractors may have met this requirement on projects other than airfields. Would the Government consider accepting as relevant experience projects where the contractor delivered concrete features that meet the requirements of Construction Experience (a) if the project was for uses cases other than airfield (Paragraph 2.2, Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF page 32-33)

ANSWER: No. The RFP remains unchanged.

8. Similar to the definition of airfield construction experience, can the Government please provide additional definition of what qualifies as a “wharf” for relevant experience? Are there specific features the Government defines as constituting a wharf? Note that there are many types of marine structures (e.g., quays, piers, docks, etc.) that are substantially similar to wharves in the nature of their construction, and it is not clear which features a structure must have to be considered relevant. (Document 00 22 00 Paragraph 2.2 Factor 3, PDF Page 32)

ANSWER: Response deferred.

9. Can a contractor submit projects where they performed as a delivery partner? The delivery partner performs program management services on behalf of the client. The delivery partner directs the work as the customer’s or Government’s agent but does not self-perform the work as prime contractor or through use of a subcontractor. (Paragraph 2.2, Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF page 32-33)

ANSWER: No. The RFP remains unchanged.

10. Can a contractor submit as relevant experience projects where the performing entity was an LLC, in which the offeror is a member? What are the requirements for using past performance from an LLC?

Please note that as is the norm in our industry (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction), the projects are typically bid on and executed by special purpose entities involving several companies. This requirement is sometimes mandated by the Government.

Our concern is that such projects are excluded from being submitted by an Offeror. We simply want to document our experience relevant to PDI MACC.

(Paragraph 2.2. Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF pages 32-33)

11. Can an Offeror submit as relevant experience and past performance design projects where the design work was performed by the Offeror through an entity that is located outside of the United States, provided the other requirements for including the performing entity as part of the Offeror’s team are met? (Paragraph 2.2. Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 3, PDF pages 32- 33)

ANSWER: For relevant design experience, please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 3, (2) Design Experience.

12. Section 8 of Attachment A to document 00 22 00 includes a question “Was item self-performed by Offeror?” The project requirements in this document do not specify that a project must have been self-performed. Can the Government please clarify how the response to this question will be used in evaluating project experience?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

13. What forms of documentation are acceptable evidence of financial resources per paragraph

1.6 of the RFP for private companies that do not publish audited financial statements?

Would the Government accept a “General Facts” letter from our auditor after they reviewed our consolidated financial statements and offer a favorable opinion? This letter details our balance sheet and annual revenue with an assertion that operations are positive.

(Paragraph 1.6 Preaward Survey/Responsibility Determination, PDF Pages 8-9)

ANSWER: As specified in RFP, Document 00 21 16, Paragraph 1.2, please provide the information required by paragraph 1.6, Pre-Award Survey/Responsibility Determination.

14. The RFP mentions that HUBZone small business will be given preference in pricing evaluation, however, there is no small business requirement for this MACC. Does the reference to FAR 52.219-4 mean that offerors are encouraged to have such companies on their team and that teams with a HUBZone small business will be given evaluation preference? (Document 00 45 00 paragraph 1.9, PDF page 57)

ANSWER: Please refer to FAR 52.219-4, Paragraph (a)(1).

15. Can the Government allow additional time for JVs to be registered in SAM by requiring the SAM registration during Phase 2 instead of Phase 1? (Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.9(b)(1), PDF Page 13).

ANSWER: Please refer to FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management (OCT 2018).

16. Attachment A, Block 10 asks for sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications if any. Will the lack of such features or certifications result in a lower evaluation of the experience?

(Attachment A, Block 10, PDF page 40)

ANSWER: No, please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 3, (b) Basis of Evaluation

17. Would the Government consider extending the time to notify the Government of intent to no-bid on a Task Order to be longer than 3 days? It often takes longer than this for contractors to review a solicitation to make a bid decision. (Paragraph 1.33g, PDF Page 110)

ANSWER: Response deferred.

18. Does the statement that “Task orders issued for construction projects shall be FFP and shall not be Cost in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3323 and DFARS 216.301-3” refer only to projects funded as “Military Construction (MILCON)” where the requirements of 10 USC 3323 apply?

Could projects funded using RDT&E or O&M be Cost even if the nature of the work is similar to construction? (Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.16, PDF page 18-19)

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 73 00, Paragraph 1.35 Requirement for Proposals.

19. The RFP includes DFARS clause 252.216-7008 for Economic Price Adjustment controlled by a foreign government, but does not include other Economic Price Adjustment clauses such as FAR 52.216-4. Is the Government’s intent to include Economic Price Adjustment clauses on fixed-price task orders issued under this MACC? Will FAR 52.216-4 be considered for use on future task orders? (Document 00 45 00, Paragraph 1.29d)(1)(ii), PDF Page 49)

ANSWER: This clause may be incorporated in task orders, if applicable.

20. As the requirement in Factor 1 (a) is for the Offeror to successfully complete three task orders concurrently, would the Government provide additional details regarding anticipated task orders? (Paragraph 2.2 Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Factor 1, PDF Page 31).

ANSWER: Response deferred.

21. Will this MACC and all task orders under this MACC be DO-C2 rated? (Document 00 21 16, Paragraph 1.12 PDF Page 15)

ANSWER: DPAS ratings will be specified in each task order.

22. Since task orders may be performed outside of US territories, will “Buy American” provisions apply to such task orders? (Document 00 21 16 Paragraph 1.21, PDF Page 20-21).

ANSWER: Response deferred.

23. RFPN6274224R1321_PH1.pdf, SF Form 1442. The solicitation description only states that this project’s task order will be in various locations in the Indo-Pacific and no specific country is mentioned anywhere in the RFP. The Indo-Pacific is a huge region, can you please identify which countries you anticipate issuing task order and by what percentage.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

24. RFPN6274224R1321_PH1.pdf, DOCUMENT 00 22 00 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 3 Basis of Evaluation. In the evaluation, to be considered as remote, project has to be in example countries such as Diego Garcia, Wake Island, Tinian, Saipan, Papa New Guinea, and Federated States of Micronesia. Guam and Hawaii are not to be considered remote.

Question: Indo-Pacific is very huge region, does a project in the Philippines or any other countries within the Indo-Pacific can be considered remote?

ANSWER: Please refer to definition of remote location in RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 3, (b) Basis of Evaluation.

25. RFPN6274224R1321_PH1.pdf, DOCUMENT 00 22 00 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 3 Construction Experience states that “New construction or repair of an existing airfield (aircraft runway, taxiway, or apron) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement of at least 20,000 square meters with a minimum concrete thickness of 300 mm. Flexible pavement construction will not be considered.” Question: Can the Govt consider removing the

“at least 20,000 square meters with a minimum concrete thickness of 300 mm” requirement?

Airfield projects of this size is very rare which will limit competition.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

26. RFPN6274224R1321_PH1.pdf, DOCUMENT 00 22 00 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Factor 3 Construction Experience states that to be rated more favorably the project should be “had a magnitude of approximately $100 million or more in dollar value.” Question:

Can the Govt consider removing this criteria because it will limit competition. Project type requested in Factor 3 like construction of airfield and pier usually don’t reach this magnitude.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

27. In the Presolicitation released on SAM.gov 02 May 24 7.37am HST it stated in the Description that the PDI MACC anticipated projects to occur in the following geographic regions:

a. Australia – Cocos Islands, Australia - Papua New Guinea, Australia - Timor Leste, Australia – Bandiana, Micronesia – Palau, Micronesia – Federated States of Micronesia, Micronesia – Rota, CNMI – Tinian, Philippines, U.S. Pacific – Midway, U.S. Pacific – Wake Island, and other areas under NAVFAC Pacific cognizance.

b. In RFP N62742-24-R-1321 there is no mention of geographic locations for projects to occur.

c. Can NAVFAC PAC please clarify if the intent for projects is to occur in the regions mentioned in the Presolicitation, or that there is no specific region, just the general Pacific Ocean region?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

28. Can NAVFAC PAC please confirm that the FAR’s in the Terms and Conditions of the PDI MACC on pages 45 of the document through to page 111 are the ones that will be used in Task Orders, if applicable? There will be no further additions of FARs and DFARs for the Task Orders, outside of what has been stipulated on the PDI MACC RFP?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 73 00, Paragraph 1.35 Requirement for Proposals.

29. Can NAVFAC PAC please confirm if the term “Warranty” replaces the term of “Defects Liability Period (DLP)”? If not, is there a standing timeframe for a Defects Liability Period or is it Task Order dependent?

30. Can NAVFAC PAC please clarify the requirements for Performance Bonds and Payment Bonds, does a company need to provide a Performance Bond at 100% of the contract value PLUS a Payment Bond at 100% of the contract value? Therefore being 2 separate Bonds at 100% of the value each? Can you please provide the specific Clause and writing for this requirement for complete understanding and clarity?

ANSWER: Please refer to FAR 52.225-15, Performance and Payment Bonds—Construction

31. DOCUMENT 00 22 00, Page 4 of 10, (2) Design Experience: Please clarify if the $20 million dollar value is for:

(a) Is the design scope only, or

(b) the value of the full value of the project (design & construction)?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

32. Document 00 22 00, Part II. Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award, 2.2:

Will the Government allow a cover page, table of contents, acronym list, and section dividers?

And if so, respectfully request they are excluded from the page count.

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 21 16, 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt.

Adhere to all page limitations and formatting when specified in the non-price evaluation factors.

33. Document 00 21 16, 1.2 (a), Number of Copies/Time of Receipt:

Are requirements 1-5 (SF 1442; Representations and Certifications; Pre-Award Survey/Responsibility Determination; Partnerships, Joint Ventures (JV), Limited Liability Companies (LLC), Limited Partnerships (LP), Etc.; and Cost Documentation) excluded from the page count?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 21 16, 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt.

34. Document 00 22 00, Part II. Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award, 2.2, Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity:

Is Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity excluded from the page count? Also, what are the formatting requirements (e.g., font, size, margins) for the bonding capacity letter?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity.

35. Document 00 22 00, Factor 3 - Experience [Part II, 2.2 (2), (b)]:

Regarding the Basis of Evaluation for Designs, the RFP states more favorable consideration will be given to “structures containing long spans and column-free areas, approximately 90 meters or more in width.” Does the structure need to be 90 meters in width, or the open span 90 meters in clear space? If it is the open span that must be 90 meters, and as a long span is considered to be over 50 meters, would the Government consider changing the width to 55 meters?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

36. Per Document 00 73 00, there will be a site visit and partnering. Will the Contractor be required to bear that cost or will it be reimbursed by the Government?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 73 00, paragraphs 1.12 and 1.22.

37. Per Document 00 73 00, schedule requirements, can schedules be provided in Primavera?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

38. Document 00 22 00, Factor 3 - Experience [Part II, 2.2 (1), (2)]:

For Factor 3 - Experience, both Construction and Design Experience, a fully executed teaming agreement is required if using experience and past performance information of an entity other than the Offeror. Are teaming agreements excluded from the page count?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 3 - Experience.

End of Notice