24R1321 Note 3.pdf

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

Notice No. 3

6 August 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.

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: Yes, but please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, Phase-One, Factor 3, (b) Basis of Evaluation.

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: 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.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

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

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, Phase-One, Factor 3, Solicitation Submittal Requirements, (1) Construction Experience, Notes, Paragraph 5.

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: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, Phase-One, Factor 3, Solicitation Submittal Requirements, (1) Construction Experience, Notes, Paragraph 5, and (b) Basis of Evaluation.

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: List of anticipated contracting opportunities are located at:

https://pacific.navfac.navy.mil/About-Us/Industry-Contracting-Opportunities/

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?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 70 00, FAR 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction (MAR 1994), and its Alternate I (APR 1984), when applicable.

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: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, Phase-One, Factor 3, Solicitation Submittal Requirements, (2) Design Experience. The amount refers to the construction value.

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: The RFP remains unchanged.

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

ANSWER: Yes, unless otherwise specified in task order RFPs.

39. The following question, #35 was posted on Note 1, July 23, 2024. 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?

NAVFAC’s response to question 35 was deferred. NAVFAC has broadcast and sought industry input on the types of projects as early as the May 25, 2023, Sources Sought Questionnaire, which was due June 28, 2023, (>30-Day response time) with no page limitations, so industry can make their concerns know about any aspect of the scope and magnitude of the upcoming PDI MACC.

Nearly one year later from the Sources Sought, NAVFAC on May 2, 2024, published a Presolicitation with the identical criteria that appeared in the final RFP “Included structures containing long spans and column-free areas, approximately 90 meters or more in width”. On June 25, 2024, NAVFAC released the final RFP also with identical language in the Presolicitation. We are now three months after the published May 2 Presolicitation. There was ample time for industry to comment on these technical criteria. In the meantime, industry have been focused on meeting NAVFAC criteria. Possibly reducing the requirement to 55 meters from 90 meters, is concerning for firms who prepared, planned and are ready to submit qualifying projects.

We request that NAVFAC continue to use “More favorable consideration may be given to relevant DESIGN projects:” which states, “Included structures containing long spans and column-free areas, approximately 90 meters or more in width,” as detailed in the RFP pdf page 34 of 110.

ANSWER: See response to Question 35.

41. Factor 3- Experience (1) Construction Experience, Note 5 states the following: The “Offeror” is defined 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), the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement.

This requirement appears to be focused on separate corporate entities with separate CEOs and does not address a “family” of entities under a single corporate structure and CEO.

The response to this question will be a factor in our decision to propose on this opportunity.

Is it the Government’s intent that note 5 applies to a “family” of entities under a single corporate structure and CEO?

ANSWER: As stated in Note 5, it applies to when “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).”

42. Factor 3- Experience (1) Construction Experience, Note 5 states the following: The “Offeror” is defined 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), the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement.

Factor 3- Experience (2) Design Experience, Note 3 states the following: Provide a fully executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement between the Offeror and the designer-of-record(s) DOR), if the DOR(s) is not the Offeror.

Would the USG consider allowing an organizational map demonstrating the relationship of the bidding entity and the experience/performance providing entities to the parent corporation to meet this requirement?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged. An organizational map will not meet the requirement to provide a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement.

44. PWS Paragraph 1.16 FAR 52.216-1, TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984) states: The Government contemplates awarding indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple award construction contracts (MACC) with the capability to issue firm-fixed price (FFP) and cost reimbursement (Cost) Task Orders.

The current appears to have associated payment clauses typical of FFP contracts. However, there are certain cost reimbursable contract clauses we recommend including. Would the USG include FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment for Cost Reimbursable Task Orders?

ANSWER: Any clauses applicable to cost-reimbursement contracts will be included in the task order RFP.

45. PWS Paragraph 1.30 FAR 52.211-12, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES—CONSTRUCTION

(SEP 2000)

Contract does not establish limits of liability. The creates a significant risk factor and becomes a major decision factor when deciding to submit a proposal.

Would the USG include the following limit of liability clauses, or confirm these clauses will be included at the task order level?

52.246-23 Limitation of Liability 52.246-24 Limitation of Liability-High-Value Items 52.246-25 Limitation of Liability-Services

ANSWER: As prescribed in FAR 46.801, this subpart and the associated clauses are not applicable to Construction.

46. Reference Q&A, #32. RFP, Document 00 21 16, 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt, does not specify whether a cover page, table of contents, acronym list, and section dividers are allowed and excluded from the page count. This is a compliance concern. Respectfully request clarification.

ANSWER: The RFP does not forbid inclusion of a cover page, table of contents, acronym list, and section dividers; nor does it specify an overall page count, but where specified adhere to page limitations and formatting requirements in the non-price evaluation factors.

47. Reference Q&A, #33. RFP, Document 00 21 16, 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt, does not specify whether 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) are excluded from the page count. This is a compliance concern. Respectfully request clarification.

ANSWER: The RFP does not specify an overall page count, but where specified adhere to page limitations and formatting requirements in the non-price evaluation factors.

48. Reference Q&A, #34. RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity, does not specify whether Factor 2 - Bonding Capacity is excluded from the page count or what the formatting requirements are. This is a compliance concern. Respectfully request clarification.

ANSWER: There are no restrictions on the page count or formatting for Factor 2.

49. Reference Q&A, #38. RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 3 - Experience, does not specify whether teaming agreements are excluded from the page count. It only specifies the page limit and format for Attachment A. This is a compliance concern.

Respectfully request clarification on the teaming agreement page limit.

ANSWER: The page limit is for Attachment A only and does not include any teaming agreement or other contractual agreement.

End of Notice