24R1321 Note 6.pdf

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

Notice No. 5

Notice No. 6

29 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.

55. Due to tighter cybersecurity controls enforced by CMMC 2.0, specifically Sections 3.8.6,

3.8.7 and 3.8.8 of NIST 800 171 revision 2, the use of external USB storage devices, CD burners, external drives, etc. is prohibited on laptop and desktop computers effective 3 October

2022. To remain compliant with these cybersecurity control measures, please consider electronic submission of proposals via DoD SAFE or PIEE vs. hard copy with a CD ROM.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged. NIST 800-171 does not preclude the use of CD burners but instead requires implementation of technical measures and proper safeguarding of portable storage devices.

56. Will the Government reconsider its requirement for hard copy proposals and instead accept electronic upload to a DoD SAFE or PIEE site?

ANSWER: No, the RFP remains unchanged.

57. Will the Government allow an electronic copy of the proposal to be submitted on the due date with a hard copy to be submitted no later than 5 days following the due date?

58. Document 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers, Paragraph 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of

Receipt, bullet (1) Signed and completed SF 1442 instructs offers to complete the SF 1442 to include the offeror’s name and physical address exactly as shown in the System for Award

Management (SAM) registration. If mailing address is different from physical address, both addresses may be shown in Block 14, however both addresses shall be EXACTLY as shown in

SAM).

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

Question: If the offeror will have a new address listed in Sam.gov due to an office move after the proposal submittal that will require SAM.gov approval and update, and the SAM UEI remains the same, how will this affect the offeror award if the address update is approved after proposal submission? The offeror has no control over how long it will take Sam.gov to approve and update the address, and we are concerned that we may be prevented from meeting a requirement

(legal or otherwise) to make a change in SAM during the offer or award consideration period.

Please confirm that the government will accept an Offeror’s 1442 with the currently registered address on Sam.gov and that this will not penalize or create legal issues at the time of the award.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

59. I would like to know if a Large Chinese Firm can bid on this project?

ANSWER: Firms must be able to meet and comply with all requirements of this solicitation, including FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management (Oct 2018).

60. The RFP requires Offerors to demonstrate relevant construction experience involving new construction or repair of an existing airfield (aircraft runway, taxiway, or apron) Portland

Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement and new construction or repair of an existing wharf. Due to the specialized work and experience required to accomplish such tasks, while Offerors may possess project experience that involved such work, those offerors most likely did not perform such work in-house with their own resources and rather subcontracted that work to specialty subcontractors. As a result, Offerors may choose to rely on the more qualified experience of subcontractors specialized in such type of work.

However, the RFP states “(i)f the Offeror utilizes a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience, the project may not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor, a joint venture partner, or LLC member company, because there is no direct legal relationship between the Government and the subcontractor.” Yet, Block 8 of RFP

Attachment A requires Offerors to respond to “Was item self-performed by Offeror? Yes No

N/A”.

Therefore, we kindly ask that the government consider clarifying that if an Offeror did not perform the work directly related to the new construction or repair of an existing airfield (aircraft runway, taxiway, or apron) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement and new construction or repair of an existing wharf that such experience may also not be given the same level of consideration as an Offeror that did perform the work directly related to the new construction or repair of an existing airfield (aircraft runway, taxiway, or apron) Portland Cement Concrete

(PCC) pavement and new construction or repair of an existing wharf.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

61. Would the Government please consider allowing for 2 additional design projects, bringing the total to 4 design projects, and expanding the design relevancy criteria to give “more favorable consideration” to offerors that also include wharf/piers design projects.

62. Because no pricing is required in Phase One, will the Government please consider allowing for electronic submittal of Phase One proposals using the DOD SAFE system to be followed by hard copies with wet ink signatures within 5 business days of receipt of electronic submissions?

63. Would the USG please consider extending the proposal submission due date by 30 days?

64. On this solicitation. Can we submit a bid only for Cost Documentation? Meaning only for

Cost Task Orders?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 73 00, 1.33 General, paragraph g. Also, please refer to RFP, Document 00 21 16, 1.8 Cost Documentation for information required to be eligible to compete on cost task orders.

65. Are offerors permitted to limit their availability under the contracts that may eventuate to a single country? Our business operations are limited to Papua New Guinea, but I’m certain that our services would be much better value than those of an international contractor for any projects here. We will be tendering for projects at Lombrum directly in any case, and have long experience working these.

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 73 00, 1.33 General, paragraph g. Also, please refer to Amendment 0001, Section 00 10 00, Block 10 Continued for the Description of Work.

66. For Attachment A Construction Experience Project Data Sheet, there is no box for Design

Project type and cost data. This is typically Box 8 and it normally contains items like A/E Design

Fee, Total Construction Value and Type of Contract/Task Order (DB, RFP Development, DoR, etc.).

In the absence of this box/field, it is possible that offerors will not know to provide the cost and type data associated with the design projects. Will the Government please consider revising this form -or- alternatively, confirm that the present version of Attachment A is acceptable and that the design type/cost data is not required?

67. Due to this being Phase One and near FYE with hard copies required, will the Government please consider extending the due date by two weeks to September 25, 2024?

68. Regarding the specific construction experience requirements, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date for six (6) weeks, from September 11, 2024, to October 23, 2024. The extension of time is requested to facilitate the creation of new JV and SAM.GOV registration that will fully comply with RFP requirements.

69. 1.2 Number of Copies/Times of Receipt

(1) Signed and completed SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award)

The RFP requires the SF 1442 to be manually (wet signature) signed and completed. We are planning to submit a proposal as a Joint Venture consisting of four (4) partnering firms. In

Blocks 30 A—30C of the SF 1442, there is only room for one individual to sign this form. In the case of a Joint Venture, can you provide some guidance on how each firm can sign the SF 1442?

ANSWER: If all names/titles and signatures cannot fit in blocks 20A and 20B, respectively, it would be acceptable to use multiple SF1442 page 2. Please ensure requirements of RFP, Document 00 21 16, paragraphs 1.2 and 1.7 are met.

70. RFP Document 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers 1.9 FAR 52-204-7, System For Award

Management (Oct 2018) (b) (1) specifies “Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and shall continue to be registered until time of award.” Our team is registering a newly formed joint venture in the SAM, but we have concerns that we may not complete the registration process for newly formed joint venture and get “Active” status in

SAM before the submission of the bid. We’ve learned that UEI will be assigned quickly, but the validation of TIN and CAGE Code assignment will take more than a month. Would the

Government allow Offeror to submit CAGE code after the Phase 1 proposal submission, but before the award?

ANSWER: Please refer to FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management (OCT 2018), paragraphs (b)(1) and (d).

71. For planning purposes, please confirm if the September 11, 2024 submission date for the

N62742-24-R-1321 PDI MACC RFP will remain unchanged.

72. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 10 of 121, para 11, 1.8 Cost Documentation

Would the Government please clarify whether the information listed in section 1.8 Cost

Documentation is to be submitted with Offeror's Phase 1 proposals or at some later date? If this information is required as part of Phase 1 proposals, where should this information be located in the organization of the proposal?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 21 16, Paragraph 1.8.

73. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, para 6

RFP asks Offeror's to provide projects that demonstrate "New construction or repair of an existing wharf approximately $30 million or more in dollar value. " Could the Government please define “wharf” as used in the RFP, and provide an example of a broad definition, such as

“any structure built along the shore for docking, loading, or unloading ships”? Additionally, please allow sufficient time for Offerors to adjust their proposals based on this definition.

74. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, para 6

"More favorable consideration may be given to relevant DESIGN projects...included structures containing long spans and column-free areas, approximately 90 meters or more in width. "

Would the Government please confirm that the definition of "approximately" is a variance of

10%?

75. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, Attachment A

Could the Government kindly provide Attachment A in an editable Word format? The current

PDF format is cumbersome and time-consuming to export and adjust, often resulting in formatting issues that may hinder effective Government review.

76. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, Attachment A

Attachment A block 9 asks "Did the project include structure containing long spans and column-free areas, approaching or exceeding 90 meters in width?". Would the Government please update this language to match the evaluation criteria which states "approximately 90 meters or more in width."?

77. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 105 of 121, para 7

Could the Government please confirm that provision 1.12 Proposal Preparation Costs, applies solely to initial proposals and does not extend to the preparation of proposals for modifications requested under a Government RFP for individual Task Orders?

78. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, Attachment A

Attachment A block 10 requests a description of "any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications". As sustainable features and LEED certification are not listed in the evaluation criteria, would the Government please remove this language from Attachment A or advise how this information will be used for evaluation purposes?

79. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 34 of 121, para 9, Factor 4 - Past Performance

The RFP currently states that "PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration." Would the

Government please confirm that for projects performed for private customers, a representative of that private organization will be acceptable?

80. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1

We kindly request that the Government consider granting an additional week after final changes to the RFP. This extension would enable Offerors to meet the requirements for wet signatures and the production and shipping of hard copies.

81. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1

Would the Government please allow for graphics to be less than 10 point font, so long as they are legible?

ANSWER: Adhere to all page limitations and formatting, including font size, when specified in the non-price evaluation factors.

82. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 7 of 121, para 3

RFP states "Phase 1 submission for Factors 1 through 4 shall be submitted...in a sealed envelope...". Given the size of production required by this submittal, would the Government please confirm that a box is acceptable in lieu of an envelope?

ANSWER: Yes, a box is acceptable.

83. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 22 of 121, para 3

RFP states that "(a) Proposals must be (1) submitted on the forms furnished by the Government or on copies of those forms, and (2) manually signed." Would the Government please confirm that the only form that must have a manual wet signature is the SF1442?

84. Ref RFPN6274224R1321_PH1, PDF page 34 of 121, para 9

The RFP states that "If a completed CPARS or AE contractor Appraisal Support System

(ACASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 3 for Design Experience." Unfortunately, designers who performed as subcontractors under a Design-Build contract are not privy to the CPARS that the Prime receives from the Government. Would the Government please amend this language to clarify that

Designers may provide PPQs from the client to establish Past Performance on a Design-Build contract?

ANSWER: Please refer to RFP, Document 00 22 00, Part II, 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 4, (a)

Solicitation Submittal Requirements.

85. Please reference the subject RFP, Document 00 21 16, Part 1.2, a., (1), para. 2 which reads in part as follows …” The proposal and each bond (Phase II) or other document submitted by or on behalf of the joint venture shall be executed by each joint venture partner…”.

Issue Statement: The space provided for Offeror signatures on the SF1442 Blocks 20 A—20C does not include space adequate to accommodate the execution of the proposal by multiple joint venture partners.

Question: To comply with the requirement that a proposal submitted by a joint venture shall be executed by each joint venture partner, (a) should the Joint Venture Managing Party execute the

SF1442 in the original Block 20A – 20C spaces provided, to include the title and joint venture partner firm name, and (b) should the Offeror also include an SF1442 “Continuation Page” to provide additional SF1442 Block 20A – 20C spaces to accommodate execution of the proposal by each additional joint venture partner firm?

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 69.

End of Notice