24R1321 Note 7.pdf

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

Notice No. 7

Notice No. 7 4 September 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

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.

REVISED RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO. 3 DATED 6 AUGUST 2024

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: Please see Amendment 0002, which revises Document 00 22 00, Part II, Phase-One, Factor 3, Solicitation Submittal Requirements, (1) Construction Experience, paragraph b.

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 see Amendment 0002, which removes the question "Was item self-performed by Offeror?" in Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Block 8.

NOTICE NO. 7

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

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: Please see revised response to Question 12, included in this notice.

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

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0002, which revises the proposal due date in Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.2 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt.

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?

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0002, which revises Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Block 9.

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?

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

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.

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

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.

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

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.

ANSWER: Please see revised response to Question 8, included in this notice.

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%?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged. Please propose per the RFP.

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.

ANSWER: Attachment A (Amendment No. 0002) in Word format is provided with this notice.

RFP N62742-24-R-1321

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."?

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0002, which revises Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Block 9.

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?

ANSWER: RFP, Document 00 73, 00, Paragraph 1.12 Proposal Preparation Costs applies to preparation of task order proposals.

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?

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0002, which removes the “including any sustainable features or USGBC LEED certifications” in Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Block 10.

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.

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

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?

ANSWER: Confirmed.

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.

86. DOCUMENT 00 70 00, Page 20 of 38 Amendment 0001: We assume FAR 52.236-23 would only apply for design only task orders and not for design build construction contracts. If this is not the case, please let us know.

ANSWER: FAR 52.236-23 Responsibility of the Architect-Engineer Contractor will apply to design build projects.

87. Will this MACC be utilized to award the design scope for design bid build projects?

ANSWER: No. Please also refer to Amendment 0001, Section 00 10 00, Block 10 Continued.

88. In consideration of a heavier than usual flow of 2024 fiscal year-end proposals due from industry, across the DoD enterprise, and other factors beyond potential Phase I offerors' reasonable ability to control, will NAVFAC PAC please consider extending the due date for Phase I proposals until on or after 27 SEP 2024?

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

89. We respectfully request that the Government not extend the proposal due date from 9/11.

The Government has been generous in providing ample turnaround time from the date of the RFP to address questions and develop proposals. A change in due date at this late stage would result in a significant logistical burden for offerors.

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

90. We would like to request an extension to the proposal due date for the PDI MACC based on several Note 6 questions still being unanswered/deferred. These answers would assist our understanding of the proposal requirements and ensure a level playing field for all offerors.

ANSWER: Please see response to Question 63.

End of Notice