24R1327 DBMACC Notice1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-24-R-1313

Notice No. 1

05 June 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1327

DESIGN-BUILD MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (DBMACC),

PRIMARILY FOR U.S. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GUAM AND OTHER

AREAS UNDER THE COGNIZANCE OF THE NAVFAC 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. Document 00 10 00, Solicitation Continuation Page

Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation Continuation Page (SF1442), page 3 of 4, the document notes that

‘the majority of the work will be performed in the Territory of Guam but may include other areas under the cognizance of the NAVFAC Pacific’.

While we understand the majority of the works will be performed in the Territory of Guam, we request NAVFAC provide a greater overview and physical locations of the proposed works in the ‘other areas under the cognizance of the NAVFAC Pacific’ that falls under this DBMACC project?

ANSWER: See https://pacific.navfac.navy.mil for NAVFAC Pacific's area of responsibility and the anticipated workload at the website under NAVFAC Pacific Workload Projections as of 31

March 24.

2. Document 00 22 00, Evaluation Factors for Award

We are a small business and HUBZone certified. We have bond capacity for a small business set aside; single $80 million and aggregate $400 million. We also possess relevant experience and past performance with numerous overseas projects, including those with the State Department agency.

According to the Full and open requirement, could you please consider specifically allocating some portion as a Small Business set-aside for this opportunity? Additionally, could you please lower the past performance requirement to $20 million? We would be grateful if you could kindly consider giving us the opportunity to participate in this project.

ANSWER: Market research was conducted, and based on the responses from the small business firms, the small business firms did not have the breadth of experience that is required for this

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

https://pacific.navfac.navy.mil/

3. Document 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers, paragraph 1.2

Please consider accepting electronic proposal submissions through PIEE or DOD SAFE with an original paper and three (3) paper copies to follow within five (5) business days of the proposal due date/time.

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

4. Document 00 21 16, Instructions to Proposers, paragraph 1.2

With the federal holiday within a few business days of the current proposal due date, we ask that you consider extending the proposal due date at least one week.

ANSWER: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

5. Factor 2, Experience

Does a six-story building of administrative office with a constructed value of $64 million, greater than 90% complete, within a twelve story Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Air Operations

Buildings meet the requirements for a “New construction of multi-story administrative, office, or headquarters facilities, approximately $30M or more”?

Background: The multi-story ATCT with reinforced concrete flooring and steel framed structure with perimeter braced frames, with a sloped roof system, and Air Traffic Operations Building with administrative, operations, simulation, and equipment repair spaces to support the ATCT.

Air Operations facility construction that meet seismic and high wind loading requirements.

ATCT and Air Operations construction includes security, fire alarm systems, computer network, fiber optic network, and cybersecurity features in accordance with current Department of

Defense (DoD) criteria and complies with Antiterrorism/Force Protection (ATFP) and physical security regulations in accordance with DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.

ANSWER: Submit proposals in accordance with Document 00 22 00.

6. Factor 2, Experience

Does a Fire Station complex with a new construction value over $38 million, greater than 90% complete, meet the criteria of new construction of community support facilities, specifically schools, child care centers, training buildings, theaters, retail or recreation centers, approximately

$30M or more?

Background: The Fire Station facility includes Apparatus and Apparatus Support Spaces, Training and Administrative Areas, and Day Room and Residential Areas. Training and

Administrative Areas include offices, training room, gym, recreation, laundry, and 12 residential dorm rooms with corresponding showers/restrooms.

ANSWER: Submit proposals in accordance with Document 00 22 00.

7. Factor 1, Technical Approach

Factor 1: Technical Approach, (a) Solicitation Requirements allows six 8.5 x 11” pages to respond to Offeror's Understanding of the General contract requirements, roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and Lead design firms, and their ability and capacity to successfully complete three task orders concurrently. Would the Government allow a single

11x17” sheet size that counts as two pages to respond to Factor 1?

unchanged. Submit proposals in accordance with Document 00 22 00.

8. Factor 2, Experience

Can the Government please clarify the types of contractor roles that qualify as relevant experience? Can a contractor submit projects where they performed as a construction manager

(general contractor) or delivery partner (performing program management services on behalf of the customer) as relevant experience?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Construction Experience.

9. Factor 2, Experience

Can a contractor submit as past performance or relevant experience projects where the performing entity was an LLC where the offeror is a member, even if the LLC is not part of the offeror’s team on this solicitation? What are the requirements for using past performance from an

LLC?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Experience, item 7.

10. Small Business

Is a Small Business required to be part of the offeror’s team to meet the small business requirements?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Factor 5, Small Business Participation.

11. Preaward Survey

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?

ANSWER: See Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.6, Preaward Survey/Responsibility

Determination.

12. Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet

Attachment A, Block 9 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?

ANSWER: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors in Document

00 22 00.

13. Small Business Participation

Attachments D and E require use of the total MACC value of $15B for determining small business participation. Given that contractors are likely to be awarded much less than $15B under this MACC, will the Government consider permitting the small business plan to be based on the anticipated value of awarded task orders or another lower metric? Note that demonstrating small business capacity to achieve 20% of $15B may not be practical.

14. Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.15, FAR 52.216-1, Type of Contract

Paragraph 1.15 of the RFP states that the Government contemplates multiple firm-fixed price contracts as a result of this solicitation. Is the Government considering offering any future task orders using other terms (e.g., cost reimbursable, time & materials) under this MACC?

ANSWER: See Document 00 73 00, paragraph 1.31, Requirement for Proposals.

15. Phase 2

a. Can the Government provide any additional information on the seed project that contractors will be required to bid as part of phase 2, including, the magnitude, type of project (e.g., design, design-build, design-bid-build, engineering support/early contractor involvement, etc.), and expected response time for the phase 2 RFP?

b. Will all offerors proceeding to phase 2 be expected to respond to the same seed project?

ANSWER:

a. Information on the seed project will not be provided in Phase 1. The response time for Phase

2 is estimated to be 55 to 60 days.

b. Yes.

16. Phase 2

Can the Government please clarify how price proposals will be evaluated in Phase 2? Will offerors be required to submit a rate card and if so, will the rate card be evaluated as part of the price proposal? How will the Government ensure that priced proposals for the seed project reflect potential value to the Government for future task orders that may be much larger and more complex than the seed project?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, paragraph 2.4, Phase-two Price Evaluation Factor.

17. Document 00 73 00, Task Order Issuance Procedures

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

18. Factor 1, Technical Approach

Given that this is an IDIQ, can the Government clarify what information is required for technical approach in the absence of a seed project in Phase 1?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, paragraph 2.2, Phase-One, Factor 1, Technical Approach.

19. Factor 2, Experience

Guam DBMACC RFP, Notes 4 and 5 under (1) Construction Experience and Note 3 under (2)

Design Experience indicate:

A project with multiple functions will be considered one relevant project based on its primary or major function, similar in size, scope, and complexity (e.g., A headquarters building with a childcare center is identified as a “headquarters building” and not an educational facility.

Offerors must indicate the Primary or Major Function in Attachment A Block 9 of the

Project Description form.

If the Offeror elects to submit a multi-function project for a major function (that is not the primary function), the construction cost specific to the major function shall be clearly stated and shall be evaluated in context with the specified dollar value of the project type for relevancy.

A single project cannot be submitted for multiple relevant project types. For example, a headquarters building with a maintenance building shall not be considered relevant projects for both “multi-story administrative facility” and “industrial facility.”

A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract.

MILCON Projects:

Congress authorizes and appropriates Military Construction (MILCON) projects, each assigned a unique Project or “P” number.

Each MILCON P-numbered project is separate and distinct, with its own published independent budget data, scope, and schedule.

NAVFAC may combine multiple MILCON P-numbered projects under a single task order or stand-alone contract to realize cost and schedule efficiencies.

Each MILCON P-numbered project can be segregated in an unbiased and verifiable manner for tracking, reporting, and evaluation purposes because there is readily available published government budget, scope, and completion schedule information.

May an offeror present separate MILCON P-numbered projects that were completed concurrently under a single task order or stand-alone contract as multiple and distinct "projects" for purposes of this solicitation? For example, if an offeror completed a task order or stand-alone contract that was comprised of three MILCON P-numbered projects, may each of these

MILCON P-numbered projects be separately submitted to meet any one of the three Factor 2 –

Experience RFP criteria for project relevancy defined in Document 00 22 00?

Allowing offerors to submit distinct MILCON P-numbered projects that were combined under a single contract for government efficiency is a fair, unbiased, and reasonable approach. This approach is consistent with the RFP intent and should promote increased competition and result in the best value for the government.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged. In accordance with Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Experience, “a project with multiple functions correlated to the types indicated above shall be considered as one relevant construction project based upon either its primary function or a major function that is not the primary function as indicated by the Offeror and similar in size, scope, and complexity as the relevant project type.”