24R1327 DBMACC Notice2.pdf
PDF 162 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6274224R1327
About this file
This document is a Notice No. 2 providing questions and answers related to RFP N62742-24-R-1327 for a Design-Build Multiple Award Construction Contract (DBMACC) for U.S. military construction projects primarily in Guam and other areas under the cognizance of NAVFAC Pacific.
The key details are:
- The RFP states that Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in phase one, with Factor 1 rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. The notice clarifies the relative importance of Factors 2 and 3 for the phase one evaluation.
- The notice addresses contractor requests to modify the definition of "relevant construction projects" under Factor 2 to include renovation, addition/upgrade, and certain infrastructure projects. However, the government has decided to keep the RFP requirements unchanged.
- The government is currently reviewing questions concerning the Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A).
- This DBMACC contract will be an IDIQ with a minimum of 3 awards, for a 96-month term or $15B maximum, whichever comes first. Task orders will typically range from $25M to $1B.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC
258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100
PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134
RFP N62742-24-R-1327
Notice No. 2
13 June 2024
PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
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.
20. Document 00 22 00, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award
RFP Section 00 22 00 states that Factors 1-3 will be evaluated in phase-one and that Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable, but it does not describe the relative importance of Factors 2 and 3. Instead, it only describes the relative importance of all 5 factors to be evaluated in Phase
2.
Will NAVFAC please provide the relative importance of Factors 2 and 3 to be used during Phase
1 evaluations?
ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award, which states, “The relative importance of evaluation factors 2 through 5 is as follows: Technical factors
(Factors 2, 4, and 5) are of equal importance to each other, and when combined, are equal in importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) factor (Factor 3)."
21. Document 00 22 00, Factor 2
The RFP Section 00 10 00, Solicitation Continuation Page (SF1442), states: “Contractors will be expected to accomplish a wide variety of individual construction tasks, including…..renovation, additions/upgrades and new construction.” Similar language was used in the Pre-solicitation
(Sources Sought) notice as well.
However, RFP Section 00 22 00, Para 2.2, Factor 2 Construction Experience, Note No. 3 states:
“Building repair, renovation, conversion, and addition work will not be considered as representing a relevant project.
Will NAVFAC please consider either deleting or modifying Note No.3 to allow renovation and additions/upgrade projects to be presented as relevant construction experience?
ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.
22. Document 00 22 00, Factor 2
RFP Section 00 10 00, Solicitation Continuation Page (SF1442), states: “Work may include….ranges, operational/training facilities, roads, streets, bridges, site utilities/infrastructure, dredging, and aviation facilities (including hangars and aprons) and other base development facilities.” Similarly, the Pre-solicitation (Sources Sought) notice includes the same types of potential work.
However, RFP Section 00 22 00, Para 2.2, Construction Experience excludes all of these project types from the listing that defines “relevant construction projects” for the purposes of this evaluation.
Will NAVFAC please consider expanding the definition of relevant projects to include roads, streets, bridges, site utilities/infrastructure, dredging, and aviation facilities (including hangars and aprons)?
ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged.
** Questions concerning Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project
Data Sheet are currently being reviewed by the Government. **
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .