24R1327 DBMACC Notice4.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-1327

Notice No. 4

01 July 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.

Revised Responses to Notice No. 3:

26. Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Design Experience. The RFP states that "If 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. Proposals that utilize a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience may be lesser considered."

Design partners are commonly required in order to provide a strong design-build team, and those designers are commonly subcontractors to the Prime. Would the Government please confirm that this does not apply to Design Experience?

ANSWER: It does apply to design experience.

*Amendment 0001, revised document 00 22 00, forthcoming.*

30. Document 00 70 00, Contract Clauses. The solicitation incorporates by reference both

FAR 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data and 52.215-12

Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data - however FAR 15.408(b) requires these clauses in solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that certified cost or pricing data will be required from the contractor or any subcontractor. Since it is anticipated that most task orders pursuant to the IDIQ contract will be made based on adequate price competition, is it the

Government’s intention that FAR 52.215-10 and FAR 52.215-12 will be operative only in the event that a task order is issued to a contractor on a sole source basis?

ANSWER: Clauses 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data and 52.215-

12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data are included as the Government has contemplated that certified cost or pricing data *will may * be required from the contractor or any subcontractor *for task orders placed against this MACC*. See FAR Part 15.

31. Document 00 70 00, Contract Clauses. The solicitation incorporates by reference both

FAR 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data and 52.215-12

Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data - however FAR 15.408(b) requires these clauses in solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that certified cost or pricing data will be required from the contractor or any subcontractor. Since it is anticipated that this contract will be awarded based on adequate price competition, will the government please delete these clauses?

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request; however, the RFP remains unchanged. Clauses 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data and 52.215-

12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data *will remain in the solicitation as the clause applies to this MACC and may be applicable to applies to all * task orders for this MACC.

32. Document 00 70 00, Contract Clauses. The solicitation incorporates by reference

DFARS 252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System Requirements, however DFARS 215.408(2) requires that this clause be included in all solicitations and contracts to be awarded on the basis of certified cost or pricing data. Since this award will be based on adequate price competition, will the Government delete DFARS 252.215-7002 from the solicitation?

ANSWER: Clause 252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System Requirements applies to this MACC and *may be applicable* task orders for this MACC.

33. Document 00 70 00, Contract Clauses. The solicitation includes DFARS 252.204-7012

Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. Has anything in the solicitation been determined by the Government to be "covered defense information" as defined in the clause?

ANSWER: *No. However,* Clause 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting *will remain in the solicitation as the clause applies to this

MACC and may be applicable to applies to all * task orders for this MACC.

34. Document 00 70 00, Contract Clauses. The solicitation includes DFARS 252.204-7012

Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. Does the

Government anticipate any of the deliverables to be provided under the contract to be "covered defense information" as defined in the clause?

ANSWER: *It is unknown if the deliverables are to be “covered defense information.”*

See response to question 33.

40. Due to the proximity of the July 4th holiday weekend to the current July 9th due date, and because of the need to deliver (by hand or courier) hard copies of the Phase One proposals, will

NAVFAC please consider extending the due date by two weeks?

ANSWER:

The Government has considered your request. The RFP remains unchanged.

*The proposal due date will be extended to July 23, 2024, which will be reflected in

Amendment 0001, revised document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.2, and SF1442, block 13A.*

42. Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet. Does

“Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet” also be used for Design projects?

If yes, a block seems to be missing for Design project data. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Yes, Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data

Sheet is to be used for design projects. Indicate if it is a construction or design project by checking the appropriate box on the top of the form under the heading “Construction Experience

Project Data Sheet.” Per Document 00 22 00, Factor 2 – Experience, “The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction and Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) for each construction and design project submitted and shall complete all individual blocks.”

*Amendment 0001, revised Attachment A, Construction & Design Experience Project Data

Sheet, forthcoming.*

- End of Revised Responses to Notice 3 -

43. Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet. The last question asks “Was work self-performed by the Offeror? Yes or No”. Will past experience and performance be evaluated equally, regardless of whether the work was self-performed or subcontracted, as long as the overall contract was awarded to the Offeror? Please clarify, as there is no such distinction in the "Basis of Evaluation" sections of Factor 2 and 3.

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Factor 2 – Experience, Construction Experience. “Submit a maximum of six (6) construction projects that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below.”

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance to the solicitation.

44. Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, Construction Experience Project Data Sheet. On the second page of Attachment A, block 9 asks for project details that are not part of the Factor 2 -

Experience instructions or evaluation criteria (i.e., sustainable features, USGBC LEED certifications). Would the Government please update Attachment A to match the requirements and evaluation criteria listed in Factor 2 - Experience of the RFP? If not, how will this information be used in the evaluation of Offeror proposals?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001, revised Document 00 22 00, Attachment A, forthcoming.

45. Many architect engineer (A-E) firms have direct A-E contracts with NAVFAC Pacific on

Guam and geographic areas covered under the $15B DBMACC. There will likely be task orders that an A-E firm worked on for NAVFAC Pacific that would create an organizational conflict of interest for an A-E if they are the DOR on a design build team under this MACC. To mitigate this potential organizational conflict of interest will the Navy allow and evaluate positively, the use of a named secondary DOR (with a signed teaming agreement) on a DBMACC team for use as a substitute DOR if our primary DOR has an organizational conflict of interest for a specific task order?

ANSWER: See Document 00 22 00, Factor 1, Technical Approach, “The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract…The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm(s).” Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

46. Reference Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Experience, (2) Design Experience. If the offeror has a fully executed teaming agreement with a DOR and the DOR utilizes the design experience on a JV or a LCC member company under which the DOR was a JV partner or LCC member company and performed a significant portion of the project experience for a direct contract with the Government, but the JV entity is not with the Offeror’s DOR, will the project experience be given the same consideration as past experience performed as a standalone AE firm?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001, revised document 00 22 00 forthcoming. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

47. Does the geographic location of either the Construction Experience or the Design

Experience carry any additional strength or weaknesses as being more or less relevant in the evaluation process.

ANSWER: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

48. Document 00 22 00, Factor 2, Experience, there appears to be conflicts between the requirements to submit Construction Experience and Design Experience that may result in design experience by a subcontracted DOR being evaluated at a lower level than the construction experience. The following are stated requirements in the solicitation (emphasis added):

7. 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. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror (authority to bind the entity must be clearly stated) and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage, or the key personnel it will provide in the performance or management of the contract.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a maximum of six (6) design projects that best demonstrates design experience that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the types of projects described below.

5. 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. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, … (3) specify the work to be performed by the DOR such that it is clear that the DOR will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with the DOR’s role in the project submitted for evaluation.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

If 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. Proposals that utilize a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience may be lesser considered.

As written, if the Offeror is a construction company/general contractor who is using one or more architect/engineer firm(s) as their designer of record(s) (DORs) and the Offeror has a detailed teaming agreement with the DoR(s) to provide design experience, the design experience will be

“lesser considered” or: “may not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor …”. As the majority of work (90%+) under this contract will be provided by a general contractor providing construction services it does not make business sense to have a joint venture with the DoR as the DoR will need to accept the construction risk as part of the JV and the contractor will be required to share an unbalanced amount of the fee with the DoR based on the amount of work performed for the design vs. the construction.

Since the Navy requires both construction and design experience as part of the Experience requirements, can the Navy modify section (b) Basis of Evaluation to state: “The Offeror may utilize a team subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant project experience if the

Offeror and the subcontractor have a signed teaming agreement. This will be applicable if the

Offeror is either the general contractor providing the construction services and the team subcontractor(s) is an architect engineer firm(s) serving as the designer of record(s) or if the offeror is an architect engineer firm providing design services and the team subcontractor is a general contractor providing construction services.”

ANSWER: Amendment 0001, revised document 00 22 00, forthcoming.

49. For Prime Offerors comprised of multiple JV, LLC or LP members, is the list of existing commercial and government business commitments required from each member company? Or, can the JV, LLC or LP provide the list as a whole.

ANSWER: See Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.6, Pre-award Survey / Responsibility

Determination.

50. The Government’s answer to question #29 indicates that task orders issued under this

MACC may involve access to classified information. Therefore, are all bidders required to have cleared personnel and a Facility Clearance (FCL), as certified by DCSA?

If so, would such clearance be at the SECRET level and required only for access to classified information on a “need to know” basis, or does the Guam MACC also contemplate the requirement for classified construction by cleared workers? If so, at what clearance level?

ANSWER: Offerors are not required to have cleared personnel and a Facility Clearance (FCL).

However, task orders may involve access to classified information and at this time the

Government does not know the clearance level of any future projects.

51. In Q&A #26 the Government clarified that subcontractor projects provided as Design

Experience will be rated less favorably than design projects from the Offeror. Since this is the case, would the Government please confirm that a Design-Build contract where the Offeror was the Prime (ultimately accountable for subcontracted design services) and where the proposed

MACC Designer of Record (DOR) was not the DOR on the project, will be rated more favorably as Design Experience than a project performed by the Offeror's proposed DOR subcontractor for this MACC? This appears to be a departure from all previous NAVFAC Pacific MACC solicitations for Guam, where DOR experience was accepted as equally as favorable as Design

Experience when accompanied by a signed Teaming Agreement and where design experience profiled by DOR consultants was considered more favorable when executed with the Offeror.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001, revised document 00 22 00 forthcoming.

52. RFP PDF page 22 of 161, section 1.23 FAR 52.236-28, PREPARATION OF

PROPOSALS-CONSTRUCTION (OCT 1997) 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.”

RFP PDF page 10 of 161 states "If bonds are not signed manually (wet signature), documents of appointment must include specific authorization and corporate approval for the use of electronic and facsimile signatures by the appointed individual(s).

Would the Government please confirm that the only form that must have a manual wet signature is the SF1442?

ANSWER: Confirmed.

53. RFP PDF page 9 of 161 states "Phase 1 submission for Factors 1 through 3 shall be submitted no later than 9 July 2024, 2:00 p.m., Hawaii Standard Time (HST) 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.

54. RFP PDF page 32 of 161 states "provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements at Document 00100, paragraph 1.1". We are unable to locate Document 00100. Would the

Government please clarify and/or provide this document?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001, revised Document 00 22 00, Factor 1 – Technical Approach, (a)

Solicitation Submittal Requirements, forthcoming.

55. RFP PDF page 32 of 161 states "The narrative shall be limited to three (3) double-sided pages or six (6) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger." Would the Government please allow for graphics to be less than 10 point font, so long as they are legible?

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

56. RFP PDF page 32 of 161 states "The narrative shall be limited to three (3) double-sided pages or six (6) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger." Attachment A provided by the Government has 0.75 inch margins. Adjusting these margins is difficult due to the structure/formatting of the form. Would the Government please allow for 0.75 inch margins?

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

57. RFP Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2, Factor 2 – Experience, (a)(2) – Design Experience, item 1 under the “NOTES” paragraph states, “Construction of the relevant design projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.” However, item 4 of the same section states, “A relevant design project is further defined as a design-bid-build, complete design performed under a single task order or stand-alone A-E contract, or a complete design performed under a design-build construction contract.”

Kindly confirm that Offerors may submit design experience for projects where the design portion has been completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP, regardless of the current status of construction completion.

ANSWER: Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2, Factor 2 – Experience, (a)(2) – Design Experience, states in Note 1, “Construction of the relevant design projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the last ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.”

58. RFP Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2, Factor 2 – Experience, (a)(2) – Design Experience, Designers of Record for teams submitting proposals for this solicitation routinely provide design experience under A/E services contracts to the NAVFAC Pacific or other DoD agencies.

Whether or not the design project that the designer prepared under an A/E services contract is constructed is outside of the control of the designer due to the agency funding priorities or availability of funds after completion of the design or other factors. To allow inclusion of relevant designs prepared under A/E services contracts in the design experience section, we request that the Navy the modify the requirement under the Notes section to allow inclusion of designs that are 100% complete, inclusive of ready for construction plans and specifications for the listed relevant design projects and delete the requirement for design projects to have been constructed.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request. The RFP remains unchanged.