24R1327 DBMACC Notice5.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

Notice No. 5

09 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. 4:

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.

*See Amendment 0002, revised document 00 22 00.*

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.”

*See Amendment 0002, revised Attachment A, Construction & Design Experience Project

Data Sheet.*

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: See Amendment 0002, revised Document 00 22 00, Attachment A.

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: See Amendment 0002, revised document 00 22 00. 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: See Amendment 0002, revised document 00 22 00.

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: See Amendment 0002, revised document 00 22 00.

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: See Amendment 0002, revised Document 00 22 00, Factor 1 – Technical Approach,

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements.

- End of Revised Responses to Notice 4 -