24R1328 Note3.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-1328

Notice No. 3

3 July 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

INDO-PACIFIC MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PROJECTS IN

THE NAVFAC PACIFIC AREA OF OPERATIONS

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.

21. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Factor 1 – Experience, Construction Experience requirement. Point 1 states that “New construction or repair of Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Response Multi-Purpose industrial facilities (warehouses or maintenance facility) in a country outside the United States” Question: Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Response projects are usually schools and hospitals. Can you please include schools and hospitals in the allowed project under this item

ANSWER: See amendment no. 0001 for revisions to the Experience factor.

22. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Factor 1 – Experience, Construction Experience requirement. Point 1 states that “New construction or repair of Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Response Multi-Purpose industrial facilities (warehouses or maintenance facility) in a country outside the United States” Question: Can you define how a project can be considered a humanitarian assistance/disaster response? For example, will a project in Afghanistan (devastated by war) be considered a humanitarian assistance project?

ANSWER: See amendment no. 0001 for revisions to the Experience factor.

23. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Factor 1 – Experience, Construction Experience requirement. The recency requirement is completed within 7 years. Can you please consider extending this recency requirement to 10 years.

ANSWER: See response to question no. 1.

24. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Factor 1 – Experience, Note #6. Please confirm that the offeror can use the experience of a subcontractor to meet the requirement of Factor 1 provided that there is a teaming agreement that is (1) be signed by the Offeror and subcontractor, (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 subcontractor will be meaningfully involved in this contract.

ANSWER: See response to question no. 15.

25. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Section 1.73 FAR 52.228-1, BID GUARANTEE (SEP 1996). Item (c) states that the bid guarantee is 20% of the bid price or $3M whichever is less, but SF 1442 says that there is no bid bond required. Please confirm if there is a bid bond requirement.

ANSWER: The SF1442 is for the Basic MACC contract with no pricing, therefore, bonds are not required. The requirement for bonds is per task order. Document 00 70 00, paragraph 1.73, states Bid guarantee [if required by task order]”. Part 7, Seed Project, document 00 41, 00, page 1, states “A BID GUARANTEE IS NOT REQUIRED.”

26. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Section 1.81 FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS--CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020) (DEVIATION 2020-O0016). Item (1) and (2) states that there is a 100% performance and payment bond, but SF 1442 says that there is no performance and payment bond required. Please confirm if there is a performance and payment bond requirement.

ANSWER: The SF1442 is for the Basic MACC contract with no pricing, therefore, bonds are not required. The requirement for bonds is per task order. Amendment no. 0001, Document 00 73 00, paragraph 1.5 states bid, performance and payment bonds are not required for the seed project.

27. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Section 1.173 DFARS 252.229-7001, TAX RELIEF- BASIC (APR 2020). Please confirm that this project is tax-exempt.

ANSWER: Amendment no. 0002 clarifies that the seed project is not tax exempt.

28. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 2 General Requirement Section 4. The design requirement is to have all design work completed under the supervision of licensed architects and engineers. Question: Is it mandatory to have licensed architects and engineers to be licensed in any of the 50 States in the US.

ANSWER: See response to question no. 4.

29. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 2 General Requirement Section 4.g. Please confirm that all design approval is by USG only and no local authority approval is required.

ANSWER: See amendment no. 0002. Headquarters Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has recently implemented a Building Permit Requirements approval process.

30. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 3 Statement of Work. Please confirm if the seed project is a real project and to be awarded during this stage

ANSWER: The intent is to award the seed project.

31. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 2 General Requirement Section 18 Licenses/Permits. This section states that KTR shall obtain all appointments, licenses and permits. Please confirm if local building permits are needed even though the project is inside the base.

ANSWER: Confirmed. See amendment no. 0002, Part 6, Figure 12 for building permit requirements.

32. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 2 General Requirement Section 18 Licenses/Permits. This section states that KTR shall obtain all appointments, licenses, and permits. Please confirm if KTR needs to apply for a connection to power and water with the local provider or only with the base authority

ANSWER: See RFP PART 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, paragraph 11, which states “Contractor shall coordinate with local utility providers to ensure permission to remove or to provide temporary utilities are approved.”

33. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 2 General Requirement Section 30.6.b. Please confirm if KTR is allowed to establish a temporary work camp or Life Support Area (LSA) inside the base. If so, please provide the location.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

34. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 3 Statement of Work, Section 3.1 Existing Site Conditions. This section states that there are trees to cut. Do we need a DENR clearance/certificate to cut those trees or just coordination with the base authorities?

ANSWER: A DENR clearance/certificate is required for cutting trees. See amendment no.

0002.

35. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 3 Statement of Work, Design Requirement. The design requirement table only shows that ROICC and the User will review and approve the design. Please confirm that no approval from the local municipality is required. Design is usually the primary requirement of a building permit, in this case, please also confirm that no local building permit is required.

ANSWER: See response to question 29. Local municipality approvals are not required.

36. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, Part 3 Statement of Work, G10 Site Preparation. Is there a recommended construction debris disposal site, please identify

ANSWER: No.

37. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 4 MINIMUM MATERIALS, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. The majority of material compliance requirements is American standards. Since the seed TO is in the Philippines, is it acceptable to use local materials or regionally compliant or BS-compliant materials? These are the locally available materials in the Philippines.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

38. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 4 MINIMUM MATERIALS, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, G30 1.9 Water Storage Tank. There is a conflict on the water tower requirement. Part 3 subsection 4.4 asks for a reinforced concrete elevated water tank tower, while Part 4, G30 1.9 asks for a steel tower. Kindly clarify which one is correct.

ANSWER: Amendment no. 0002 revises RFP PART 3 STATEMENT OF WORK, Section 4.4 Elevated Water Tank.

PART 4 is not in conflict with PART 3. PART 4 G30 1.9 describes the requirement for the “modular type stainless steel, min. Steel grade 316”.

39. Reference Section 00 22 00, Factor 2 – Experience, (2) Design Experience: The solicitation states under the Notes section for the Design Experience “1. Construction Experience Notes Apply”. This Note implies that the note under Construction “b. “Substantially Complete” is defined as at least 90% physically complete” that designs need to be constructed and at least 90% physically complete.

Designers of Record for teams submitting proposals for this solicitation routinely provide design experience under A/E services contracts to 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 delete the reference to Construction Experience Note B or explicitly state in the design evaluation criteria that designs are not required to be constructed.

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.

40. Reference Section 1.6 Preaward Survey/Responsibility Determination: The solicitation states “The pre-award survey is not a part of the non-price proposal evaluation. The following information shall be submitted…” As this information is not part of the non-price proposal evaluation, should this information be submitted as a separate volume/binder or should it be submitted as part of Volume I under as a separate tab/Factor?

ANSWER: See Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.2.a.(4) which requires submission with the Price Proposal.

41. Reference Section 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 the 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 no. 0001 revises the paragraph to stated that “[i]f the Offeror utilizes a subcontractor’s experience to demonstrate relevant construction project experience….”