24R1328 Note5.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. 5

19 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.

55. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 6 Concept Design. Confirm the CEIS room is the server/communications room.

ANSWER: Confirmed, CEIS room is the server/communications room.

56. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 6 Concept Design. Confirm 5 racks are to be provided, the current room size does not appear to be large enough to accommodate 5 racks.

ANSWER: Confirmed, provide 5 racks.

57. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 6 Concept Design. The solicitation does not include any information related to outside plant ((OSP) fiber optic trunk cabling, name of the building comms fiber optic, copper, and CATV cables will be connecting to?

ANSWER: None.

58. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 6 Concept Design. Is there an existing OSP conduit system?

ANSWER: None.

59. RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, PART 6 Concept Design. The RFP does not specify needing to meet Antiterrorism Force Protection (AT/FP) standoff distances or design enhancements. Please confirm AT/FP design requirements is not required.

ANSWER: As stated in RFP Parts 3 and 4, follow the requirements of UFC 1-201-01, Non- Permanent DoD facilities in Support of Military Operations.

60. General – Can the Government post an updated RFP document that includes all the changes made in amendments 1, 2, 3, to date?

ANSWER: No. Contractors are responsible for conforming the RFP.

61. Site Visit – Are there any dress code requirements for the site visit (hard hat, vest, etc)?

ANSWER: See Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.17(b), “attendees shall wear safety vests.”

62. Many NAVFAC Pacific IDIQs require proof of US Surety capacity. Given the importance of these projects to the Pacific Deterrence Mission, host nation joint military cooperation for Exercise Related Construction, Unspecified Minor Construction, Title 10 Security Cooperation repair or construction. It would seem to be in the best interest of the government to be reassured the awardees anticipated under this Indo Pacific MACC can provide the financial depth to address multiple simultaneous projects as far flung areas such as Caroline Islands, Philippines, Northern Territory Australia, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Maldives) or other tropical locations within NAVFAC Pacific AOR.

Will the Government include the NAVFAC Pacific frequently used clause, The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a letter(s) from a corporate surety(ies) listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” indicating the Offeror’s single project bonding capacity in the amount of $100 million or more.

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.

63. Reference: RFP Document 00 22 00, Sect. 2.2, Factor 1, Experience (a)(2) Design Experience, Notes, 1: Construction Experience Notes apply (Specifically: Factor 1, (a)(1) Construction Experience, Note 1.b: “… ‘Substantially Complete’ is defined as at least 90% physically complete.” (of the related Construction Project).

Applying the Construction Complete (i.e., 90% or greater Physically Complete) evaluation criterion to fully designed (DBB) Design Projects is restrictive and limits competition. This criterion does not allow designers-of-record (DOR) to present projects that are responsive to all other solicitation criteria and would otherwise be considered relevant. A DOR’s design experience and related past performance can be fully demonstrated by allowing DBB design projects to be presented regardless of the percentage of construction completed. DORs have no control over when (and if) projects they design are built. Oftentimes, due to programming restraints or changing requirements, a highly relevant fully designed project is delayed or does not proceed to construction.

Rather than rely on the construction metric of 90% or greater physically complete—which a DOR has no influence over—to evaluate design experience and past performance, the

Government can rely on directly related past performance ratings of DBB design projects (e.g., CPARS, ACASS, PPQ), which should be most representative of a DOR’s design capabilities.

Given this, and to increase competition, will the Government please waive the 90% or greater construction complete requirement from the referenced Design Project evaluation criteria?

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.