25-1301 CmdCtrl Notice12.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1301

Notice No. 12

3 February 2025

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-25-R-1301

FY25 MCON P-693 PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE: GUAM DEFENSE SYSTEM

COMMAND CENTER,

JOINT REGION MARIANAS, GUAM

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.

62. DOC 00 22 00/ATTACHMENT C SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD)/4. Small Business Participation / Paragraph b.

requires a “firm commitment” in writing in the form of a teaming agreement, joint venture agreement, mentor-protégé agreement, written/signed letter of commitment from the small business. Please consider extending the date when the SBPCD shall be submitted to

NAVFAC since usually it takes time to execute said commitments and it will be extremely challenging to do so on bid day.

ANSWER: Document 00 21 16, para 1.1.b. will be revised to “An original paper and three (3) paper copies of the technical proposal for Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5 shall be submitted on 13

February 2025, 2:00 p.m., HST and Factor 2 shall be submitted on 14 February 2025, 2:00 p.m., HST in a sealed envelope/package/box…”

Amendment 0011, revised document 00 21 16, para 1.1.b. is forthcoming.

496. Reference Louver Schedule on sheet 14PP-A-611.

Please confirm aluminum louvers at the Power Plant Building do not need to be Forced

Entry and/or Ballistic Rated

ANSWER: Due to its proximity to the Command Center, it is considered critical infrastructure.

Louvers are required to be FEBR.

497. Reference Request for Proposal Submission Revision

Referring to Notice No. 10, Question 62 requested that the government “(p)lease consider extending the date when the SBPCD shall be submitted to NAVFAC since usually it takes time to execute said commitments and it will be extremely challenging to do so on bid day”. However, the government’s response did not address the SBPCD, but instead referred

RFP N62742-24-R-1327

to and stated that the “Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be due one day after proposals are due.”

Please understand that:

Both the Attachment C [Small Business Participation Commitment Document

(SBPCD)] – to be submitted as part of Technical Proposal for Factor 2 – and Small

Business Subcontracting Plan – a separately packed submission – can only be finalized once an offeror’s proposed pricing is finalized, or which per the RFP

“{t)here shall be no discrepancies between Small Business Participation

Commitment Document (Document 00 22 00, Non-Price Evaluation Factor 2, Small Business Participation, Attachment C) and small business subcontracting plan.”

For an Offeror’s proposed pricing – to be submitted as part of the separately packed

Price Proposal – the government is requiring Offerors to not only provide a completed price proposal schedule as part of the SF1442 document, but also provide complementary pricing information.

However, the determination of an offeror’s proposed pricing and hopefully competitive offer is reliant upon the final selection of subcontractors and suppliers that is only determined after the receipt of subcontractor and supplier proposals, of which such subcontractor and supplier pricing may not be received until bid day and, most times, closer to bid time.

Additionally, while both the SBPCD and Small Business Subcontracting Plan must reflect the offeror’s proposed pricing and any commitments to small business subcontractors, the proposal submission is made more difficult by the fact that the government is requiring offerors to identify Key Subcontractors in their Technical

Proposal, Factor 4, Management Plan Organization Chart.

Overall, the government’s current submission deadline requiring offerors to provide both complete technical and price proposal submissions – involving proposal items described above that are heavily reliant upon an offeror’s final pricing and subcontractor/supplier determination – currently by or prior to the bid time of 2pm

HST on Thursday, February 13, 2025 is extremely difficult for offerors to comply with for this very complex project, which may be reflected in the limited subcontractor/supplier proposals offerors receive that will then be reflected in the pricing the government receives.

As a result, we kindly request again that the government please reconsider and allow, at the very least, the small business information – specifically Technical Factor 2, Small Business

Utilization and Participation – and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted one (1) business day after the submittal of the Price Proposal and Technical Proposal containing Factors 1, 3, 4, and 5. Due to the magnitude and complexity of the project and the required price and technical proposal information, this will help to ensure that offerors are to provide the government with complete, competitive, and overall timely proposals.

Prior – and currently solicited NAVAFAC Pacific RFPs have understood this critical dilemma faced by offerors and slowed the submittal of small business information – particularly Technical Proposal Small Business Utilization and Participation and the separate Small Business Subcontracting Plan – to be submitted one (1) business day after the submittal of the price proposal and non-small business technical proposal information;

therefore, we kindly request your understanding to do the same for this RFP.

ANSWER: See answer to question 62.

498. Reference Document 00 22 00, Factor 4

With regard to the government’s answer to Question 429 in Notice No. 10, as well as concerning the Organizational Chart required by Technical Proposal Factor 4 –

Management Plan, the response states “Identify the Key Personnel proposed for the project by name within the Organization Chart.” To be clear, please confirm if that is to “name” the Key Personnel proposed for the project by the personnel’s name or by the personnel’s proposed position.

ANSWER: Identify the Key Personnel positions and the names of the Key Personnel proposed for these positions.

499. Reference Document 00 22 00, Factor 4

With regard to the response to Technical Factor 4 – Management Plan, it is understood that an Organizational Chart is required that must “Identify Key Personnel, including the

Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Contractor’s

Commissioning Representative.” However, as we could not locate within the RFP or project specifications any qualifications requirement for the position of Project Manager, please provide information regarding any required qualifications to be met by that position;

if none, please state so.

ANSWER: While the RFP may not indicate specific qualifications requirements for the Project

Manager, the Management Plan Narrative requests the Offeror's detailed strategy for managing the project. This provides an opportunity for Offerors to discuss how their proposed Project

Manager will contribute to their strategy for managing the project, coordinating the work to meet the joint occupancy dates, and completing the work within the required number of calendar days.

500. Reference Document 00 22 00, Factor 4

With regard to the response to Technical Factor 4 – Management Plan, it is understood that an Organizational Chart is required that must “Identify Key Personnel, including the

Project Manager, Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Contractor’s

Commissioning Representative.” However, as we could not locate within the RFP or project specifications any duties/responsibility and/or qualification requirements for the position of Contractor’s Commissioning Representative; therefore, please:

a. Advise of the term(s) utilized within the RFP and/or project specifications that are interchangeable with “Contractor’s Commissioning Representative.”

b. Provide information regarding any required qualifications to be met by that position; if none, please state so.

c. Please advise of the duties/responsibilities associated with that position.

ANSWER: Due to the complexity of the project and the number and variety of systems to be commissioned, the Government expects that the Contractor's Project Manager and Quality

Control Manager will require assistance to effectively coordinate the Contractor's team in the execution of their responsibilities in the commissioning process. The Government will clarify via Amendment the requirements and qualification of the Contractor's Commissioning Quality

Control Representative (QCR).

501. Reference Specification Section 01 74 19, paragraph 1.12, Surplus Soil Sample Collection.

The Myounghee Noh & Associates investigation (MNA, 2024) states that upon reaching limestone refusal (bedrock), additional increments were not collected, and sampling was discontinued. May the Contractor end collection of sample increments upon reaching bedrock refusal?

If yes, a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer required to make a bedrock determination? Please advise.

ANSWER: Crushed bedrock can be excluded from surplus soil testing required by Section 01

74 19, Part 1.12 if the Professional Engineer (PE) or Environmental Consultant (EC) provides the bedrock determination. Refer to the qualification of Section 02 61 13.00 14, Part 1.2.1 for the PE and EC. The Contractor may set up separate stockpiles for the crushed bedrock not to mix with surplus soil. The Contractor must recycle or dispose of crushed bedrock in accordance with Federal and Guam regulations and recipient’s requirements. The Contractor must provide necessary environmental testing and analysis for the crushed rock required by the recipient at no cost to the Government. Refer to the RFI #484 Response. In-situ soil testing will not be allowed for surplus soil requiring off-site/off-base reuse or disposal.

502. Reference Drawing 14CC-A-402, Keynote 17, “Solid Surface Window Sill, SS1.”

However, we cannot locate any “17” keynote on the drawing. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Disregard Keynote 17, no windows are included in the project, therefore no window sills are required.

503. Reference Specification Section 31 31 16.19, Paragraph 2.1.2, Basaltic Sand System.

Termite control subcontractors on the island do not install basaltic sand systems and propose chemical termite control instead. Projects in military installations on the island have been specifying chemical termite control. In this regard, please confirm that chemical termite control is an acceptable alternative in lieu of a basaltic sand system.

ANSWER: Bid as specified. Contractor may submit a variance if awarded a contract in accordance with specification 01 33 00 paragraph 1.8.

504. We respectfully request a two (2) weeks extension of the bid submission to the current closing date of February 13, 2025. The scope of work for P-693 is unique, extending beyond typical NAVFAC building construction, and requires extra time to ensure that all aspects are properly considered in our proposal.

ANSWER: The proposal due date remains unchanged.

505. Due to the unique and complex components of this project, we humbly request for additional 2-weeks extension to the current bid due date.

ANSWER: See answer to question 504.

506. Reference Specification Section 01 45 00.00 14 paragraph 1.6.7.

The Submittal Review Table requires a WHE Specialist and refers to Specification Section

41 22 13.17 14. This cannot be found in the specifications.

Please confirm this requirement should be deleted.

ANSWER: Confirmed, it is not applicable.

507. Reference Specification Section 06 61 16.00 14 & 10 28 13.00 14 (Amd 10)

Solid Surface Countertop Thickness.

There is a conflict with the thickness of the solid surface countertop for lavatory counter at restrooms. Based on Amendment 10, Spec Section 10 28 13.00 14, para. 2.1.14, solid surface countertop should be 1-1/2 inches thick. However, based on Spec Section 06 61

16.00 14, para. 2.1.1, solid surface countertop should be 1/2 inch thick.

Please clarify which thickness will govern.

ANSWER: Half-inch thickness in accordance with 14CC-A-601 and specification 06 61 16.00

14 governs.

508. Reference Specification Section 33 56 10.00 14, Paragraph 2.4.1. indicates that the tank material is stainless steel, while Paragraph 2.4.1 and Drawing 14PP-M-703 indicate that the tank material is carbon steel.

Please clarify the correct tank material.

ANSWER: The tank schedules on 14PP-M-703 are correct. The fuel oil tanks will be double walled with carbon steel inner and outer shells (with interstitial leak detection). The carbon steel will require anticorrosive protective coatings in accordance with specification 33 56 10.00 14, Paragraph 2.5 TANK PROTECTIVE COATINGS.

509. Reference Specification Section 33 56 10.00 14, Paragraph 2.5.1.1 states that SSPC QP3 certification is required for tank coating. However, there are very only few coating contractors with QP3 certification and difficult to find for Guam. We request that the QP3 certification requirement be waived and replaced with QP1 or QP2

ANSWER: Bid as specified. It is believed these factory-fabricated tanks will be coated by the manufacturer and arrive on-island already coated except for minor touch-up.