Quantico Tower RFP - QA(004).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Observation Tower Quantico - Request for Proposal Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N6426722R0014
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for the construction of two observation towers at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.
The solicitation seeks a firm-fixed price contract to construct two pre-fabricated observation towers within 180 calendar days of the notice to proceed. Key requirements include surface preparation and application of a polyurea coating to the towers and containers, installation of safety railings and lightning protection, and compliance with electrical and OSHA standards. The place of performance is Quantico, Virginia and the solicitation is set aside for certified HUBZone contractors only. The evaluation criteria includes consideration of up to three past performance references from the offeror and any subcontractors. Questions must be submitted by May 19th, 2022 and the government does not intend to extend the proposal due date in response to a request.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| Observation Tower Quantico | |||
| Notice ID: N626722R0014's/ Dept. Navy / NAVSEA / | CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS | DOCUMENT REFERENCE | Answer |
| 1 | I’m contacting you regarding opportunity N6426722R0014. The SAM.gov listing states Norco, CA as the place of performance for this solicitation. However, the RFP states work will be performed at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Quantico, VA. Could you provide quick clarification on this? (Also firms may be filtering by SAM place of performance, so a lot of HUBZone firms may miss this listing in its current state) | ||
| The mistake has been fixed. The place of performance is Quantico VA. | |||
| 2 | I am planning to attend the site visit next week for the NAVFAC Observation Tower Quantico - N6426722R0014. DBIDS required the name, phone number and e-mail address for the sponsor. The POC is listed as Angela Gavalas with a phone number listed, but no e-mail. If you are able to provide this information, it would be greatly appreciated. I did try to reach out directly to Angela, but have not yet heard back from her. | Section L, FAR 52.236-27 | The email address for Angela Gavalas-Fields’ email will be added to the 1442 today through an amendment. |
Angela’s email address is angela.fields@usmc.mil.
| 3 | We have just received notice from SAM on the posting of this RFP, on initial review of all the documents we were excited to participate and started preparing… One thing we notices was on the SAM site it has one statement “Original Set Aside: Historically Underutilized Business (HUBZone) Set-Aside (FAR 19.13)” but then the solicitation does not identify this set-aside… If in deed the Set-Aside is HUBZone, we will be unable to participate… Can you please provide clarity on the actual Set-Aside? | FAR 19.13 | This requirement is set-aside for only certified HUBZone contractors to make an offer. |
| 4 | What is the last date for submitting RFIs? | Section L, Para 1.1 | All RFI’s must be submitted by May 19th, 2022 at 12:00 pm PST. |
| 5 | a) Can we submit under a HUBZone Joint Venture? |
b) If so, for HUBZone Joint Venture Offerors, will relevant past performance performed by either Partner be rated as Acceptable?
| FAR 19.1303 | We will accept proposals from Offerors in accordance with FAR 19.1303. | ||
| 6 | Please clarify if the 1 to 3 past performance narratives refer to the offeror AND the proposed subcontractors combined? Or if we need to provide 1 to 3 each for the offeror and the proposed subcontractors? | Section L, Para 4.3.1 | Section L, Para 4.3.1 of the solicitation states that offerors shall provide at least one (1) and no more than three (3) Past Performance Narratives with their proposal. This includes subcontractors. |
| 7 | Please advise what are the dates within which the relevant experience must be performed. Since the Government fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30, is the period for performance of relevant experience from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2021? If this is not the case, please provide the dates between which relevant experience must have been performed. | Section L, Para 4.3.1 | Relevant experienced should be work conducted no earlier than Government fiscal year 2019. |
| 8 | a) Is it the Government’s intent that Offeror’s provide a narrative that demonstrates their understanding of the requirements and explains how they plan to fulfill them? |
b) If the Government wants Offerors to demonstrate their capability, what data should the Offerors provide to demonstrate capability other than citing past projects and verifiable project evaluations for past relevant work?
c) Please clarify what the requirements are for this section.
| Section L, Para 3.1 | Yes. Offerors shall provide a narrative in 20 pages or less on the steps and procedures they will take to accomplished the outlined requirements in section C. | ||
| 9 | Are Offerors required to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements and provide a description of any engineering, design, technical, and logistics support required? | Engineering details and designs are included as attachments to the RFP on SAM.gov. Offerors do not need to include their own. | |
| 10 | Typically, we provide a copy of certificate of insurance after contract award. Please advise. | Section C, SOW, Para 4.3.2 | Per Section C 4.3.2, a Certificate of Insurance meeting the requirements at C-228-H002 must be provided within 15 calendar days after award. |
| 11 | Please advise what actions the Government will take to alleviate the problem of |
offerors’ guaranteeing pricing validity for 120 calendar days in the current inflationary environment. At present, subcontractors (and suppliers) are only guaranteeing their prices for 10 to 30 days maximum. In 2021 the Federal Reserve Producer Price Index for Construction Materials increased over 30%. Steel increased over 100% in the past year. The length of time from submission of the contractor’s guaranteed bid to contract award often exceeds the validity of the subcontractor’s guaranteed price.
| Please include escalation in your proposal to account for these projected costs. | |||
| 12 | Coating system call for polyuria VF-50 DM. Would the Contracting Officer consider a 2 or 3 part coating system similar to a Military fuel tank application to prevent corrosion? This would provide a far more uniformed appearance and cost effective than a 40 mil VF-50DM coating. | ||
| SOW, Para. 6.4.1 | The Government approved equivalent may be used in accordance with the SOW. The MSDS and product specification sheets must submitted to the Government for review and approval for the substitution. | ||
| 13 | If Polyuria VF-50 DM is required to be used does this apply to the undercarriage of the containers? | SOW, Para. 6.4.1 | Yes, coating the undercarriage of the structure is required by the contract. |
| 14 | Please confirm that the onsite staff requirement is 1x Superintendent/SSHO and 1xQC? | SOW, Para. 4.3.1/4.12.1 | The project Superintendent/SSHO may also perform as the QC Manager. One (1) person may perform all three (3) roles on this contract. |
| 15 | 180 Calendar days with current lead times and a reasonable submittal approval period prior towards fabrication may not be enough time. Would contracting officer consider adding 60 days for a precon period for submittals and fabrication releases? | SOW, Para 4.2.2 | No, the delivery date will remain at 180 calendar days from Notice to Proceed unless there are unforeseen circumstances. |
| 16 | Would facility allow extended hours and or weekend access to aid in complying with 4.13.1 "minimizing impact to operations" | SOW, Para, 4.13.1 | Yes, the contractor may submit a request to extend the core working hours as defined in section 4.2.3(f) of the SOW. |
| 17 | Would the contractor have any major cause for concern for UXO's? If so please provide UXO protocol. | SOW, Para, 4.14.1 | The project has been granted site approval and a CATEX which identify potential UXO risks. Currently the risk of UXOs impacting this project is low. |
| 18 | For spreading of excess soils as directed MCBQ will the contractor be responsible for providing State ENS required cover such as Seed, straw, mulch ext? Or is the intent of MCBQ for this soil to remain untreated? | SOW, Para 4.15/4.14.2 | The contract does not require ground cover on areas where excess soils are spread. |
| 19 | Will GPRS be allowed onsite as means for 3rd party locating of for existing utilities? If not please define allowed methods | SOW, Para. 5.1 | Yes, the use of GPRS is allowed on the project site. |
| 20 | Will the contractor be responsible for Geotechnical borings to ensure soil for tower pad is stable and current design is suitable? | SOW, Para. 5.1 | No, soil investigations are required by the contract. The Government will inspect the compacted subgrade to ensure that it is suitable and meets the intent of the design. |
| 21 | Since this project was designed by the Navy was a bench mark identified? | SOW, Para 5.2.2 | Project site benchmarks/ control points are identified in sheets C-101 of the associated design drawings. |
| 22 | If no geo-technical borings were done for a 3 story facilities foundation, how do we know if the subgrade is suitable to place the structure? | SOW, Para 5.2.4 | The project design is based off historical data and professional judgement. The design also accounts for anticipated loading, risk category and structure use classification. The Government will inspect the compacted subgrade to ensure that it is suitable and meets the intent of the design. If the soils are determined to be not suitable for the foundation, a contract modification will be executed to account for existing conditions. |
| 23 | As a reference to question 1, section 6.4.4 asks for a 40Mil Thick layer of nonslip VF-50-DM Polyuria or approved equal to cover the reflective surface. Would it be assumed that an approved equal may be used for the exterior coatings of the containers? | A Government approved equivalent may be used in accordance with the SOW. | |
| 24 | The safety railing design is defined in the drawings. Has this design been calculated/tested to know if it can withstand a 500lb concentrated load? | SOW, Para 6.4.5 | No, the designed hand rail has not been tested or certified. |
| 25 | Is the Polyurea coating defined in section 6.4.5 specifically required or is an approved equal acceptable? | SOW, Para 6.4.5 | A Government approved equivalent may be used in accordance with the SOW. |
| 26 | Section 6.6 states that the electrical shall comply with NFPA 70/780. It is assumed that the only electrical as stated is lightning protection and Grounding. Please confirm that further electrical design is not forth coming or that it is not the intent of the GOV to have the contractor provide an energized building with panels, transformers and outlets? | SOW, Para 6.6 | No other electrical scope will be included in the contract. |
| 27 | Is there a Bidder questions/RFI deadline? | Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, paragraph 1.1. | All RFI’s must be submitted by May 19th, 2022 at 12:00 pm PST. |
| 28 | Will the contractor be responsible for building permits? | Section I- Clauses Incorporated by Reference. | Refer to FAR 52.236-7 cited by reference in section I |
| 29 | Is there a preferred vendor for the containers? Must the containers be brand new? | Section I, FAR 52.236-5 | The container must meet all specifications and standards outlined in the 1442 and attachments. In accordance with FAR 52.236-5, "All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract. " |
| 30 | Is there any specs (ISO code) we can use to get the right containers? | Design drawings | No specific ISO code is applicable. Containers must be pre-fabricated to meet the requirements identified in the SOW and construction documents. |
| 31 | Will the contractor need to provide escorts? | SOW, Para 4.2.4(f) | The Contractor is not required to provide escorts at the project site. Range control may assign military personnel to escort Contractor employees as necessary at no additional cost to the Contractor. |
| 32 | Would private/non-government work qualify for past performance? | Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and FAR 42.1502(g). | |
| 33 | UXO signs were present at the range sites. Have areas been verified clear of unexploded ordinance? | SOW, Para 4.14.1 | The project has been granted site approval and a CATEX which identify potential UXO risks and hazards. At this point there are no known existing UXOs. |
| 34 | Tree branches were overhanging access roads to range sites. Will these be trimmed back to allow clear access for crane delivery? | This question is still being evaluated. | |
| 35 | Are only citizens allowed to enter and work in the facility? Are permanent residents allowed? | SOW, Para 4.2.3(a) | Applicable access requirements are defined in SOW section 4.2.3(a). Contractors must contact the MCBQ Visitor Control Center for additional specific information. |
| 36 | Can we get a one week extension on the bid due date? | At this time the Government does not intend to extend the bid due date. | |
| 37 | Can arrangements be made for contractors who missed the scheduled site visit to view the site before offers are due. | No further accommodations for viewing the construction site can be made at this time. |
&"Arial,Bold"FA8903-21-F-XXX Repair Fuel Tanks 483, 484, 1272, 1273, 2203, 2204 and 2205 March ARB, CA Combined Questions and Answers
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .