Comments_Log_Responses.pdf

DRAFT SOLICITATION N69450-14-R-1756

P-100/P-099 NUCLEAR POWER TRAINING FACILITIES

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

1 20-Nov-13 sec. 02.82 16.00 20 par 1.29

Is the hazard material contractor for this project employed and paid for by the Navy independent of the prime contractor on this project?

The referenced section of the specifications refers to the GC. There will not be an independent hazardous material contractor for this project.

20-Nov-13 sec. 02.82 16.00 20 sec 02 83 13.00 20

Is there a hazard material survey for this project? There is a hazardous material survey for this project. It applies to Building 43, which is the hazardous materials storage facility. There is asbestos and lead paint in the building, which is to be demolished. The report will be included with the final RFP.

20-Nov-13 sec. 02.82 16.00 20 sec 02 83 13.00 20 If no hazard material survey has been done for this project will the Navy employ and paid for this Independently or will the prime contractor do this work for this project?

A hazardous material survey has been completed for this project.

4 20-Nov-13 sec. 01.90 00.00 40 par 1.3.1

Is the Commissioning Agent for this project employed and paid for by the Navy or the AE firm independent of the prime contractor on this project?

The commissioning agent is employed by the AE firm independent of the prime contractor on this project.

22-Nov-13 specifications Is there a written phasing plan that references the phasing number 1-11 that are shown on the plans with all of the phase listed and define in the specification's ? If not will one be provided?

The phasing drawings should be considered as sequencing drawings. The contract phases that are tied to LDs are spelled out separately and alphabetically (in final RFP) rather than numerically.

22-Nov-13 RFP draft In the solicitation bid form (on page 3-6 in the RFP draft) references phase A,B,and C, is there a written phasing plan with all of these phases listed and define in the specification's ? If not will one be provided? Also how does this phasing plan work with the numbered phasing plan listed on the drawings? This will help the subcontractor understand the phasing better.

The contract phases are not tied to the sequencing drawings. They are defined in the solicitation. Further definition was not deemed necessary as Phase A is Building 2701, Phase B is the pier and Phase C is the remainder of the project.

22-Nov-13 RFP draft In the solicitation draft RFP (on page 16 ) references phase 1,2,and 3, is there a written phasing plan with all of these phases listed and define in the specification's ? If not will one be provided? Also how does this phasing plan work with the numbered phasing plan listed on the drawings and with what is on the bid form on page 3-6 of the draft RFP ?This will help the subcontractor understand the phasing better.

Phases should be A, B and C and will be corrected in the final RFP.

8 22-Nov-13 RFP draft In the solicitation bid form (on page 3-6 in the RFP draft) references phase A,B,and C, are these phases the same the phases listed on page 16 ( phase 1,2,and3) ?

Yes. Delivery phasing will be corrected to read A, B, and C throughout the solicitation.

22-Nov-13 sec 13 50 014 par 1.2 Is there a basis of design for the survival mooring system? There is not a basis of design for the SMS. The system itself will be provided as GFE. The Sea Catch device is manufactured by McMillan Design, Inc.

10 22-Nov-13 sec 13 50 014 par 1.6.1

What is the government furnished material and equipment for this section ( survival mooring system)? As defined in paragraph 1.2, the GFE will include the Sea Catch devices, chain and connection hardware.

22-Nov-13 specifications Will there be a specification section explaining which buildings and drawing sets go with each CLIN # on the bid form? This will help the subcontractors understand what work/plans goes with each bid item.

The CLINs have been updated to include the building information for CLIN 01 and CLIN 06 to more clearly define which drawing sets are associated with each project.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

12 25-Nov-13 Site Condition Is the existing site classified as Superfund? Also, is hazardous remediation considered part of this contract? This is not a Superfund site. Some soil sampling will be required within the vicinity of building 43 which is to be demolished.

13 25-Nov-13 Sub factor 5.B/26 What Factor/Percent of the overall proposal review/evaluation will be given towards the Small Business Utilization? Refer to draft RFP page 18. Paragraph F.2.

14 25-Nov-13 Sub factor 5.B/26 If the Solicitation is factoring in Small Business participation "GOALS" can you be more specific on what would be "Required" at a minimum?

Minimum requirements are listed in the Basis for Evaluation.

15 25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award

Can you provide an evaluation percentage for the "Non-Cost/ Price factors" for each subfactors 1 through 5? Refer to draft RFP page 18. Paragraph F.2.

25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award Factor 5 - Small Business Utilization (subfactor 5.B.- Small Business Participation. Can you provide at a minimum the goals that must be met for this solicitation? Possibly add a section in the solicitation where the contractor is to submit the subcontractor with their proposal response.

Minimum requirements are listed in the Basis for Evaluation.

25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award

Since the RFP is more than likely an Un Restricted "Large Business" type project. Could NAVFAC commit to Small Business sub contracting plans for this solicitation, where goals will be "mandatory" at a minimum and insert the Contract Compliance structures in the contract? (See FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns)

Minimum requirements are listed in the Basis for Evaluation.

25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award Since this RFP is Negotiated, Could NAVFAC consider adding small business utilization Incentive program for evaluations of any Prime Contractors that will actually utilize small businesses and exceed goals with bid submission? (see FAR 52.219-10 Incentive Subcontracting Plan)

This has been considered. The factor remains.

19 25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award

What plan or regulatory process does NAVFAC have in place to assure that small businesses utilization will be used on this project?

Subcontractor compliance reviews will be conducted throughout the performance period of the contract.

20 25-Nov-13 F Evaluation Factors for Award

Would NAVFAC consider inserting FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Sub Contracting Plan details into the solicitation and have this to be a determining factor for award?

See Factor 5.

21 25-Nov-13 LD's/Page 26 Why are the LD's for this project so high? LD's are reflective of project size and schedule.

22 25-Nov-13 LD's/Page 26 Is the daily Rate based on cost incurred by the government if the facilities are not completed on time? We agree this should be well enough adequate time to complete the phases just curious what is driving the daily rate?

Daily rates are based on the Liquidated Damages Table provided in NFAS 11.502.

23 3-Dec-13 Is the contractor responsible for disposal of the dredging? If so, is it considered hazardous waste? This is under consideration and may be addressed in the final RFP.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

5-Dec-13 Factor 1 General Construction Experience

We are very interested in responding to the subject solicitation # N69450-14-R-1756, as a general contractor or as part of a team. However, we have a question regarding the possible interpretation of a specific program requirement under Factor 1 and how it may be applied to a project we would propose to submit as qualifying experience under this sub-factor. Factor 1 - Basis of Evaluation includes the following language “For Multiple award contract (MAC) or indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contracts (ID/IQ) contracted, the specific relevant task order (not the entire MAC or ID/IQ) will be considered for evaluation purposes…”

We have a unique situation that we would like to affirm passes this criteria . In 2007, we were awarded an $80M + contract to construct two buildings (highly relevant to the subject project) for the Army Corps of Engineers- see attached award letter. The project was proposed in response to one solicitation and awarded in one contract with numerous CLINs that the Corps treated as options. However, due to funding constraints the contract was separated into separate project task orders for award. That notwithstanding, the buildings were adjacent to each other and were built simultaneously as one project. While the total amount of work done under this contract well exceeded the threshold to qualify it as relevant to this solicitation we wanted to affirm that the singular “task order” language would not make this project non-qualifying. We hope that you could respond to how a situation such as this one may be viewed relative to this project prior to the publishing of the solicitation and before we commit to expend resources pursuing this project

This is under consideration and may be addressed in the final RFP.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

25a

9-Dec-13 Factor 1 General Construction Experience

In order to enhance the quality of competition, we recommend NAVFAC reconsider the General Construction relevant project experience definition for the prime offeror. The significant features in the RFP are too difficult to demonstrate given that all relevant projects must be $80 million dollars and 170,000-sf. In reviewing the significant features, consider moving all of the specific concrete/pile work to the Specialized Construction Experience section.

The majority of primes that qualify for this work will not come out of the low country and many don’t self-perform concrete or pile driving of this magnitude. Even those that do self-perform concrete and pile driving of this magnitude won’t be able to competitively send their forces to Charleston to self-perform this activity. Therefore, demonstrating this experience through a teaming subcontractor should be an option in offeror’s proposals since it is the most likely means for performance. Additionally, by moving these features to Specialized Construction Experience it would no longer be necessary to demonstrate these characteristics with a project that meets or exceeds $80M and 170,000-sf. That should not raise concern. The project is an assembly of multiple buildings and structures. These concrete features are specialized requirements and are more readily demonstrated on smaller projects. The General Contractor brings all of the necessary experience in managing a complex project of this size and magnitude ($80M and 170,000-sf) involving multiple facility types, phasing and sequencing, multiple construction divisions of work, various stakeholders and congested site and occupancy challenges. The RFP requires many of these significant features to be demonstrated by relevant projects. We agree that these features represent critical experience that a GC needs to bring to the P100/P99 procurement.

The concrete and pile driving are critical pieces of this project. While we fully expect that there will be a specialized subcontractor actually performing the work, it is critical that the GC has experience managing a project of the same magnitude that has dealt with these issues. We are not asking that the prime contractor self-performed this work, just that they have managed a project that included it. While the concrete work is a specialty item, the fact that we are doing very thick concrete on very tall facilities does necessitate that we look at projects that have included this level of effort.

25b We also recommend moving the single project with at least two multi-story facilities to the basic requirements for all relevant projects.

We have considered the single project with multiple facilities as a base requirement. One project that demonstrates this will be sufficient.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

25c

9-Dec-13 Factor 1 General Construction Experience

We recommend the high-bay experience requirement be reduced in height to 32 feet or higher if the RFP requirement to demonstrate this experience continues to be on a relevant project of $80M and 170,000-sf. The complexities of this project are not in any single element or construction activity but rather in the execution of the project in its totality. It would be unfortunate and not in the owner’s best interest to deny a well-qualified strong performing GC an opportunity to present on this project because of an extremely prescriptive experience requirement largely focused at a particular feature, namely high-bay construction. There are arguably more challenging features in the construction of P100/P99 than the 60-ft high-bay area that are being covered through specialized experience. High-bay facilities with administrative spaces and adjoining industrial support infrastructure are typical components of facilities such as rail, light rail, and commercial bus maintenance and operations facilities.

Although quite high, the high-bay requirements of these facilities rarely reach 60-ft, but can typically range from 32 to 40 feet high. This experience should be deemed relevant. Since the solicited project introduces much risk to the offeror in terms of complexity and high LD’s, additional disqualifying characteristics such as the stringent high-bay height requirement threatens the turn-out on the project and therefore the project’s affordability and overall success for NAVFAC and the nuclear Navy

The factor is being updated to more clearly demonstrate that we are not looking for just any high-bay facility. This project includes an 82-foot, cast in place, reinforced concrete high-bay. There is a large difference between steel framed high-bays and concrete high-bays, especially with regards to formwork, bracing, scheduling, sequencing, safety and logistics. 32' to 40' high bays do not have the same challenges. After consideration, the requirement will be reduced to 45'.

25d

9-Dec-13 Factor 1 General Construction Experience without the above changes to the relevant project definitions, we are concerned that the RFP is encouraging firms unfamiliar with each other to consider Joint Venturing just to meet the relevant project definition requirements. The Experience factor is worth approximately 20% of the technical rating minus the confidence assessment factor.

Once the confidence assessment factor is introduced at approximately 50% of the overall technical rating, the Experience factor’s impact greatly diminishes. Through this lens we are concerned that “forced marriages” or quickly formed JV’s will have unintended consequences during execution as unfamiliar JV partners staff, execute and manage a very complex project with tight schedule constraints while learning each other’s business practices.

Normally, JV’s can stand up and be effective on regular Military Construction work. However, given the demands of the solicited work with minimum tolerance for non-compliance in all measures, we believe JV’s (primarily new JV’s) represent a very real concern and not worth the risk to the Navy. Our recommendations above will mitigate this risk significantly and allow a GC to offer in many cases as the sole offeror bringing their time tested business methods and experienced staff to bear

Refer to response to 25a.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

11-Dec-13 With the approval of DDESB not coming until March of 2014 , Why are we bidding this project in February 2014 before you get the approval?

My suggestion is to bid this project as a two phase procurement like the Corp of Engineers does on large complex jobs.

Proposals will be evaluated by the government in accordance with the following criteria for phase one: past performance, technical approach, and pro forma information. following completion of the evaluation of phase one up to a maximum of five most highly qualified offerers will be selected to participate in phase two the pricing. This way you do phase one before the DDESB approval then do the pricing after you have the approval.

With all the interested bidders that show up to the forum, most would think this would be a good way to go ( most general contractors would like to bid against five highly qualified bidder than against fifteen or twenty not totally qualified bidders ). Why not ask each company what they think of this idea?

Two phase procurements are defined in the FAR for design-build projects. We have considered trying to do a two phase procurement, but were unable to find a workable solution with the available timeline and the acquisition regulations.

11-Dec-13 00010/6/CLIN 0007 Option Item 6 is identified as P-099 IX-516 Survival Mooring System IAW specifications and drawings incorporated into the solicitation. The only survival mooring system specifications and drawings address the new submarine mooring system, not that for the existing IX-516 barge. Further, the submarine mooring system drawings are included in the P100 drawing package. Please clarify if there is a separage IX-516 mooring to be installed and if so where the specifications and drawings for that are located.

The location for Option item 6 had not been identified at the issuance of the draft RFP. The location and details for the barge SMS will be included in the final RFP. The system is very similar, but with fewer piles and in a different location.

28 12-Dec-13 General Please confirm if the contract documents have been authored in a 3D design tool software such as Revit or AutoCAD 3D. If so, please provide the documents for contractor use.

The contract documents have been prepared in Revit. CAD files will be provided by the Government to the awardee, but not Revit files.

12-Dec-13 Site Visit Would it be worthwhile for our representative to attend this Site Visit, since this will be a Design-Build?

We like to link up with any GC’s we can, if there will be any furniture placed into the construction documents.

This project is a design-bid-build. Furniture must be purchased from the NAVSUP list of Navy Office Supply Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPAs)

18-Dec-13 Section 00202 / 20 / III. F. 3. b. 1. a. 2

The draft RFP states under Specialized Construction to Submit a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of thre (3) projects for each of the specialized categories below. The specialized experieenc projects must have been completed within the past five years by the offeror (either as a prime contractor or subcontractor).

Comment: We request that the completion date be revised from "within the past five years" to "within the past ten years."

This has been considered. The requirement remains.

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

COMMENTS LOG

Question/C omment

Question Date RFP Section/ Page/Paragraph

Question Response

18-Dec-13 Section 00202 / 21 / III. F. 3. b. 2. a. 3

The draft RFP states under Support Systems Complex (SSC): Narrative should be limited to two pages.

Comment: We request that the narrative should be revised from "should be limited to two pages" to "should be limited to five pages." This requirement cannot be adequately discussed in two pages.

This is under consideration and may be addressed in the final RFP.