RFI Clarifications - IDIQ 2024 - Round 2 RFI.pdf

RFI ROUND 2 - Clarifications FY24 NCR MATOC Construction IDIQ

Solicitation # 47PM0123R0023

# RFI Government Response

Amendment 0005, RFI #61: Question: "Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications. Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00." Response: "Final contract amount, including all options and modifications."

RFI #88: Question: "Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications. Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00" Answer: "Base contract value/contract value at time of award."

The two responses to RFI #61 and RFI #88 conflict with each other regarding the project value for Factor 2 - Past Experience. Please clarify whether offerors should put in the contract value at time of award or the final contract value that includes options and modifications

Response to RFI #88 governs.

The document titled "MDE+Stamped+Plans+- +WNRC+Ret+Wall+Replacement+GSA-Site+Plans-2022-02-23" appears to have omitted pages that were initially included in the document "GSA WNRC Retaining Wall-100_ Final Submission- Drawings 2023-10-05 19_57_03". However, it is unclear whether the sole updates are contained within the pages of the new document.

All drawings and specifications shared in this solicitation are to be reviewed. Please review both the initial drawing set and the MDE stamped drawing set. Use the MDE stamped set as a reference for any local authority requirements that may not be listed on the larger set.

If the Inquiry No. 1 results that we need to assess the missing pages with the document "GSA WNRC Retaining Wall-100_ Final Submission- Drawings 2023-10-05 19_57_03", in the Drawings sheet S-1-01 show the limits for excavation, however the SE corner is not shown to be excavated. There is underdrain called to be replaced on the east side wall. Please advise how the underdrain will be replaced without the limit of excavation being extended.

“Do not refer to Structural Drawing S101 for limits of excavation. The anticipated limits of soil fill and paving are indicated but not the limits of excavation. The allowable maximum limits of disturbance (LOD) are shown on Drawings # CS0501, CS1001, CS3001, CS8001, CS8002, and CS8101. This LOD may not be exceeded without written prior permission of MDE and the Owner.”

Due to the extensive nature of the RFI responses provided in Amendment 0005 for Solicitation No. 47PM0123R0023, can the proposal due date be extended to at least 12/28/2023?

Proposal due date has been extended to 4pm on JANUARY 8, 2024

Re. RFI Response 26: Please confirm if any CPARS utilized to meet Factor 1 requirements may be submitted with the proposal, as direct submission via email of CPARS by evaluators is often not possible and as offerors already have the CPARS in their possession.

The response to RFI 26 states "Either Form A or CPARS" is acceptable.

Therefore the answer to your question is, yes.

Re. RFI Response 71: The Government noted that “A subcontract agreement for an A/E firm is required”. A specific subcontract agreement between a prime and a A/E does not appear applicable at this stage. Is the Government looking for a letter of commitment from one A/E, to be available on the contract, plus a Form D for that one A/E? Is the Government intending instead here to confirm that only a Form D Subcontractor Relationship form for one A/E is required to be included, as per RFI response 55?

To meet this Factor only Form D is required. The offeror should refer to

RFI#55.

Re. RFIs 453 and 567: The response to RFI 453 instructs offerors to submit Reps & Certs Form 3518, and appears to instruct offerors NOT to submit Reps & Certs Form C301 which was attached to the solicitation. However, the response to RFI 567, which requests clarification whether offerors are to submit Form C301 or Form 3518, says to submit Form C301. Please clarify - should offerors submit both of these forms, or just one of them, and if only one, which form?

Use form C301

I am hoping you can give me some clarification on an RFI that did not answer my question.

I asked the following question on the RFI for GSA NCR IDIQ:

For a joint venture submission, can all past performance come from one of the Joint Venture members?

and I was told:

See response to question 167

Question 167 only answers about prior experience, not past performance.

But I was referring to past performance like CPARs, not prior experience.

We want to know if both JV members must submit past performance questionnaires or if all past performance questionnaires can come from one JV member.

The answer to RFI#167 and your RFI question are undoubtedly connected. The (5) projects listed in the prior experience are the same (5) projects we are requiring past performance information for. Therefore whoever is listed as the Prime for the (5) projects in prior experience, that is who the Past performance documentation shall be submitted for.

We have a clarification question related to Q&A 453, where offerors asked GSA to provide form 3518.

Question: Representations and Certifications: The solicitation on page 10 refers to the inclusion of GSA Form 3518- Representations and Certifications in our proposal. Form C301 was attached to the solicitation documents. Please confirm that we are to submit Form C301. If not, please provide Form 3518.

Answer: Submit Form 3518. All standard forms can be found on the GSA Forms Library (www.gsa.gov/forms)

We searched online for GSA form 3518 prior to submitting RFIs. The same two forms appear in GSA.gov/forms by searching “3518” OR “representations and certifications,” neither of which apply to this solicitation. Both forms are from 2013, both of which list NAICS 531190 (leasehold interests) with a size standard of $20.5 Million annual sales average of prior three years. Neither the NAICS nor the method of determining size standards are accurate. We could find no reference to C301.

Can GSA please provide form 3518? Or may offerors use the “Offeror Representations and Certifications Form” GSA provided in the solicitation package?

See response to question 7 on "RFI 2"

RFI response #429 conflicts with #127 and several others. Question #429 asked if the seed task order requires contractors to provide separate QCM, Superintendent and SSHO, RFI #429 responded “GSA will not mandate any specific number of personnel. That is determined by the Means & Methods of the contractor.” Question #127 and many others state the Contractor must provide a separate QCM, Superintendent and SSHO. Please clarify if Contractors are to provide 3 separate staff.

Response to #127 is specific to the seed project. Question #429 is more generalized. The correct response to #429 shall be that this will be determined at the task order level based on the needs of the task order and technical requirements. It is impossible to give a blanket response for this question as the complexity of each and every project can be quite different. Some projects GSA may require separate personnel for each of those positions, some projects GSA will not. In most cases GSA will allow the contractor to present their best plan for Quality Control and Safety Management and GSA will review it for acceptance at the task order level.

RFIs responses #453 conflicts with #567. With respect to providing the Reps and Certs, RFI #453 states to provide Form 3518 while #567 states to use Form C-301 included with the RFP. Please clarify which form is to be submitted with the proposal.

See response to question 7 on "RFI 2"

RFI #358 GSA responded it wants the Pricing / Bid Form in PDF but di dnot answer if you also require the Excel file. Please advise if the Pricing / Bid Form should also be submitted in Excel with our proposal.

Only a pdf is required. Please ensure when submitted, all numbers are shown appropriately and include all the relevant pages as an inadequate submission may be disqualifying.

RFI #71. The RFI asked if an actual subcontract agreement between Contractor and AE is required, which the Gov’t responded is required;

however this question as submitted didn’t clarify if a signed subcontract was to be included with the proposal. Does GSA want contractors to include a signed subcontract agreement with an AE firm in the proposal?

The offeror is to review Factor 4 and then fill out Form D. That is all that is required. This factor is not meant to evaluate an agreement. This factor is meant to evaluate your relationships with subcontractors on past projects.

This will give us an idea of the types of realtionships you are offering to bring with you on this opportunity. So again, this is for the evaluation of "relationships" not "agreements". Please rereview the language in Factor 4 of the RFP.

RFI #230. The answer appears to be unrelated to the question posed.

Please clarify.

Corrected. See response to question 23 on "RFI 2"

Amendment 0005, RFI #61: Question: "Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications. Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00."

Response: "Final contract amount, including all options and modifications."

RFI #88: Question: "Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications. Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00" Response: "Base contract value/contract value at time of award."

Clarification Request: The two responses to RFI #61 and RFI #88 conflict with each other regarding the project value for Factor 2 - Past Experience. Please clarify whether offerors should put in the contract value at time of award or the final contract value that includes options and modifications

The response to RFI#88 governs.

Amendment 0005, RFI #176: Question: "Please provide walkthrough attendance/sign in sheet."

Response: "The site visit attendance sheet is posted to www.SAM.gov with Amendment 0002."

Clarification Request: Amendment 0002 makes no reference to the Site Visit Walkthrough Attendance/ Sign In Sheet. Checking all available bid documents on SAM. gov, Amendment 0001 contains the Virtual Attendance List, but none of the Amendments contain or reference the Site Visit Walkthrough Attendance/ Sign In Sheet. Please provide the Site Visit Walkthrough Attendance/ Sign In Sheet

The site visit attandee list is posted with amendment 7

Reference the RFI responses in Amendment 0005, answer 293, please clarify which file the unit price chart is located as referred to in section

2.1.1.18. We do not see the file with this reference.

Unit price chart is in section 2.1.1.18 of the amended SOW

Reference RFI answer 366, this answer indicates “Yes” Offerors are to include the Agreement along with the other requirements in the Price Proposal. 1) Is this correct? 2) If so, will GSA update the solicitation to reflect this and all RFI answers rather than Offerors rely on various solicitation references, including Power Point slides?

1) Yes.

2) The RFI responses are incorporated into the solicitation when posted to www.SAM.gov.

Based upon the MDE waiver (Item #6, 22-SF-0088 - MDE Final Approval) are the formerly required sediment controls now eliminated (with the exception of the SCE and wash rack)?

The sediment and erosion control measures should follow the drawings and specifications as detailed by the A/E of Record.

If a wash rack is required, will GSA allow the use of the fire hydrant for tire washing?

Use of the fire hydrant is not allowed. GSA will allow use of existing hose bib on SW side of building

Does GSA have a WSSC hydrant meter the contractor can use for tire washing?

See reponse to question 20

RFI 61 and RFI 88:

RFI #61 states: Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications.

Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00. The response was: Final contract amount, including all options and modifications.

However, RFI #88 states: Concerning the past projects, Please advise for projects between 2,000- 150,000. the dollars amount threshold at the time of award or the final contract amount including contract modifications. Same with the projects from 150,000- 15,000,000.00. The response was: Base contract value/contract value at time of award.

Please confirm if we are to use the final contract value or the base contract value.

Please see response to question 15 on "RFI 2"

RFI 230:

RFI #230 states: Factor 2: Prior Experience states “At least one project must show proof of compliance and interaction with permitting authorities to include but not limited to; DC Water, MDE, DDOT, etc.

Please confirm VDOT or Texas DOT would be a considered part. The response was: The extent of foam aggregate is needed to reduce earth pressure on the wall and its footing. Some combination of permanent sheeting-shoring and foam aggregate to relieve earth pressure on wall could be an acceptable alternative but would require a submission of drawings and calculations signed and sealed by a Maryland PE for approval.

The response to this question is responsive to RFI #231 and thus RFI #230 was not answered.

RFI#230 clarification: Yes. Any local authority interaction can be provided.

However preference is for DC, MD and VA local authorities.

RFI#231 clarification: The extent of foam aggregate is needed to reduce earth pressure on the wall and its footing. Some combination of permanent sheeting-shoring and foam aggregate to relieve earth pressure on wall could be an acceptable alternative but would require a submission of drawings and calculations signed and sealed by a Maryland PE for approval.

RFI # 453 and RFI #567:

RFI #453 states: Representations and Certifications: The solicitation on page 10 refers to the inclusion of GSA Form 3518- Representations and Certifications in our proposal. Form C301 was attached to the solicitation documents. Please confirm that we are to submit Form C301. If not, please provide Form 3518. The response was: Submit Form 3518. All standard forms can be found on the GSA Forms Library (www.gsa.

gov/forms).

However RFI #567 states: Please clarify whether we are to submit Representation and Certifications Form C301-SAT or GSA Form 3518.

The RFP page 12 says to use the "attached Offeror's Representations and Certifications (C301-SAT)" and on page 10 it says to submit "GSA Form 3518, Representations and Certification.” The response was: Use Form C-301, Representations and Certifications included on the RFP.

Please confirm if we are to use the C301-SAT that was included in the solicitation package or are we to submit the GSA Form 3518?

See response to question 7 on "RFI 2"

RFI #546:

RFI 546 asks: For a joint venture submission, can all past performance come from one of the Joint Venture members? The response was: See response to question 167. In reviewing RFI 167, this question was FACTOR 2: PRIOR EXPERIENCE - For JV offerors, is each member of a JV required to submit 5 projects (10 total)? The response was: The JV submits five (5) projects in total.

This response does not inform of as to whether all five (5) of the projects can come from one of the JV members. Please advise.

See response to question 8 on "RFI 2"

In regard to question #83, can the tieback beams be demolished and replaced due to the over dig condition to avoid shoring during construction? Same outcome will be provided with this method.

This proposed substitute approach in concept would be acceptable.

Acceptance would depend on details such as how much is removed and how the splice is made.

In regard to question #381, confirm #6 dowels from existing footing to new retaining wall is @ 4 ½ ” O.C. not 4 1/2 ft.

This is for the dowel bars on 1/S301.

The reason we asked this is because dowels spacing at 4 ½” o.c. is extremely hard to keep in a reusable condition after demo.

Confirmed.

Question #567’s answer states that we must “Use Form C-301, Representations and Certifications included on the RFP” but answer to #453 says to “Submit Form 3518. All standard forms can be found on the GSA Forms Library (www.gsa.gov/forms)” please clarify which form to submit.

see resonse to question 7 on "RFI 2"

The presentation attached in amendment 0001 on pg 14, indicated we submit Representations and Certifications under a separate section called “Other Information” instead of under Price Proposal like it typically

is. Please confirm where to submit Reps and Certs and any other misc.

requested information. Also please clarify for GSA Form 527.

Please refrence section II.B. Proposal Format on page 10 of The Solicitation v2 revised 23 11 07

This question was originally asked alone on 12/4 but we wanted to ensure it was included with all the other questions: Question #546 “For a joint venture submission, can all past performance come from one of the Joint Venture members? Governments response was: “See response to question #167” but response only answers about Prior Experience, not Past Performance. Please clarify if both JV members must submit Form A or CPARS for past performance or if all submissions can come from one JV member.

See response to question 8 on "RFI 2"

Background- Re: RFI/Government Response #s 43, 142, 187, 359, 436, 512, 532. CPARS evaluations include the following categories: Quality, Schedule, Cost Control (for non-Fixed Price contracts), Management, Safety, Small Business Subcontracting, and Regulatory Compliance.

For the Regulatory Compliance evaluation area, CPARS.gov “CPARS-guidance” (https://www.cpars.gov/documents/CPARS-Guidance.pdf) provides the following yes/no, pass/fail, acceptable/unacceptable criteria:

Consider questions such as the following: • Has the contractor complied with all contract clause requirements? • Has the contractor complied with the reporting requirements of the contract? • Has the contractor complied with the quality assurance surveillance plan? • Has the contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements in the contract such as Integrity reporting, CAS reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, and standard and unique contract requirements specific to that contract?

Hence, a contractor’s regulatory compliance performance can only result in either a “yes” or “no” answer to the stated questions according to official CPARS guidance.

Regulatory Compliance, for the types of DB and DBB construction projects being submitted under this acquisition, is almost always rated on an acceptable/unacceptable or pass/fail basis when a rating is provided for that category.

Question: We respectfully ask that the GSA confirms that a “Satisfactory” rating and/or no Evaluator rating entered for Regulatory Compliance will be considered compliant/sufficient and/or not included in the requirement that all ratings must be “Very Good” or better.

The CPARS rating is required to be minimum "Very Good" for all categories.

Background - Re: RFI/Government Response #s 43, 142, 187, 359, 436, 512, 532. This solicitation for a Small Business National Capital Region MATOC is restricted to Small Businesses. Small Businesses are not required to provide, adhere to, or track compliance with a Small Business Subcontracting Plan on the types of DB and DBB construction projects being submitted against this solicitation. It is therefore not possible for a CPARS evaluator to assign a rating of anything other than a “Satisfactory” against the Small Business Subcontracting category of a CPARS evaluation. In most cases this field is left blank when the performance of a Small Business without a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is being evaluated. In some cases the evaluator may decide to provide a “Satisfactory” rating, but there is no criterion upon which to assign any higher -or- lower rating (i.e., “Marginal, “Very Good” or “Exceptional”). “Satisfactory” or no Evaluator rating entered for this category are the only possible responses.

Question: Please confirm that a “Satisfactory” rating or no Evaluator rating entered for Small Business Subcontracting will be considered compliant/sufficient and/or not included in the requirement that all ratings for Small Business Subcontracting must be “Very Good” or better.

The CPARS rating is required to be minimum "Very Good" for all categories.

Background- Re: RFI/Government Response #26, 42, 44 and RFP Factor 1: Past Performance (Form A) and RFP Factor 2: Prior Experience (Form B).

Question: Where are CPARS ratings to be included within Offerors’ proposals? Should they be provided behind a tab/divider for Factor 1:

Past Performance or should they be provided behind each respective Form B in Factor 2: Experience?

CPARS is Past Performance. Submit with FORM A.

Background – Re: RFP Factor 1: Past Performance (Form A).

Question: Form A was filled out and submitted to our clients who then completed and signed them before sending them directly to the GSA in November. How are Offerors to indicate to the GSA evaluators that a Form A was submitted within our proposals? Is it acceptable to include a table after the tab/divider for Factor 1: Past Performance in which it is indicated which projects the GSA should have on file a corresponding completed/signed Form A and which projects are being represented under this factor with a CPARS rating? This would also ease the SSEB’ s task of keeping track of the many Form As that have been received during the evaluation process.

Yes. That is acceptable, but not required.

Given the significant delay in receiving responses to RFI's and the volume of over 500 RFI responses to review that have a material impact on offers, we are requesting that the Government extend the due date for the proposal at least an additional week, and preferably two. We understand that GSA has many priorities for its time and that there were a large number of questions submitted, however, offerors need sufficient time to fully review, clarify, and process information released into plans and cost estimates (including subcontractor cost estimates) for performing the SEED project, to re-issue PPQ's (Form A) to references as a result of RFI guidance if applicable, and to fully review and approve costs, etc. before submittal. The Stamped drawings were released only on the 2nd of December which also requires full review and takeoffs, etc.

See response to question 4 on "RFI"

Clarification with respect to how / where CPAR should be submitted.

Should offerors attach CPAR to the end of their techncial submittal? Or should offerors include CPAR reports immediately following the relevant project experience form in the submittal package.

See response to question 33 on "RFI 2"

GSA issued Amendment #0003 on November 8, 2023, and it included the updated document (The Solicitation V2 23 11 07). This ammendment changed the GSA Representation and Certification Form 3518 and replaced it with Form C-301. We are unable to find form 3518 in the solicitation documents or at GSA's website (https://www.gsa.

gov/forms). We are also unable to find this form anywhere on the internet.

Please any assistance in helping us locate form C-301 will be highly appreciated, and if it can be posted with the next ammendment will also be very helpful.

C301 Offeror Representations and Certifications was posted to www.SAM.

gov with the original solicitation docs on October 5, 2023

THE AGREEMENT: Responses 2, 366, and 396 from the uploaded document "RFI+Response+23+12+01" say we are to include the Agreement in the price proposal.

Are we supposed to fill in anything in the Agreement or simply provide a copy of the agreement form that was issued on with the RFP on 10/5/23?

Provide a copy of the Agreement that was issued with the RFP. If awarded, the Agreement incoporates the terms and conditions of the conract.

FORMAT FOR SUBMITTING PRICE BID FORM PACKAGE: Multiple questions have been submitted about the format(s) in which we are to complete the price bid form. The answers seem to contradict each other.

Response 119 referred us to Response 117, which said to follow instructions on the first page of the form. These instructions say: “The entire package must be submitted.” This part does not say in what format the package should be submitted. The instructions go on to say:

“In addition, at your dIscretion, you may save the "Summary Bid Sheet" as a PDF format and submit it along with the entire package.”

•This appeared to mean that we should submit the entire Excel workbook as an Excel file and then, if we want, also submit a pdf of the Summary Bid Sheet.

•In question 358, however, someone asked again, with confusing results. When they asked if we should provide Excel, PDF, or both, Response 358 pointed them to the same instructions discussed above, then seemed to contradict them by saying, “Yes pdf is required.”

•Does this mean you don’t want anything in Excel format? Are we supposed to print out pdfs of all 38 spreadsheets from the Excel workbook?

•Please tell us exactly what format(s) to use. Please don’t refer us to previous responses, since these responses have confused us.

Submit the entire Bid Form (all pages) in pdf format

A/E Subcontract: Response 71 said, “A subcontract agreement for an A/E firm is required.” Does this mean we are supposed to attach a copy of a signed past subcontract with the A/E firm from one of the 5 Prior Experience projects?

No

PLANS UPDATE: The document titled "MDE+Stamped+Plans+- +WNRC+Ret+Wall+Replacement+GSA-Site+Plans-2022-02-23" attached in the Amendment 05 appears to have omitted pages that were initially included in the document "GSA WNRC Retaining Wall-100_ Final Submission-Drawings 2023-10-05 19_57_03". However, it is unclear whether the sole updates are contained within the pages of the new document, or we need to address this as the new parameters.

To the best that we can tell, the “MDE+Stamped+Plans” includes two details sheets (CS1801 and CS8106) that were excluded from the “Final Submission-Drawings”; and the “Final Submission-Drawings” include an overall cover sheet (G-001) and the structural drawings (S-001 to 501), which were excluded from the “MDE+Stamped+Plans.” Accordingly, the “MDE+Stamped+Plans” civil drawings (CS0001 – CS8106) should supersede the civil plans in the “Final Submission-Drawings.”

UNDERDRAIN: If the past inquiry results that the new pages in the documents are merely update, in the document "GSA WNRC Retaining Wall-100_ Final Submission-Drawings 2023-10-05 19_57_03", sheet S- 101 show the limits for excavation, however the SE corner is not shown to be excavated. There is underdrain called to be replaced on the east side wall. Please advise how the underdrain will be replaced without the limit of excavation being extended.

Do not refer to Structural Drawing S101 for limits of excavation. The anticipated limits of soil fill and paving are indicated but not the limits of excavation. The allowable maximum limits of disturbance (LOD) are shown on Drawings # CS0501, CS1001, CS3001, CS8001, CS8002, and CS8101. This LOD may not be exceeded without written prior permission of MDE and the Owner.