Amendment_0005.docx

The purposes of this amendment are to:

1) Provide a revised Section G.

· The Government failed to identify the minimum key personnel in Article G.2. Additionally, the Task Order Procedures in Article G.3.(c)(2) were revised to reflect that price will be an evaluation factor in all task orders instead of a potential evaluation factor and to incorporate the revised language about subcontractors that is addressed in the questions.

2) Provide a revised Section H

· There were a number of articles in Section H that needed to be revised to incorporate corrected language or to associate the article with the specifications

3) Provide Specification 01 33 00 – Revision 1

4) Provide Attachment L5 – TOR 13-00 – Task Order Pricing Template – Revision 3

· Because the Lab Renovation project is a sample project, the Government has decided to provide the quantities for certain line items (quantities for all other line items can be scaled from the drawings). Offerors shall not provide a price for any line item that is filled in and crossed through (they were left in the Task Order Pricing Template to show that type of work would typically be included in a lab renovation). Offerors shall fill in the rest of the Task Order Pricing Template.

5) Provide TOR 13-00 – Revised Drawings – Dated 02-10-14

· Sheet A101 was modified to clarify the demolition notes

· Information was added to sheet A201 to identify the reagent shelving more clearly

· Drawing scales were added to sheets A101, A201, M100, M101 and E100

· Direction arrows were added to sheets M100, M101 and E100

· Clarification was added in the general notes section of sheets A101, M101 and M102 to state that ceiling penetrations could be assumed to be reused and existing electrical, mechanical and plumbing services can be assumed to support the new layout

· Added existing ductwork sizing to sheet M100

6) Provide Attachment L6 – TOR 214-20 – Statement of Work – Revision 3

7) Provide Attachment L7 – TOR 214-20 – Task Order Pricing Template – Revision 3

8) Provide Attachment L9 – TOR 214-26 – Task Order Pricing Template – Revision 3

9) Provide a minor clarification about Amendment 0004

· Amendment 0004 extended the proposal due date to 02/20/14 for the reasons specified in the amendment. In reviewing the amendment, on the SF 30 the box in block 11 was mistakenly not checked for “The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended”. There was not a question asked about this, but this is intended to clarify for all Offerors if there was any confusion. The proposal due date is 02/20/14. It is not revised from that date in this amendment.

10) Provide answers to the following questions:

Q.1: The Solicitation states that 3 Subcontractor Quotes be attached to each Task Order Template for all Subcontracted work. We cannot find this requirement in the FARs. Also, it is not unusual to receive subcontractor/supplier quotes moments prior to the time to submit proposals - this makes it very possible that the Government could be missing out on a lower cost due to not having time to get copy of the sub's proposal to the NIH. In light of the above can this requirement be waived?

A.1: The Government has re-evaluated this requirement and determined that a prime contractor will need to provide backup documentation for the subcontracted work only on sole source task orders (e.g. task orders awarded to meet the minimum amount for the MATOC) or in the event the Government has to enter negotiations even though the task order was competed among all the MATOC contractors (this is not anticipated to happen often but it could happen if the Government determines that the task order cannot be awarded for a fair and reasonable price). While the Government reserves the right to request the back-up documentation in negotiations, the Government may choose not to require back-up documentation from any or all contractors if the subcontracted amount is minimal or the subcontracted amount is determined reasonable. This information replaces information included in the Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing pertaining to the Task Order Procedures (see Attached revised Section G – Article G.3. (c)(2)). The rationale for requesting any backup documentation would only be to make the determination that the task order can be awarded at a fair and reasonable price.

Q.2: If a prime contractor is awarded a task order and the proposal indicated they would use a subcontractor, is the prime contractor required to utilize that subcontractor or can they utilize another subcontractor after award if the prime contractor chooses for some reason?

A.2: The Government does not wish to dictate to prime contractors how they will run their business. At the same time, there may be instances where the Government would want to review the credentials of the subcontractor a prime contractor wishes to utilize instead of the subcontractor identified prior to award of the contract or an individual task order.

For any major subcontractor included in their proposal for the MATOC that a prime contractor wishes to replace, the contractor shall provide credentials for Government approval of the replacement subcontractor. The replacement major subcontractor will not be allowed to perform the work unless the Government approves that subcontractor. Additionally, at the next option exercise, the Government will take into effect any change to a major subcontractor to help in determining if the contractor is still capable of performing the requirements of the contract.

For an individual task order, if the Government identifies a subcontractor as the sole source allowed (e.g. proprietary system) that is the only subcontractor the prime contractor will be allowed to use. If a specific element of work is included as an evaluation factor, the contractor will follow the procedures included above for a major subcontractor. The prime contractor may utilize another subcontractor after award for any other subcontractor.

Prime contractors should be aware that whatever subcontractors they utilize (either identified prior to award or substituted after award) will be a reflection upon the prime contractor since the Government only has privity of contract with the prime contractor. Any work done by a subcontractor (either good or bad) or any issues the Government has with a subcontractor will be factored into the past performance for the prime contractor.

Q.3: In receiving three bids for subcontractors will the GC be required to use the sub with the lowest bid and or the subcontractor whom they included on their quote.

A.3: See Questions 1 and 2

Q.4: The stated Task Order Procedures/Proposal Format requires submission of multiple subcontractor quotes to support determination of price reasonableness and realism when proposing on a task order. Multiple General Contractors (GC’s) will be providing pricing for each of the seed Task Orders. Under FAR, receipt of multiple lump sum quotes from GC’s is sufficient support to determine price reasonableness and realism. Requiring multiple sub quotes and expecting award to the low bidder can restrict certain means and methods. For example, a GC may see field office expenses as the primary cost driving factor on most task orders, and may wish to establish long term relationships with quality, fast subs. With better, faster subs, a field office staff can handle more task orders without adding staff and each task order is finished more quickly, reducing cost as field office expense is a function of time. It was our intent to provide pricing from dependable key subcontractors that have a history of excellent past performance and competitive pricing because we know they can get the projects completed in this special environment on time, within budget, and in a quality manner. Can the requirement for backup documentation of multiple subcontract quotes be removed as a requirement for this solicitation and subsequent task orders? (Further, now that it’s been publicly announced that the task order for the Lab Renovation is a “sample project” and the work is not needed, the field of subcontractor participation will have narrowed considerably. Pricing a job costs money which contractors consider a cost of doing business but generally don’t like to do when there is no business to be done.)

A.4: See Question 1

Q.5: In Volume 2, Page 11. We are to include copies of Subcontract Agreements with Major Subcontractors. We cannot issue Subcontracts until we are awarded a Task Order. We cannot issue Subcontracts for work that we are not under contract to perform. Can this part of the Proposal be waived?

A.5: This requirement is for offerors that are identifying the use of one or more major subcontractors as part of their approach. Offerors are not required to provide a copy of all subcontracts for any work performed (e.g. any work that is being proposed to be subcontracted on a TOR included in the solicitation), only for major subcontractors. If an offeror is planning on using a major subcontractor to perform a type of work (e.g. an offeror is going to utilize one subcontractor to do all mechanical work) and that is part of the approach the Offeror provides within their proposal, then the Offeror shall include a copy of an agreement between the Offeror and the major subcontractor so the Government has documentation that the major subcontractor has agreed to perform all of that work for that Offeror.

Q.6: Will all three projects (TOR 13-00, TOR 214-20, and TOR 214-26) get awarded?

A.6: TOR 13-00 is a sample lab project. The work identified in the SOW is not required to be done currently. Because a large percentage of the work over the life of the MATOC is likely going to include lab renovation work, the Government wanted to get pricing from offerors for evaluation purposes only that would be a representative amount that a contractor would likely propose for lab renovations in the future. TOR 214-20 and TOR 214-26 will be awarded as task orders. These two task orders will not be awarded to the same contractor, regardless of whether one contractor provides the lowest price for both task orders. The Government will award the two task orders to two of the awardees for the lowest aggregate total.

The Government would award Contractor A TOR 214-20 and Contractor B TOR 214-26 since that would be the lowest aggregate total for the Government ($24 vs. $25).

Q.7: At the pre-proposal conference it was stated that the task order for the lab renovation is a “sample project” and that the work is not funded or even needed. Now that this is public knowledge some subcontractors are reluctant to bid on this solicitation since this was a major portion of the overall work. Also this creates a no-risk situation for proposing GCs. Unrealistic low pricing can be submitted to position a contractor more favorably for an award on the MATOC since there is no actual commitment to perform the work. Under which FAR regulation is this allowed? Can an actual project that needs to be performed be added to this solicitation that will support subcontractor participation and realistic pricing? Alternatively, can the lab sample renovation be converted to include a requirement for binding unit pricing so the low bidder may be awarded the next lab renovation? In this case, the contractor with the best price on the sample would be required to perform the next lab renovation for the submitted price, with changes between the sample renovation and the actual renovation adjusted by the submitted unit pricing.

A.7: There will not be any changes to the solicitation with regard to the task orders included for the price evaluation. The proposal for TOR 13-00 will be evaluated against the Government estimate to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. If the price is determined unrealistically low or high, the price will not be determined fair and reasonable. If that is the case, unless the Government enters discussions, that contractor would not be able to win an award. Offerors are highly encouraged to provide a proposal they believe is fair and reasonable for the work included in the SOW. Different requirements for different lab renovations do not allow for an established unit price structure that is fair for either the Government or a contractor. Therefore, other than projects selected by the Government as sole source task orders in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2), all projects will be competed among all awardees.

Q.8: The Pricing Templates leave the Scope of Work for each Task Order open to interpretation; we are to only price the items listed in the Template and everything to accomplish that work is to be included in that Line Item - If one contractor feels there is incidental work which will have to be performed for that line item (core drill, repair drywall, ceiling, patch, etc. - as examples) and another contractor does not then the first contractors line item number will be skewed compared to the other contractor - possibly leading to protests. Similar if one Contractor includes something in the Additional Items Not Covered Category and the second contractor does not than they are proposing on two different scopes of work. In the past only SF 1442 has been used to submit proposals for a Federal Project. Is it not a FAR Regulation that SF1442 be used and not the Task Order Pricing Templates?

A.8: Per FAR 53.236-1, a SF 1442 is utilized for awarding a contract which is why one is utilized in the solicitation for the MATOC, but it is not necessarily utilized for awarding a task order. FAR 53.216-1 states that OF 347, prescribed in 53.213(f), (or an approved agency form) may be used to place orders under indefinite delivery contracts and basic ordering agreements, as specified in 16.703(d)(2)(i). The Government has determined that it will utilize an OF 347 for the award of task orders.

The Government has revised the Task Order Pricing Templates to provide the Offerors a template for their pricing with the expectation that all of the work included in the Statement of Work is included in the line items identified in the Task Order Pricing Template or should be included in the LOT price for all other work in that discipline. Work that is incidental to a category (e.g. Mechanical work that is not a specific line item) should be incorporated into the LOT price for all other work in that discipline. There should be no other items needed in the proposal other than administration (e.g. on a larger project a contractor wishes to propose a secretary to do submittal work and they wish to include it as a direct cost instead of overhead). Offerors do not need to utilize the Administration category; it is included on every Task Order Pricing Template in case an offeror wishes to utilize it. The Government will use this as one way to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. If a contractor’s price is unreasonably high or unreasonably low the Government will review the individual elements (Mechanical, Electrical, etc.) to try to determine if the reason the contractor was unreasonably high or low was because of one or more of the individual elements.

As a general note – while comparison of the price proposals will occur for task order awards, the Government is still responsible for awarding task orders at a fair and reasonable price. If a contractor provides a price that is determined to be unreasonably low (as compared to other offerors or as compared to the Government estimate for that task order) that contractor would not be awarded the task order. The Government may choose to enter negotiations on any task order to ensure the award will be made at a fair and reasonable price.

One of the examples you included was core drilling. For a task order that doesn’t specifically state in the Statement of Work that core drilling was required because the Government assumed it should be known (e.g. there are no already established openings), if a contractor wanted clarification as to whether core drilling was required they should ask a question prior to the proposal due date for that task order. If there were no already established openings available (therefore the only way to perform the work is to do core drilling) and the contractor who won the award indicated they didn’t include core drilling in their price after they are awarded the task order (whether a question was submitted asking the Government to clarify this or not), that contractor is still going to be required to perform the work. The contractor will have to explain to the Government how they were planning on accomplishing the work without doing core drilling. In this example, since it is not possible for the contractor to perform the work without doing core drilling, the contractor awarded the task order will still have to do core drilling and it would be at no additional cost to the Government. These instances will be handled on a case by case basis depending on what the issue is, but the standard will be whether or not a prudent contractor would have known they had to do the tasks in question to accomplish the work.

If a contractor believes that the SOW is unclear for an individual task order, or they just want clarification on anything prior to submitting a proposal, that contractor should submit a question pertaining to what they believe to be unclear or want clarified so that the Government can either revise the SOW or provide more clarity for all contractors.

Q.9: For a design-build task order, is the Task Order Pricing Template going to be revised since there will be different strategies proposed instead of a clearly defined SOW provided with the RFP?

A.9: Yes, each task order will have its own Task Order Pricing Template and for those task orders that will be for design-build, the Task Order Pricing Template will likely look different than the ones included in the solicitation for TORs 13-00, 214-20, and 214-26.

Q.10: Task Order 214-20 states that Burn Days are Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday; this leaves only Tuesday and Friday work days in the week in which work can be performed. Was this taken into consideration when determine the duration for the Task Order?

A.10: In the revised SOW for TOR 214-20 the period of performance has been increased to 100 calendar days. Also, additional clarifications have been added regarding conditions required to maintain incinerator operations and the requirement to provide a temporary eye wash/safety shower.

Q.11: Scope of work for Johnson Controls in the lab area – Will they supply materials, programming, and install resources?

A.11: In the revised Task Order Pricing Template for TOR 13-00, this is not required to be priced by the offeror.

Q.12: Penetrations for new exhaust – What are the requirements to cut and remove the concrete, how thick is the concrete, who is responsible for the mapping of the rebar can you cut rebar, how will the new penetrations be sealed?

A.12: In the revised SOW for TOR 13-00 the drawings have been updated to include the following general note: “Contractor shall assume that no additional ceiling/floor penetrations [or modifications] are necessary.”

Q.13: Formica on Cabinets – Is this just for countertops or does it also include all shelving A.13: It includes reagent shelving.

Q.14: Electrical – What is the process to clear circuits?

A.14: Any work should be done using appropriate lock-out tag-out procedures and company safety procedures. For circuits that affect laboratory space outside the work area identified in the task order Statement of Work, proper outage notification is required prior to de-energizing affected circuits.

Q.15: What is the Government's Normal Submittal Review Period? It could not be located in Specification Section 01 33 00 (the additional 10 days period for variations could be found but not the normal review period)?

A.15: Please refer to Specification 01 33 00, Submittal Procedures, paragraph 1.10, Scheduling, for information regarding typical review periods.

Q.16: It is stated in the task orders that certain equipment and/or materials are to be Government Furnished/Contractor installed. Who will be responsible to physically deliver this equipment and/or materials to the final install location? If the General Contractor is responsible, how far away from the final install location are the equipment and/or materials stored?

A.16: For task order 13-00 reference General Note #5 on sheet A101. No GFCI material or equipment is specified for the remaining task orders.

Q.17: There are no specs for associated piping spool pieces, coatings, paint, caulking, cabinet trim, countertops, or any number of other typically included materials associated with this work; are we responsible for the design of these specs? We don’t see any instruction related to specs outside of those included with the statement of work descriptions.

A.17: Unless otherwise specified within the SOW all materials shall be in accordance with the FMB-NC Material Guidelines and NIH Design Requirements Manual. For materials where no specifications are found materials should be suitable for conditions indicated in the SOW.

Q.18: Will Local Bldg Permits be required?

A.18: Local building permits are not required for any projects included in the solicitation.

Q.19: At the site visit meeting, the contracting officer emphasized that there would be no contractor generated options allowed on proposals, and that any concerns or ideas needed to be shared prior to bid with the whole MATOC pool. How does this function with Design-Build requirements, where our work product is intellectual property we want to sell to the government, rather than share with our competition for free? Will D/B jobs be excluded from this goal/requirement and awarded under a traditional best value price trade off evaluation?

A.19: At the site visit, the issue of whether or not there were concerns that Government requirements were unclear was addressed. This was brought up to highlight the need for offerors to ask questions prior to the proposal due date for task orders. When the Government issues a RFP under the MATOC for a task order it will be as clear as possible in what the Government requirements are for that task order. This is pertaining to anything in a Government requirement that needs clarity. An offeror should not provide a proposal that adds optional pricing “if x is true then add $x to the proposal” or “this is our price if y is the case”. If there are questions as to whether x is true or y is the case, those questions should be asked prior to proposals being submitted. If there was any indication or suggestion that a contractor had to divulge intellectual property, proprietary information, or strategies for how they would accomplish the work, then that was not the intention in any way. This was solely to indicate that if the Government requirements were unclear in some way a contractor should ask questions prior to submitting the proposal. For design-build task orders, there are still Government requirements which could be unclear (e.g. RFP, SOO). If the Government requirements in any task order (including design-build) are unclear it is the responsibility of a contractor to ask the question to allow the Government to provide clarification of its own requirements, but that does not imply any contractor has to provide information that contractor would consider intellectual property.

Q.20: At the site visit meeting, the contracting officer emphasized that there would be no contractor generated options allowed on proposals, and that any concerns or ideas needed to be shared prior to bid with the whole MATOC pool. Please note this discourages value engineering which runs contrary to the stated goals concerning VE in federal acquisitions. VECPs incentivize contractors to save the government money. The federal government believes offering an incentive yields substantial value to the government. If the contractor is required to share these ideas, we can’t offer VECP, and therefore have no incentive to generate VE ideas in the first place. This VE impact is just one example of a larger issue, that what separates GCs in performance and ability is our financing, resources and the knowledge base of our supervisors and managers. Requiring my supervisors and managers to share their insight eliminates the advantage strong operators brings to a project. As a contractor, since I know having strong people won’t give me the expected competitive advantage, I will be incentivized to send my best operators to places where I get competitive advantage from their knowledge base. Were either of these impacts considered? And can the solicitation be amended to allow GCs to be better at insight and problem solving in the task order bid phase without being required to share that strength and experience?

A.20: As noted in Question 19, a contractor is not required to divulge intellectual property, proprietary information, or strategies for how they would accomplish the work. They are only responsible for requesting clarification if a Government requirement is unclear. With regard to VECPs, they will be handled on an individual task order basis. If pre-award VECPs will be considered, it will be noted in the RFP for an individual task order (VECPs will not be considered for any of the task order included in the solicitation – TOR 13-00, TOR 214-20, or TOR 214-26). For any post-award VECPs, this is not an issue since any discussions about scope would be between only the contractor that is awarded the task order and the Government.

Q.21: With regard to the Bonafide Office, does a contractor need to have a bonafide office prior to the proposal due date or prior to the award date?

A.21: Yes. In reviewing the language in the solicitation that was provided by the SBA and in getting additional input from the SBA about this question, the determination is made at the time of the initial proposal. The solicitation states “Only North Carolina District Office Participants or 8(a) firms that have been reviewed by the North Carolina District Office and approved as having a Bonafide Office in the State of North Carolina are eligible to respond to this solicitation.” The SBA highlighted SBA 8(a) SOP 80 05 3A; Chapter 4D, paragraph 6 on pg 127 concerning Bona Fide Office eligibility: “For competitive construction requirements, SBA will determine a participant's eligibility as of the date of a participant's initial offer, which includes price”.

Q.22: Section L, Volume 3, sub heading b. administrative, item 5 Travel Policy: What specific information are you looking for to be included if a travel policy is provided?

A.22: Offerors should include any already established written travel policies (if any are already established) that would affect the MATOC (for the prime contractor and any major subcontractor proposed). If an offeror does not have an already established travel policy they can simply document that in Volume 3 per the instructions. It is not the intention of the Government to have contractors establish a written travel policy for the MATOC.

Q.23: Is there a prime contractor bonding requirement for this solicitation, or would the CO like a letter from the prime contractor’s surety showing bonding limits?

A.23: Contractors will be required to obtain bonds for task orders in accordance with FAR 52.228-15 and FAR 52.228-13 (depending on the dollar value of the task order). With regard to showing what the bonding limits are for the prime contractor, Offerors shall include that in the Financial Capacity section in Volume 3.

Q.24: Can cell phones be used in the building?

A.24: Typically yes. If cell phone use is restricted it will be on an individual task order basis. There may be areas where you may not want to take a cell phone (e.g. in the MRI there are high level magnets). Additionally, there are numerous areas within buildings on campus where you will not receive a signal.

Q.25: Will we have to go through the Security Badging to deliver the proposal?

A.25: No, but Offerors that plan on hand delivering their proposal who do not already have a NIH badge will need to provide the name of the person that will be delivering it, their company name, and what time they plan on arriving so that it can be entered into our visitor system so that individual can get onto the campus (like the Pre-Proposal Conference). Offerors that plan on hand delivering their proposal (regardless of whether they have a NIH badge or not) shall deliver their proposal to Daniel Burk in the Main Lobby of Bldg 101. After the offeror arrives in the lobby of Bldg 101, they will request the front desk to call Daniel Burk at 919-541-5763. Do not leave your proposal with an individual at the front desk of Bldg 101, an individual in the engineering staff, etc. Offerors shall not deliver their proposal to anyone other than Daniel Burk. Per FAR 15.208, Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any revisions, and modifications, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Proposals are due by 4:30 PM. Any proposal received after this time will be deemed late. Any delay in getting to the campus (e.g. traffic, weather), onto the campus, to Bldg 101, etc. is not a valid reason for delivering the proposal late. Additionally, Daniel Burk does not work in Bldg 101 and unless he is already in Bldg 101 will have to travel from Bldg 102 to Bldg 101 so an Offeror should not wait until the last minute if they plan on hand delivering their proposal.

Q.26: What room are the proposals to be turned in?

A.26: All Offerors that plan on hand delivering their proposal (regardless of whether they have a NIH badge or not) shall deliver their proposal to Daniel Burk in the Main Lobby of Bldg 101 per the instructions in Q.25. No Offeror shall go to Bldg 102 to deliver their proposal and again Offerors shall not deliver their proposal to anyone other than Daniel Burk. All proposals will be noted as to the time they are delivered and the only person that has the authorization from the Contracting Officer to receive proposals and document the time they are delivered is Daniel Burk.