PROJNET QA (9101865) ACP DESIGN BUILD II.pdf

PROJNET Q&A (9101865) ACP DESIGN BUILD II.xlsx

ID SOLICITATION SECTION PG SOLICITATION LANGUAGE QUESTION RESPONSE

1 Section 00 11 00 A.6 4 Small Business 8(a) contractors must have the ability to bond the construction efforts at a minimum of $3M per task and $25M aggregate.

In INST 2.2 and 2.4.1 and EVAL 3.1 and Attach. 06 the minimum per task order is $5M. Would the government confirm it is $5M?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9085839

2 Section 00 21 00 1.9.1 20 Each volume will contain a Title Sheet on the cover for ready identification of the proposal and a full table of contents, separated by Tabs.

As this is an electronic submission, would the Government please confirm that Tabs are not required?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9093982

3 Section 00 21 00 3.2 and 4.1.1 24 and

Volume II shall contain the information in tabbed sections IAW the following general outline: (1) Table of Contents (Not included in page count)

(2) Glossary (Not included in page count)

(3) Company Experience (Attachments 02 and 03) (Not included in page ...

(Vol III) General Instructions... The Offeror shall use the format at Attachments 02 and 03

The solicitation calls for use of Attachments 2 and 3 in both Volumes 2 and 3. We assume they are only required in Volume 2 and the Volume 3 reference is a typo. Would the Government please confirm that Attachments 2 and 3 are only submitted in Volume 2?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9093979

4 Section 00 21 00 4.1.1 25 ...Offerors should provide reference information in narrative form and address each of the bullets below…

No bullets were provided. Would the government provide any missing content?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9093979

5 Section 00 22 11 2.4.1 (first)

2.4.1 (second)

29 2.4.1. Factor 1: Technical Experience & Proof of Ability to Obtain Surety Acceptability:

2.4.1. Factor 2: Past Performance:

For compliance mapping, would the Government please confirm that Factor 2 Past Performance should be section 2.4.2?

Yes this paragraph should be 2.4.2. This will be corrected in an amendment.

6 Section 00 21 00 and Section 00 22

3.1 General Instructions

and 3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process.

and

3.1: Experience with each element shall be demonstrated in at least one of the 5 submitted projects. The offeror is not required to show experience with all elements in every project submitted.

3.2.2: Second, the Government will evaluate all recent PPNs to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance contract reference as it relates to each Relevancy Element criteria set forth in 3.2.3. The PPNs, in total, must be relevant to all Relevancy Elements set forth in 3.2.3.

There appears to be discrepancy between the language in paragraph

3.1 and 3.2.2. Would the government please clarify that we are not required to provide one past performance citation that demonstrates experience in all 8 elements of Section 3.2.2, but rather, our combined past performance citations must demonstrate experience in all 8?

Reference 00 21 00 Paragraph 3.1. It states " The projects shall demonstrate the experience described in the paragraph 3.3 Technical Element Criteria. Experience with each element shall be demonstrated in at least one of the 5 submitted projects.

The offeror is not required to show experience with all elements in every project submitted"

7 Section 00 21 00 and Section 00 22 11

3.1 General Instructions

and 3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process.

and

3.1: Experience with each element shall be demonstrated in at least one of the 5 submitted projects. The offeror is not required to show experience with all elements in every project submitted.

3.2.2: Second, the Government will evaluate all recent PPNs to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance contract reference as it relates to each Relevancy Element criteria set forth in 3.2.3. The PPNs, in total, must be relevant to all Relevancy Elements set forth in 3.2.3.

If indeed it is the Government's request for offerors to provide at minimum 1 past performance citation that covers all 8 Section 3.2.2 elements, we are concerned this would give an unfair advantage to the incumbents and limit the competitive field. If that was not the Government's intent, would the Government consider striking "Experience with each element shall be demonstrated in at least one of the 5 submitted projects" from the solicitation?

Reference 00 21 00 Paragraph 3.1. It states " The projects shall demonstrate the experience described in the paragraph 3.3 Technical Element Criteria. Experience with each element shall be demonstrated in at least one of the 5 submitted projects.

The offeror is not required to show experience with all elements in every project submitted"

USACE ACP MATOC

Confidential 3/18/2021 Page 1

PROJNET Q&A (9101865) ACP DESIGN BUILD II.xlsx

ID SOLICITATION SECTION PG SOLICITATION LANGUAGE QUESTION RESPONSE

8 Section 00 21 00

Attach. 04

1.10.4 and 3.2.2 PPRAQ Part 1. A.

Contract Identification

21 1.10.4: The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is completed within the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

3.2.2: The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

PPRAQ: Forecasted for Actual Contraction Completion Date

There appears to be discrepancies between the language in paragraph 1.10.4, 3.2.2, and the PPRAQ template WRT the usability of ongoing contracts. If the government's intent is that only completed contracts can be used as past performance, incumbents would be prohibited from using their current ACP contracts as past performance. Would the government update section 1.10.4 language to match Section 3.2.2 definition of recency of contracts?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9103623

9 Section 00 21 11 and Section 00 22 11

1.10.4. and 3.1 and 3.2.2

21, 23, All contract references submitted for both Volume II and Volume III shall be within the six (6) year window for recency. The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is completed within the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

3.1: ...Only experience completed within the last six (6) years from the release date of this solicitation will be considered.

3.2.2: The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

In order to accommodate small businesses that have multi-year ongoing design-build projects, would the Government allow for past performance that is not complete, but has substantial completion (i.e. at least one year and received CPARs for at least one year)?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9103623

10 Section 00 21 11 and Section 00 22 11

3.1 and 3.2.2 23 and

The Government will consider ACP experience of >$1.9M to be of similar magnitude and type.

In order to accommodate small businesses would the government decrease the threshold for relevancy to $1M?

Refer to the response to Inquiry 9093498

11 Section 00 21 00 1.10.4 21 Single-award IDIQ: ...A maximum of three (3) task orders issued against a single-award IDIQ can be combined and counted as one (1) contract reference to address the criteria Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs): ... A maximum of three (3) call/orders issued against a single-award BPA can be combined and counted as one contract reference to address the criteria.

If the threshold for relevancy remains >$1.9M, would the government increase the number of task orders and call/orders that offerors can roll up to four (4) or five (5)?

No the current requirement will remain as stated.

12 Gen N/A N/A We routinely submit a proposal compliance matrix in the front of each volume. Would the government consider excluding compliance matrices from the page count limit?

Yes a compliance matrix will be excluded from the page count. An amendment will add this language to 00 21 00 Paragraph 1.10.2

Confidential 3/18/2021 Page 2

Sheet1