QA_ANAD_FORGE_II_DRAFT RPP.pdf
PDF 146 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This is a Question and Answers (Q&A) Log for the ANAD FORGE II solicitation, a design-build Army Corps of Engineers contract for multiple military construction (MILCON) projects at Anniston Army Ammunition Plant (ANAD). The document contains 33 questions and answers addressing clarifications on the Request for Proposal (RFP).
The procurement involves four MILCON projects operating under a build-to-budget model with Government-provided Firm Fixed Price (FFP) amounts per Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The solicitation requires design-build proposals for new construction facilities, including a Composite Repair Facility (CRF) with tornado shelter, missile maintenance facility, paint facility, and remanufacture facility. Optional R&M (Repair and Maintenance) and Equipment CLINs will be negotiated upon exercise. Key personnel requirements include a Design-Build Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Construction Quality Control Manager, Site Safety & Health Officer, and Design QC Manager. The Government will provide baseline CAD files, all relevant geotechnical information available, and hazmat survey reports for some facilities. Contractors are responsible for all environmental permits with Government assistance as needed, geotechnical investigations if Government data is insufficient, utility coordination with ANAD DPW, and relocation of any government-owned materials. The contract allows UFC exemption recommendations and permits fast-tracking with limited notice to proceed before 100% design completion. Bonding may be structured per individual project rather than one overall agreement bond. CMMC compliance levels and CUI marking requirements will be detailed in the final RPP. Scope changes post-award will be handled through agreement modifications, with proposals incorporated by reference into the contract.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q # Subject Attachment or # RFP Section
Document Paragraph # Question/Comment A # Answer
1 Conflict of Interest Rejection of Proposals 4.7 c Would a firm that participated in the planning and conceptual design of any facilities under this OTA be considered to have an organizational conflict of interest, and therefore be ineligible to pursue the project? 1
Potential organizational conflicts of interest are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a potential vendor believes it may have an organizational conflict of interest, please contact the Agreements Officer at usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil. The email should include why the vendor believes it may have an organizational conflict of interest as well as the proposed mitigation. The proposed mitigation should include if the non-public information was subsequently made publicly available, if the proprietary information is no longer proprietary, or other mitigation rationale.
2 General
Please advise whether firms that may have prepared plans and/or other materials included in this solicitation “for informational purposes only” will be subject to any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) restrictions that would preclude their participation in this procurement in a support role (e.g., designer-of-record, design consultant, or subcontractor) to a prime offeror or whether such participation would be permissible with appropriate mitigation measures. If there will be any restrictions, please identify the nature of those restrictions and any required mitigation or disclosure obligations.
Firms that ONLY participated in preparing plans, conceptual designs and other materials that were published with the draft RPP MAY be eligible to submit a proposal. It is highly suggested firms review the answer to question 1 and request an OCI determination.
ANAD FORGE II - Question & Answer Log AO: Jennifer Hastedt, jennifer.l.hastedt2.civ@army.mil
3 General
Based on our review of the solicitation documents, Offerors do not appear to have sufficient information to reasonably develop a complete and responsible FFP proposal for the full scope of construction. Specifically, key foundational information typically required to quantify construction costs is not currently provided, including but not limited to:
| • | Comprehensive site survey data identifying existing conditions (e.g., utilities, grading, geotechnical conditions) |
| • | Record/as-built drawings for existing facilities |
| • | Hazardous materials surveys for any structures anticipated to be renovated or demolished |
| • | Program of Requirements (POR) or equivalent documentation defining required systems (e.g., electrical, mechanical, |
plumbing, and specialty systems)
In the absence of this information, Offerors must rely on assumptions that introduce significant uncertainty. This condition inherently increases pricing risk, which may result in:
| 1. | Inflated proposals to account for unknowns, or |
| 2. | Increased likelihood of scope gaps, change orders, and post-award disputes |
Either outcome may not be in the best interest of the Government or Offerors and may limit the Government’s ability to effectively evaluate proposals on a best-value basis.
Recommended Approach
To better align with the current level of project definition while still enabling meaningful competition and evaluation, we respectfully suggest the Government consider revising the pricing structure as follows:
| • | Publish the budget. |
| • | Require Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)proposals for: |
| o | Design services |
| o | Construction management/general conditions |
| o | Overhead and profit/fee |
| • | Require Offerors to establish an Estimated Cost of Work (ECW) using the budget less FFP amounts. |
Under this approach, Offerors would compete on:
| • | Technical capability and design approach |
| • | Efficiency of design and management pricing |
The Government is using a build to budget model and will provide the CLIN Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for each of the four (4) MILCON projects. The RPP will provide the FFP estimate for each option R&M and Equipment CLINs. If the optional R&M and Equipment CLINs are exercised, the Government and successful offeror with negotiate the FFP upon exercising the CLIN.
4 Resilient Design Draft RPP Is there a requirement for resilient design in the proposal such as passive design, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), energy retrofits or onsite energy generation and will proposals that feature specific resilient design features be evaluated more favorably?
Not required but will be viewed favorably. Follow the general UFC guidance for passive strategies and LCCA. Anniston is in the process of installing back up power for the entire installation through a separate contract, so on site energy generation not required (unless offerors can provide renewable options). CRF will require backup power for the Tornado Shelter only per the 35% design. Since the initial proposal deals with New Construction only, energy retrofit discussion not applicable unless mentioned in the context of future potential R&M projects.
5 LEED Standards Draft RPP Is there a requirement for any of the three main buildings (excluding the 2 storage bays) to be designed to a specific LEED standard and will be proposals that feature LEED capabilities be favored more favorably? 5
LEED certification is not required for any of the four MILCONs. However, any energy conservation measures proposed in the proposal will be viewed favorably.
6 Past Performance Draft RPP
Is the government not evaluating past performance as part of this OTA? If past performance is being evaluated:
o Will the government confirm that any past performance for DoD/DoW Design-Build projects is acceptable as long as it is recent?
o What is the recency requirement for past performance for design-build projects? 7 years is normally industry standard.
| o | Does the government have a standard Past Performance Questionnaire they require proposers to use? |
| o | For past performance for the design team, can the PPQ be used if design is complete even if construction is not? |
| o | Will the government please confirm that place of performance is not something that is weighted more favorably? |
6 Past Performance is not being evaluated as an OTA criteria. Follow the RPP proposal instructions.
7 Environmental Permitting Draft RPP Environmental permitting was somewhat discussed during the site visit. Can the government please confirm that environmental permitting is being completed by the installation/government and not the contractor? 7
The Company will be responsible for all permits. The Government will assist, as needed, with information required for the permits. The Company will submit Stormwater permitting and copy ANAD Environmental on submission.
The Company will prepare Air Permitting and coordinate with ANAD Environmental for submission.
8 Geotechnical Investigations Draft RPP Geotechnical investigations was also discussed briefly. Can the government please confirm this is being completed by the government and not the contractor? 8
All relevent geotechnical information the Government team possesses, will be released with the RPP. The offeror will need to conduct the geotechnical information/surveys if the Government does not already possess the information.
Please note the CRF facility 35% design is sited at a location that is no longer being utilized. The site visited on Industry Day is the correct site the CRF will be constructed on.
9 Key Personnel Draft RPP Will the government please define what positions they consider to be key personnel? 9
RPP 5.3: Key personnel are defined as:
Design-Build Project Manager Project Superintendent Construction Quality Control (QC) Manager Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO) Design QC Manager
10 Schedule / Period of Performance (PoP) Draft RPP 5.4.4
5.4.4 says “A construction schedule that shows the maximum number of projects completed within one calendar year from project award,”. Is this correct? The draft RPP speaks to 60 months for PoP but the government is requesting schedules to finish buildings within a year?
RPP has been amended to 5.4 - Milestone Schedule: Offerors’ project proposals will be evaluated for the offeror’s realistic milestones. The language referencing "the maximum number of projects completed within one calendar year from project award" was deleted.
11 Utility Infrastructure Draft RPP 5.4.6
5.4.6 refers to utilities in the state of Washington it appears. At the site visit, the Chief of Staff spoke to Anniston controlling its own utilities. Will the government please confirm that all utility infrastructure interruptions will be through the Anniston garrison and/or DPW?
11 The RPP clarifies the applicable utilities. Utility interruptions must be coordinated with the ANAD DPW.
12 UFC Waivers & Assumptions Draft RPP 5.3.3
During the industry day, it was said that any suggestions to changes to UFCs be submitted as quickly as possible so that waiver requests could get staffed and possibly approved. 5.3.3 requests that proposals also include UFC change recommendations for cost and time savings. Will the government please define if they want proposals built with or without those suggested changes submitted in the proposal incorporated into the plan?
Offerors are expected to propose UFC exemption or exceptions to be utilized to decrease agreement costs and decrease time to complete construction projects. However, proposals should assume the UFCs will not be approved by construction start. Recommendations for UFC sections to be eliminated or altered for cost or time savings shall not include management approach content and are not included in the page limit. (RPP Section 3.1, 4.2, 5.3)
13 Architecture Evaluation Draft RPP Is the government evaluating architecture in the proposal? 13 Architectural design must meet Installation Design Guide requirement, which are included in the RPP.
14 Architecture Evaluation Draft RPP If the government is evaluating architecture, what aspects will be evaluated more favorably? 14 Architectural design must meet Installation Design Guide requirement, which are included in the RPP.
15 CMMC Levels Draft RPP Your current documents indicate that contractors are to comply with the CMMC program. Can you tell us if you are just requiring compliance with the document security measures or are you requiring certification? If certification is required, is it Level 1 or Level 2?
15 The RPP will detail the CMMC levels and what specifics, if any, need to be Level 1, Level 2, or none. The same for CUI markings.
16 Missile Project Draft RPP Could you confirm the location of the laydown yard for the missile project? 16 The intended location is the flat area to south of the project site.
17 Environmental Permitting Draft RPP Are there any environmental, wetland, or wildlife concerns associated with any of these projects? 17
No environmental, wetland or wildlife concerns. NEPA documentation (Environmental Assessment) has been completed by the government for 3 of the 4 MILCONs. 4th Environmental Assessment on track for completion by end of Aug. 2026. As stated elsewhere, Contractor responsible for any permits required.
18 Utility Infrastructure Draft RPP What are the requirements for the utility tie-ins across all projects? 18 Utility disruptions must be coordinated with ANAD DPW.
19 Bonding Draft RPP Will bonding be required for the entire contract amount, or will it be broken down per individual building? 19 It is acceptable to have bonds on each project instead of one overall agreement bond. Any fluctuation in the contract maximum value will require the bond to match dollars for dollars. (RPP SEction 2.9)
20 Hazmat Draft RPP Have hazmat surveys been conducted for this project, and if so, will they be released to the public? 20 Hazmat survey reports have been included for some facilities in the RPP.
For the facilites to be demolished as part of the CRF, please assume that some asbestos and lead paint abatement will be required.
21 Paint Facility Draft RPP Is a dedicated exhaust fan required for the paint facility to meet ventilation and safety standards? 21 Dedicated exhaust fans are required for the paint booths. ovens, and paint storage and mixing areas.
22 Paint Facility Draft RPP Will the paint specifications and technical requirements be provided for our review? 22 Yes, with the RPP.
23 General Draft RPP How will scope changes be handled after Award? 23 Scope changes will be handled through Agreement modifications. The proposals will be incorporated by reference into the Agreement.
24 Architecture Evaluation Draft RPP What can AE firms do differently than the USACE when executing this work? 24
The Government anticipates similar performance from A&E firms that they provide to USACE. Fast tracking design reviews and construction may be different and construction may begin before 100% design completion with a "Limited Notice to Proceed" from the Agreements Officer. The Agreements Officer is open to UFC waiver suggestions.
25 UFC Waivers & Assumptions Draft RPP How do we submit suggestions for changes to the UFC? 25
Offerors are expected to propose UFC exemption or exceptions to be utilized to decrease agreement costs and decrease time to complete construction projects. Recommendations for UFC sections to be eliminated or altered for cost or time savings shall not include management approach content and are not included in the page limit. (RPP Section 3.1, 4.2, 5.3)
26 Funding Draft RPP Do you have funding in house? 26 The MILCON projects will be fully obligated upon Agreement award.
27 Secutiry Clearance Draft RPP
What specific security clearances and site access permissions are required for these projects?
See RPP Section 3.4 and 3.5. All employees required to gain access will require at least a background check. At this time, security clearances are not anticipated.
28 CRF Draft RPP What is the production process flow for CRF? 28 Refer to 35% design
29 CAAD Draft RPP Will the baseline CAAD files be released? 29 Yes, with the RPP.
30 Base Access Draft RPP What will the base access be for the projects? 30 See answer in column J.
31 Options Draft RPP How will Options be used in the evaluation? 31 The MILCON projects will be fully obligated upon Agreement award. The R&M Project and Equipment are options, which may be exercised in the future.
32 Steel Yard Draft RPP How will the steel yard be relocated? 32 Government will relocate any government owned material (steel) from site, if required.
33 Facilities Draft RPP Compared to the other facilities (missile maintenance - 240 pages, paint - 238 pages) the remanufacture facility (17 pages) and paint facilities (8 pages) appear to be missing a great deal of information. Can you please confirm that all available information has been provided and if not please provide?
33 All relevent information the Government team possesses, will be released with the RPP.
QA
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .