The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
CUTTER LATERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT / REACH 21, NGWSP
SOLICITATION NO. R16PS00462
AMENDMENT 5
| 1. |
| Despite several references to the renegotiation clause in Section H (see Section B.1(f); Price Schedule B, and Section L.7 (2)), it appears Clause H.2, which contained the renegotiation language, has been stricken. What is the intent on renegotiation of price at 60% submittal? Is this now a firm fixed price proposal with a $37 million price? |
| H.2 renegotiation was stricken as there are other avenues to renegotiation (i.e., a request for equitable adjustment will be considered). The price is currently set at $37 million, but Reclamation recognizes the price is set without 60% design completed at the time of award. The intent is to negotiate a GMP at the time of the 60% design milestone. |
| 2. |
| If the intent is to ensure that the total price will remain at $37 million as the design progresses, what design criteria, if any, will be allowed to be changed to meet that price as the design is developed. There is no language or clause which indicates that the current scope of work defined can be altered in any way. |
| As this is a design-build procurement, it is anticipated the design will progress with Reclamation involvement. Design will be coupled with an estimating tool so that cost can be calculated throughout the design phase. Depending on the design, Reclamation recognizes the price may fluctuate until approximately 60% design, when the GMP is developed and negotiated. Decisions will be made throughout the design phase regarding the price of $37 million. |
| 3. |
| Section L.6, Phase Two Volume Three – Technical Proposal, Factor 4, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, indicates that for Large Businesses, the proposer shall “Identify, in terms of dollar value and percentage of total proposed price, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor.” However, the general instructions for the Phase Two Proposal in Section L.6 H, Pricing says that “No pricing information shall be provided in Volume III (Technical Proposal).” Please clarify is this pricing information is or is not to be included in Volume Three. |
| The subcontracting plan shall be completed as instructed. The price proposal shall be in a separate volume from the technical proposal. Since the overall price is currently set at $37 million, including the information in the subcontracting plan as currently instructed will not disclose the information each offeror will include in their price proposal. |
| 4. |
| The Phase One solicitation indicated that resumes for all personnel that were listed in the SOQ, but for which resumes were not required, would be required in the Phase Two response. However, there is no indication of where in the Phase Two response they are to be provided, if they are still required. |
| Please see the updated Amendment #5 version of the solicitation, as the requirement for resumes for key positions has been added to the Phase Two Factor 3 criteria in section L.6. |
| 5. |
| Page 78 of RFP indicates that 50 pages for Volume III for Factors 1, 2, and 3 appears to be inadequate given the level of detail required. Please consider changing the page limitations to the following: Factor 1: Design Concept – 25 pages; Factor 2: Technical Approach – 40 pages; Factor 3: Teaming Agreements – 10 pages. |
| The page limit for Volume III has been increased to 60 pages to allow sufficient space to address Factors 1-3. Reclamation is looking for a concise, but detailed proposal that is specific to this project in addressing the requirements in Phase Two of this solicitation, with little to no discussion on company qualifications, as that was already addressed in Volume II in Phase One. Please note that per section L.6.(b).4 in this amendment’s version of the solicitation that title pages, table of contents, executive summaries, as well as resumes and letters of commitment are excluded from the page limitation. Further, renderings, models, illustrations, and drawings sheets are also excluded from the page limitation per Amendment #5. |
| 6. |
| Please exclude the executive summary from the page limit for Volume III. |
| It is excluded. |
| 7. |
| Please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is excluded from the page count. |
| It is excluded. |
| 8. |
| On page 76 of the RFP, in bold letters it is stated that “Resumes for the remaining key positions for the Project Team will be required of the three offerors who are selected as the three highest qualified firms after completion of the Phase I – Request for Qualifications evaluation.” Please identify the Technical Proposal factor in which the resumes should be included. Please confirm that the resumes are excluded from the page count, as was the case in Phase One proposal |
| Please see the revised Factor 3: Teaming Agreements in Phase Two of section L.6 in the Amendment #5 version of the solicitation. The requirement for resumes for the key positions is now included. Resumes are excluded from the page limitation, as noted in the answer to question #5 above. |
| 9. |
| Please confirm that 11 x 17 pages that depict renderings, design concepts, illustrations, drawing are counted as 1-page. |
| The 11 x 17 pages count as one page each. |
| 10. |
| Factor 1: Design Concept instructs the offeror to “present design concepts including renderings, models, illustrations, drawings, narratives, and/or other documents to appropriately convey such concepts for the building.” This requirement seems to be related to a vertical construction project. Please confirm these items are required for the Cutter Lateral WTP project. |
| This requirement has been clarified in the Amendment #5 solicitation to replace “…for the building…” with “…as defined within the project scope.” The intent is for the design concepts to apply to the work items under this solicitation, including, but not limited to, the water treatment plant. |
| 11. |
| Risk management is identified as a specific requirement in Factor 1 as item (v.) and again in Factor 2, Section M evaluation criteria. Please clarify that the evaluation of Risk Management will be weighed against Factor 1. |
| The Risk Management narrative requirement has been moved to Factor 2 in the Amendment #5 solicitation. Further, Factor 1 has been relabeled as “Design Concept and Technical Approach” and Factor 2 is now called “Project Management Plan.” Section M has been clarified to match section L, accordingly. |
| 12. |
| Under Section L, It appears that Factor 1 intends us to focus on the “Design Concepts” and Factor 2 intends us to focus on the “Technical Approach”. However, both Factors ask us to address risk management and quality control factors. Please clarify whether Reclamation requires offerors to address risk management and quality control in both Factors 1 and 2. If the answer is yes, please clarify the different evaluation factors that Reclamation will use to evaluate the risk management and quality control factors under Factor 1 and under Factor 2. |
| Factors 1 and 2 have been clarified in the Amendment #5 solicitation. The requirement to address risk management and quality control is now only part of Factor 2: Project Management Plan. |
| 13. |
| In some cases, the RFP Section L instructions and Section M evaluation factors are confusing. While it is assumed that Section M takes precedence, we ask that Reclamation consider revising the RFP to make the two sets of requirements more consistent. In particular, the instructions for Factor 2: Technical Approach (items i to vi on pages 79-80) are inconsistent with the Factor 2 (section M evaluation) requirements (items i to xiii on page 93) |
| Sections L and M have been revised for Phase Two in the Amendment #5 solicitation to ensure consistency in the items to be evaluated in each factor do not overlap between Factors 1 and 2 and so that section M matches section L. Note that the changes to sections L and M for Phase Two were to reorganize the requirements for each evaluation factor. No additional requirements have been added with the Amendment #5 version of the solicitation, except to provide resumes for the key positions and to confirm that the design-build team and key personnel are the same as those provided with the Phase One proposal. |
| 14. |
| Section M (page 93) requests building concept drawings and elevations. This statement seems to be related to a vertical construction project. So that all Offerors are responding to the same level of detail, please confirm these items are required for the Cutter Lateral WTP project for the 2,500 sf Operations Building. |
| Section M has been revised in the Amendment #5 solicitation to match section L, which pertains to all buildings associated with the Water Treatment Plant site. |
| 15. |
| It appears that Factor 1 focuses on the design phase of the project and Factor 2 focuses on the construction phase; however, item vi. Mentioned “Construction quality control” Factor 1: Design Concept. Please indicate whether Reclamation requires offerors to address construction quality control in both Factors 1 and 2. |
| Please see the answer to question #11 above for the reorganized factors 1 and 2 content. |
| 16. |
| We recommend the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be moved to Volume IV because of the need to include pricing information. The instructions for the plan require offerors to “Identify in terms of dollar value and percentage of total proposed price, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor.” |
| Please see the response to question #3. |
| 17. |
| Please confirm, that the Small Business past performance be included in Volume III, Factor 4: Technical Proposal? |
| Correct, past performance in utilizing small business related contracting in previous contracts is required in response to Factor 4. |
| 18. |
| Please confirm that the Small Business past performance is excluded from the page count. |
| It is excluded. |
| 19. | |
| Page 80 states that Offerors provide the schedule in a format compatible with Primavera Project Planner, Version 3.0. Since Primavera P3 is no longer a supported format by Oracle, may we submit Primavera P6 instead? Please specify what version of P6 electronic file (e.g., P6 Schedule (.xer or other), and the version V8.2, V15.1, or V15.2) is required for the CD-ROM? | |
| The requirement to provide an electronic copy of the design and construction schedule has been replaced with hardcopies in the Amendment #5 version of the solicitation. | Comment by Deming, Bart W: Unless the schedule is going to be analyzed in detail by TSC’s Construction Liaisons, hardcopies are sufficient for the TPEC to review. |
| 20. |
| Please confirm that Reclamation is looking for schematics, drawings, renderings, models, and illustrations as part of our response per Section M. |
| Yes, please provide design concepts to address the requirements of Factor 1, including, but not limited to, renderings, models, illustrations, drawings, narratives, and/or other documents to convey those concepts. |
| 21. |
| Please exclude from the page count, the schematics, rendering, drawing, models. |
| They are excluded from the 60-page count limitation. However, there is a page limitation of 15 additional pages for schematics, renderings, models, drawings, etc. |
| 22. |
| Please verify which factor should contain the schematics, drawings, renderings, models, and illustrations, as Section M contains language in both Factor 1, and in Factor 2, xi referencing this requirement. |
| The design concept renderings, models, drawings, etc. are to be addressed under Factor 1: Design Concept and Technical Approach, which has been clarified in the Amendment #5 solicitation. |
| 23. | |
| Can we expect any additional project information or documents from Reclamation, i.e. – pipeline hydraulic model, survey and mapping information in electronic format, electronic files for the preliminary design drawings, right of way information and drawings, designs and drawing for the facilities that will interconnect with the new facilities (i.e. – ENWP Pipeline phase 3 and Reach 22B pipeline and Regulating Tank No. 2 drawings). | |
| Yes, some additional detail is included in the Technical Criteria Package in this amendment to address the tie-in to the ENWP Phase 3 pipeline. | Comment by Deming, Bart W: Leslie, do we want to provide the offerors with an electronic copy of the topo, pipeline alignment, and ROW linework? They have this information in pdf format via the Specification drawings, but by providing it would simplify their work on creating drawings for this proposal. |
| 24. |
| Specifications Section 01 81 05 (General Performance Requirements): Page 01 81 05-7: Item 1.07.A.4. notes – “Reclamation has completed preliminary analysis to determine the feasibility of the project. Contractor shall perform complete engineering analysis and assessment to size the tanks, pumps, piping, treatment process, buildings, and associated items.“ Can you provide the feasibility report and preliminary sizing of facilities? |
| Please see Specification (section C of the Solicitation) sections 51 45 11 through 51 45 19 for the preliminary basis of design studies, bench scale tests, and distribution system chlorine disinfection modeling that comprise Reclamation’s feasibility studies. |
| 25. |
| Please confirm that 11 x 17 (rather than the 11 X 14 shown on Page 71) are acceptable for schematics, drawings, schedule. |
| Correct. Please see section L.6.(b).3.e in the Amendment #5 solicitation for this clarification. |
| 26. |
| Page 80, Factor 3: Teaming Agreements – Item a. The Offerors shall identify any key trade partners and how they relate to the project. Are we clear what they mean by key trade partners? Should we ask for clarification on what they want us to provide? |
| Identify and provide roles of key suppliers and subcontractors for the work under this solicitation. |
| 27. |
| It would be our understanding that this project will qualify for an exemption to Federal Tax, and as such wanted to confirm that successful contractor will be provided an exemption certificate to share with subcontractors. Please confirm. |
| Yes |
| 28. |
| Referring Cost Estimating Requirements 01 20 05-1.05, please clarify NMGRT requirements, and NM State Tax requirements to be included. Limited to services (labor) / ODCs in NM or other? |
| Each offeror must research this through the appropriate entity as this is a requirement of the State of New Mexico. |
| 29. |
| It also appears that county tax to be paid is limited to items field teams consume, meaning those items that do not become a part of the permanent plant/project and that are consumed for contractor’s own benefit. Please confirm. |
| County tax issues must be researched by each offeror by contacting the appropriate county office. |
| 30. |
| Shortlist Notification letter cited date and time for Offer’s technical capabilities via Formal Presentation. Did Reclamation have a proposed format to be employed for this presentation? |
| Reclamation will review the hard copy proposal prior to each offeror’s presentation. Each offeror may utilize the first 2 hours to present their design concept, technical approach, and project management plan including introduction of key personnel in accordance with the evaluation factors for Phase 2. The final hour will be a question and answer period. The total time will be no more than 3 hours. |
| 31. |
| Under the Section B-Schedule for Phase 2 pricing, please clarify whether the "Table A - Overhead and Profit" is required to be submitted as part of the proposal. Job Management / General Field Overhead Costs appear to be requested as part of the Phase 2 proposal. Construction field costs and construction field overhead costs will be difficult to determine prior to a 60% design and construction cost estimate. In addition, until the exact project construction value is determined, surety bond quotes may not be accurate. |
| Yes, Table A must be submitted as part of the proposal. Reclamation recognizes the difficulty of pricing the bond & insurance at the time of award for the construction portion of the work. It is recommended the offeror calculate the anticipated construction price and submit an amount for this item. At the point of 60% design, the successful offeror may submit a request for a modification, if needed. |
| 32. |
| Please also clarify whether G&A and profit are required to be submitted under Table A for the proposal. It is our understanding from previous versions of the solicitation that these costs would be negotiated upon the 60% design. |
| Yes, G&A and profit must be submitted with the proposal. |
| 33. |
| Please clarify that the 60% design lump sum price in "Price Schedule A" is to have profit and G&A included as part of our proposal submission. |
| Yes, Price Schedule A must include G&A and profit. Table A must also be submitted indicating the percentage used for Price Schedule A & B. |
| 34. |
| In the Amendment 4 version of the solicitation, the H.2 Re-Negotiation clause was deleted, implying that there will be no re-negotiation at 60% design. Was this intentional? How will the post 60% design cost and other costs be negotiated? Please advise. |
| Please see the response to question #1. |
| 35. |
| Confirm VE section 1.03.B.3.a., intends contractor’s “diverse group of design professionals” to be: One Certified Value Specialist (CVS 1.06) as an independent, third party individual outside of the PDB Team, PLUS three others from contractor’s estimating staff and design team. |
| The Certified Value Specialist defined as the facilitator/leader of the VE Study under part 1.05 of section 01 24 13 – Value Engineering is not counted as one of the four design and estimating professionals from the contractor’s team under part 1.03. A Cost Estimator meeting the requirements of section 01 20 05 – Cost Estimating is required, however. |
| 36. |
| RE Value Engineering section 1.03.C.5.d, Please confirm that the List of Risk are understood to be an evaluation limited to implementing the Value Engineering ideas only. |
| Correct. |
| 37. | |
| RE Value Engineering section 1.09B. Please clarify this subsection, which appears to not apply, as this project is a progressive design build, and this subsection seems to apply to shared savings applicable via Design-Bid-Build contracts. | |
| The law requires that value engineering studies be conducted on federally funded projects greater than $1M, which is the reason this section is included in the Specifications. The intent of part 1.09 in section 01 24 13 – Value Engineering is to allow for inclusion and acceptance of previously rejected Value Engineering proposals as the design progresses and new/more information becomes available. The intent is not to reduce the GMP or share savings between Reclamation and the Design-Build firm during the design. While this may apply more readily to Design-Bid-Build, it is included if an unforeseen circumstance warrants its use. | Comment by Deming, Bart W: Leslie, please refine this statement as necessary. |