The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
CUTTER LATERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT / REACH 21 (DESIGN BUILD)
SOLICITATION NO. R16PS00462
| 1. |
| Please clarify whether CCASS, CPARS, or Past Performance Questionnaires completed in the past seven years may be included in the proposal |
| The offeror may provide any of this information, but must abide by the page limitation. Reclamation intends to utilize the information in CPARS as part of the past performance evaluation. |
| 2. |
| Please confirm that Attachment 5 is to be sent to Reclamation directly. |
| Yes, it is part of the Phase 1 evaluation. |
| 3. |
| Please clarify what Reclamation is looking for with respect to the OSHA/MSHA Inspection Logs. Is Reclamation looking for a summary of inspections completed as documented on the OSHA and MSHA website (RFP Page 76)? |
| Factor 5: Safety has been revised to eliminate the requirement to provide the following bullets: All OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses; All Inspection results from any OSHA or MSHA safety inspections. |
| 4. |
| In Paragraph (3).h.ii, that on page 74 of the solicitation, there is a reference to “…Phase One and Phase Two of the contract performance.” However, throughout the solicitation, there are references to “Phase One” of the procurement process and “Phase Two” of the procurement process, both of which occur prior to contract award. Please clarify the difference between what appears to be two different references to “Phase One” and Phase Two.” |
| Phase One and Phase Two of the contract performance has been replaced with “design and construction phases of the contract performance.” The remainder of the Phase One and Phase Two references apply to the pre-award evaluation process. |
| 5. |
| On the site walk, mention was made the Reclamation will complete the Migratory Bird Surveys and that there are certain times of the years when construction and other activities will be restricted. Please confirm that Reclamation will be completing the surveys. |
| Yes, Reclamation will be completing the environmental compliance surveys for both migratory birds and raptors, per subsection 01 57 60 of the Section C Specifications. |
| 6. |
| On the site walk, mention was made that Reclamation will obtain permits prior to construction, please confirm, which permits Reclamation is obtaining, and when the anticipated permits will be in place. |
| The majority of the permits necessary for construction and the water treatment plant commissioning will need to be obtained by the design-builder. The exception is that Reclamation is responsible for permitting associated with the NEPA and cultural resources compliances. The NEPA compliance is complete and the cultural resources compliance for the project ROW is anticipated to be granted by December 2016 (sub-section 01 57 90 0f the Section C Specifications will be corrected accordingly). Reclamation will also apply for the Clean Water Act 404 permit and 401 water quality certifications, once the design-builder has prepared the PCN application. |
| 7. |
| Please modify Attachment 5, Fillable form to include reference to New Mexico Registration (rather than Nevada). |
| Attachment 5 is corrected. |
| 8. |
| Please modify Attachment 5, so that the space for license numbers is larger to accommodate multiple license numbers. |
| Attachment 5 is corrected. |
| 9. |
| Please modify Attachment 5 to allow respondents to include multiple advanced degrees. |
| Attachment 5 is corrected. |
| 10. |
| Please confirm the total period of performance is 30 months from Notice to Proceed to include Project Phase 1, Negotiation of GMP, Construction, and 6-Month Commissioning Start-up and Training. |
| Period of performance is corrected. |
| 11. |
| Please provide “standard” Reclamation review periods for design and construction submittals. |
| Please see subsection 01 33 00 – Submittals of the Section C specifications for standard Reclamation review times. Also note that Reclamation is flexible to an alternate approach to packaging design and construction submittals per subsection 01 12 16 – Work Sequence of the Section C specification. |
| 12. |
| Please provide a list of other reviews, with durations, that should be built into the schedule. |
| See Subsections 01 12 16 and 01 33 00 of the Section C specifications for a list of Reclamation reviews. |
| 13. |
| In Section L, page 70, Paragraph 3E states that foldouts shall be held to 14x11 long in size, with each sheet counting as two 8.5x11 pages. Would BOR consider 11/17 pages as fold outs and still consider them as 8.5x11 pages? |
| Yes, 11”x17” pages are acceptable as fold-outs in the responses to the RFQ and RFP. With regards to page limits, each 11”x17” fold-out will count as two pages (frant and back). |
| 14. |
| Factor 2 in Section L, page 73, states that Attachment 4 Project Experience Fillable Form is required for each project. This required form does not allow for much of a project description; most of the form consists of contractual data. Would BOR accept expanded project information to be included as Appendix to our submittal? |
| Attachment 4 has been updated and will allow for sufficient space for the project description. |
| 15. |
| On Attachment 4, the required data within the Project Experience appears to be structured for a building project rather than water treatment facility project. Can we expect BOR to issue an updated form we can use to present our past performance? |
| Yes, Attachment 4 has been updated. |
| 16. |
| Attachment 5, the fillable form for key personnel, requires a State of Nevada Professional License, yet the RFQ requires our proposed key personnel to be licensed in the State of New Mexico. This is most likely a carry-over from a previous RFQ. Please confirm that the licensing requirement for Attachment 5 is the State of New Mexico and if BOR expects to release an updated form for use. |
| Attachment 5 has been corrected to reflect licensure in the State of New Mexico. |
| 17. |
| Attachment 5, the fillable form for key personnel, does not leave much room to explain the project itself. Would BOR accept expanded resumes as an Appendix in our submittal? |
| Attachment 5 has been updated and allows for room to explain the project. |
| 18. |
| In Section L, Page 75, Subfactor 4c, there are references to both State of New Mexico licensing and Utah State Board requirements, Please confirm this is a carry-over from a previous RFQ and that it is the State of New Mexico licensing requirements that must be provided for each of our designers and engineers of record. |
| Subfactor 4c has been corrected. |
| 19. |
| Please clarify whether Questions are due Monday, April 25, or Thursday, April 28. The RFP says Monday, April 28, please clarify whether it is Monday or Thursday, and the specific date. |
| The correct due date is Thursday, April 28, 2016. This has been corrected in the solicitation. |
| 20. |
| Page 70 of the RFP, Section L.6.2 references adherence to page limitations, and yet we cannot find other page limitations, please clarify if there are page limitations and on which section(s). |
| For the RFQ (Phase1), the page limit is 30 pages for Volume 1 – business Proposal and 50 pages for Volume II – Technical Proposal. For the RFP (Phase 2), the page limit for Volume III – Technical Proposal will be 50 pages. |
| 21. |
| Attachment 4, Past Performance Worksheet appears to be written around vertical construction and architectural facilities rather than a water treatment plant with pipeline. The questions relating to (1) Building Type; (2) Work completed by your firm (core & shell + fit out) etc.; (3) request for high density space; (4) Building massing and other architectural features; and (5) LEED certification are usually questions for buildings not treatment plants. The format and content of this form does not lend itself to an appropriate description of relevant past experience on treatment plant and pipeline projects, which is the nature of the subject work. Please confirm the intent of the past performance worksheet is to focus on water treatment plants. We are including similar form that has been sued by othe federal clients for your consideration. |
| Attachment 4 has been corrected to address past performance for work on water treatment plants. |
| 22. |
| In Fact 4, Subfactor 4b, please confirm that for Phase 1 no resumes for the 6 positions are required. |
| As detailed in Section L.6.E.(4), only names, roles, and responsibilities, qualifications, and certifications are to be included for subfactor 4b, along with the Responsibility Matrix and Management Plan. Resumes for these other key positions will be required of the three offerors during the Phase II RFP. |
| 23. |
| In Factor 4, Subfactor 4c, on page 75, the language includes the following phrase “The Offerors shall provide evidence that each proposed designers, architects, and engineers of record have an active and in good standing license in the State of New Mexico to practice engineering or architecture, respectively, in his or her respective discipline in accordance with the Utah State Board of Engineers and Land Surveyors requirements, and the Utah State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design requirements.” Please clarify that the good standing requirements are supposed to be in accordance with the New Mexico State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Professional Surveyors or the New Mexico Board of Examiners for Architects. |
| Factor 4, Subfactor 4c has been corrected to reflect the State of New Mexico rather than the State of Utah. |
| 24. |
| Please consider modifying the requirement to include both a Primary and Alternate resume for the five key positions, and instead require that the successful Offeror require a letter of commitment for fulfilling the role, and that in the event that a substitution is required a qualified substitute will be subject to approval by the Bureau of Reclamation before substitution is possible. |
| Factor 4, Subfactor 4a has been re-written to require resumes from primary key personnel only, but if resumes are submitted for the alternate personnel, they may achieve a higher rating for that factor. |
| 25. |
| Please clarify that it is the intent of the Bureau of Reclamation during Phase Two of the proposal process (Page 78) that in Factor 1, ii, should say Description of progressive design-build . . . |
| The language has been corrected to indicate progressive design-build. |
| 26. |
| Please clarify if the Bureau of Reclamation will require the Quality Management Plan to be developed by the Contractor for this project to be coordinated with any Reclamation Quality Control Procedures, if yes please identify these requirements and provide a copy of the guidance documents. |
| Reclamation will provide Quality Assurance oversight during construction as outlined in subsection 01 46 00 – Quality Procedures of the Section C Specifications of the Solicitation. The design-build team will be responsible for both Quality Assurance/Quality Control as also detailed by this section. Any Reclamation Quality Control procedures are included in the Solicitation. |
| 27. |
| Please confirm the period of performance for this project from NTP to beneficial occupancy. |
| The period of performance has been corrected to reflect 36 months (30 months for design & construction and 6 months for extended plant commissioning and (O&M) from the NTP anticipated by mid-September 2016. |
| 28. |
| Can firms simply include previously completed PPQ’s in lieu of having references submit new ones? We believe continually requesting PPQ’s for the same project can be unnecessarily burdensome to the issuing agencies. |
| While Reclamation recognizes the additional work for organizations to complete the PPQ’s and then submitting them, the PPQ’s still need to be submitted directly from those firms to Reclamation. |
| 29. |
| The solicitation indicates questions must be submitted to rgome@usbr.gov, but my questions are “undeliverable.” |
| This has been corrected in the solicitation. All question must be submitted to Leslie Corpening at lcorpening@usbr.gov. |
| 30. |
| We understand that in the Phase 2 proposal, Schedule B will be completed by subtracting Price Schedule A from $37 million. Then, per Clause H.2, Schedule B will be renegotiated at or before 60% design completion. No other price information (other than Schedule A) will be included in the Phase 2 proposal, and no other pricing is anticipated after award of the contract prior to renegotiation per clause H.2. Is this understanding of the intent of the process correct? |
| The price for Schedule B will be Schedule A subtracted from $37 million. Reclamation’s intent is to renegotiated in accordance with Clause H.2; however, Clause H.2 is currently being re-written and will be provided in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 31. |
| Clause I.32 Indian Preference. How does this clause work in conjunction with other FAR clauses requiring competitive bidding? If an Indian contractor or entity is available, will the pricing with that entity be on a negotiated basis? |
| It is the responsibility of the contractor to be in compliance with this clause. As Reclamation does not have privity with subcontractors to the prime, the method used by the prime to reach a fair and reasonable price is the responsibility of the prime. An acceptable method is via negotiation. |
| 32. |
| Clause I.32 Indian Preference. How does any work that is contracted to Indian entities relate to the Small Business requirements? Does contracting to Indian entities count towards those Small Business goals, regardless of size of the Indian entity? Or does it count as a Large Business subcontractor if a large Indian entity? Or is it not considered subcontract when calculating compliance with Small Business targets? |
| It will depend on the firm as to whether or not it is considered a small business in accordance with the contract size standard (found in Section K). All firms assert their size standard unless it is HUBZone or 8(a) which must be certified by the Small Business Administration. Many Indian-owned firms are small business. If so, they will count towards meeting the small business subcontracting goals. |
| 33. |
| (PDF page 42) When does Clause I.23 Bid Guarantee come into effect? When must this bid bond be posted? Will this be during the Phase 2 proposal, and if so, will it be based on the Schedule A cost or $37 million? |
| The bid bond must be submitted with the price proposal. This means it will be submitted in Phase 2 and must be based upon the total contract price of $37 million. |
| 34. |
| (PDF page 62) Performance Questionnaire, R16PS00462 Cutter Lateral Water Treatment Plant, NGWSP indicates that responses from the evaluating organizations are desired to be returned by April 28, 2016. Would the USDOI Bureau of Reclamation consider extending the date of submission to May 5, 2016 to provide time to complete? |
| It is requested all PPQ’s are submitted by April 28, 2016, to ensure sufficient number have been received. Any firm that has sent out PPQ’s may inquire with Leslie Corpening to ensure a sufficient number has been received. PPQ’s will be accepted up until the time the proposals are due on May 5, 2016. |
| 35. |
| (PDF page 72) General Proposal Instructions L.6, references page limitations. What will be the page limitations? |
| Please the response to question #20. |
| 36. |
| (PDF page 76) Phase One, Volume II, Technical Proposal, E, Technical Evaluation Factors, (1) Factor 1: Past Performance – should the reference to PPQ’s be to Factor 2, Subfactors, and should those Subfactors be labelled 2a and 2b? |
| Typographical errors has been corrected. |
| 37. |
| (PDF page 77) Phase One, Volume II, Technical Proposal, E, Technical Evaluation Factors, (1) Factor 3: Teaming Arrangements – if we intend to include subcontractors and/or subconsultant on our team that are not the Principal Designer or Principal Builder, do we include such entities in this section along with the intended work scope? And, by doin so for these entities, will they be required to subsequently competitively bid on those scopes of work in the future, or will their work be negotiated similar to that of the Design-Builder? |
| Include all known subcontractors and subconsultants that are planned for the Project team in addressing this subfactor. As par tof the open-book cost estimating and negotiation process in establishing the guaranteed maximum price at the 60% design level, subcontractor and subconsultant costs will be negotiated. See subsection 01 20 05 – Cost Estimating Requirement of the Section C Specifications for the requirements where multiple quotes are necessary/ |
| 38. |
| (PDF page 77) Key Personnel and Attachment 5, do professional engineers have to have a current New Mexico PE License, or is one by contract date acceptable? |
| Professional engineers are required to licensed in the State of New Mexico by the time of contract award. |
| 39. |
| (PDF page 83) On Phase Two, Volume III, Factor 4, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, do the target precentages apply to the Schedule A and Schedule B price components separately, or to the project only as a whole (Section B)? |
| The target precentages apply to the contract as a whole. |
