ftw00432qa.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CONTRACT FOR THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON – R-FTW-00432

The following questions have been asked regarding this solicitation. Answers to each question follow the questions and are in bold type.

1. Q. I would like to know what qualifications are necessary to bid on this contract. Is it necessary to be an Architectural or Engineering (AE) firm or just have sufficient construction experience? Is there a company size requirement and are there other qualifications?

A. Once you review the solicitation, it will answer many of your questions regarding the qualifications, subcontracting, etc. You do not necessarily have to be an AE firm as long as you and your employees can meet the qualification and experience requirements. The NAICS code 541310 is used instead of the NAICS code 541350 for inspector, because the contract requires more than just an inspector. The size standard for that NAICS code is $ 4.5 Million. This procurement is a Total HUBZone set-aside, so you need to be a HUBZone firm. For those qualifications you need to speak with your SBA representative.

2. Q. We are interested in submitting a proposal for the Washington State Multifamily

Construction Inspection RFP. In reading through the solicitation it appears the maximum value of the contract is $861,462 with inspections estimated at 1344 for the base year and 672 for each option year, not including special inspections. The total number of inspections would be 3912 equating to $220 for each inspection. Is this correct?

A. Amendment 1 to the solicitation changes the estimated quantities in Section B, so you should not use those previous quantities in any endeavor as far as anticipated “work expectations”. The previous quantities in the solicitation were estimates that were made for a broader geographical area before the solicitation was narrowed to the current area, and the quantities were not changed to represent the smaller area. Also, we cannot comment on your mathematical conjecturing regarding using Min/Max provisions to try and anticipate maximum prices per inspection available for a contractor.

We should bring it to your attention that estimated quantities are no guarantee of quantities that will be actually ordered, and that in our determination of maximum dollars that we anticipate might be expended in the min/max provision, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the maximum dollars, the maximum prices that we will be willing to pay, and the estimated quantities that are listed in the solicitation.

3. Q. In regard to Solicitation R-FTW-00432, is this a new contract? If it is not, who is the incumbent and what has been the contract value? Is the incumbent still qualified/eligible to perform these services for the new contract? How much of a work load and number of hours did the incumbent perform during their first year of their associated contract? Did their entire work load take place within the State of Washington?

A. This is not a new contract (requirement). The name of the incumbent and the contract value may be releasable only under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) procedures.

Prior to receipt and evaluation of a proposal and a determination of responsibility, we would be unable to know whether the incumbent is currently qualified/eligible to perform the services for the new contract. Workload and number of hours that the incumbent performed during the first year of their associated contract is not information that we would be privy to. All of the property assignments requiring inspections under the previous contract were within the State of Washington.

4. Q. We are required to submit hourly cost for a foundation soils engineer; however, if test boring or inspection pits are needed, generally a field crew, separate from the soils engineer, is required.

These crews generally cost between $2,400 and $2,600 per day. Currently, there is no line item for a field crew or test boring rig. Please advise. Also, is the contract manager out of the HUD office or out of the construction inspector’s office?

A. In the Special Purpose Inspections we have performed under all of our contracts for this service to date we have accomplished the tasks we needed using the Foundation/Soils Engineer and have not had to have a field crew perform any testing as part of the SPI.

For your information no SPI inspections to date have been required in the geographic area of this solicitation. In the amendment, at Paragraph B.5.3, we are estimating that no more than 3 SPI inspections might be assigned over the life of the contract. Since the type labor categories to be used on SPI inspections will not be used on a regular basis, contractors are not expected to maintain such individuals on a permanent basis. We have also removed CLIN 0002 as a contract line item number (CLIN 0002, CLIN 0102, CLIN 0202, CLIN 0302, and CLIN 0402) as such inspections cannot be pre-priced in the schedule, and are of little significance in the overall value of a potential contract. Where we have used such an individual as you are questioning for an SPI in other geographic areas, the company who designed the project was able to provide us soil borings, design data, and results of any concrete tests that our “Foundation/Soils Engineer” was able to evaluate and provide us with a recommendation addressing the specific problem we had.

When problems are encountered where additional borings, test pits, etc. are required we have gone back to the original design company to perform such tests.

The purpose of HUD asking for the SPI pre-priced labor rates is actually two-fold:

1) To give us some idea of the prices of some generic labor categories that we have needed in the past, not necessarily all that we could possibly encounter; and

2) It also serves the purpose of informing our Contract Inspector that we occasionally might need some special or unique inspections, beyond the capabilities or experience level of a typical building inspector, and shows us that he/she either has such unique capabilities covered with their in-house staff or that the firm has coordinated the costs and capability of obtaining such services in advance of actually needing them.

The contract requires that a contract manager, alternate contract manager, and at least 50% of the inspector(s) must be employees of the contractor, so the contract manager is out of the construction inspector’s office.

5. Q. Looking at the solicitation for Construction Inspectors for the State of Washington, I wasn’t sure what certifications that I would have to have to bid. Please advise.

A. See paragraph K.2 on page 66 of the solicitation regarding the requirements for Annual

Representations and Certification. Also see paragraph H.9, page 45, LIMITATION ON

SUBCONTRACTING REPORT –SEMI-ANNUAL – SMALL BUSINESS SET-

ASIDE, which states:

The CI shall provide a semi-annual statement declaring if at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern (prime CI) in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 (Limitation on Subcontracting).

The CI shall identify all subcontractors and the percentage of the total contract costs that are being performed by the CI as the prime and each subcontractor. The first report shall be submitted six months after the contract effective date: TBD 2008.

For your information, paragraph H.5 in the original solicitation, Additional Responsibilities and Licensing Requirements, a standard paragraph in some solicitations, is being removed by Amendment 1 to the solicitation. It is being removed to avoid confusion as there is no licensing or permit requirements to provide these inspections.

6. Q. I have one question in regards to Section L (2) Professional Employees Compensation Plan. I have read the requirements of FAR 52.222-46 and am curious as to what type of information HUD is requesting. Is HUD wanting a narrative description plan or a worksheet breakdown plan? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

A. We are requesting your Total Compensation Plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits of the key personnel (Contract Manager, Alternate Contract Manager, and Inspectors);

i.e., your professional employees who will work under the contract. Supporting information should include data, such as recognized national and regional surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensations structure for your professional employees staff. We do not dictate the format of your plan, as long as it is comprehensive and contains the information needed to assess the quality and stability of the work force to be employed for this contract effort.

7. Q. Table B.5.1 implies that there is only one price for the Base Period and each subsequent

Option Period. However, the third column of the table is titled “Project Size by Number of Units” and implies that CLIN 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301 & 0401 are to be broken down into size groupings. What is the proper interpretation?

A. The column labeled Project Size by Number of Units is the description column only. There is only one price for Routine Inspections in the Base Period and each subsequent Option Period, and the third column should just be titled “Description”. Offerors are not required to re-label this column heading. This answer is for clarification purposes only.