Attachment_1_-_Questions_with_Responses.docx

SB1341-16-RP-0005

2 Phase D-B Building 245 Radiological Research Laboratory Modernization Offeror Questions Received

Question #1 - Page 7, Section I, Contract Clauses: Does the Government expect Contractors to assume the nuclear hazardous material handling and disposal risk inherent in the demolition portion of this statement of work?

Response - Yes, the Contractor should expect to assume this risk. Section C of the solicitation provides background information about the Building 245 facility, its utilization, and project objectives for offeror’s general information to respond to Phase 1 proposal requirements. Offeror’s selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided the additional technical performance requirements and information regarding known existing hazards, including radiological contamination.

Question #2 - Page 7, Section I, Contract Clauses: Will the Government consider including FAR 52.250-1 Indemnification under Public Law 85-804 in order to mitigate the risk of handling and disposing of nuclear radioactive materials?

Response - No. Public Law 85-804 is not applicable to this facility. In addition, the procedure outlined in FAR 50.104-3 would have to be followed for a contractor to request inserting the clause into an existing contract, not the solicitation. FAR 52.250-1 will not be included in the solicitation.

Question #3 - The work proposed for the renovation of Building 245 at the NIST campus in Gaithersburg will involve the design and construction of equipment, systems, and facilities that house nuclear material per NRC’s license SNM 362 as well as other radiological and hazardous material and operations. Will NIST offer indemnification to the designer/contractor associated with renovations to these 245 Building components, and if so, how will this indemnity be provided? We could find no special or regular contract clauses in either section H or section I that addressed this issue. Would NIST consider applying the special indemnity clauses provided for in PL 85-804 or the Price Anderson Act, Amended (PAAA) to the Design/Build team?

Response - See the responses to Questions #1 and #2 above. The NRC license governing the Building 245 facility is not subject to the Price Anderson Act (PAA), as amended. The contract has clauses in Section I for addressing differing site conditions during contract performance.

Question #4 – Since Building 245 contains radioactive materials and is licensed under an NRC SNM license, will the contractor and their design partner be required to have an ASME NQA-1 compliant quality program that covers design and construction of nuclear facilities? If not, what specifically are the quality requirements that will be invoked for the contract? It appears to me that if the indemnity offered by PAAA is to be offered by the government, then an NQA-1 program would be required.

Response – As confirmed with our NRC Program Manager, NIST Gaithersburg is not required to adhere to the NQA-1 standard while engaged in the modernization of building 245. The NIST Gaithersburg, NRC-issued, materials license (SNM-362) does not fall under the scope of this quality standard. Response to Questions #1 and #2 above address the indemnification request for clarification. Quality requirements are included with the technical requirements documents to be issued at Phase 2, and not evaluated until Phase 2. Your proposed Quality Control will be evaluated in Phase 2.

There were multiple questions requesting clarification to Factor 2-Key Personnel Background Investigation. CHANGES to the Section L- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M-EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD are made as follows:

From page 84:

VOLUME II Binder: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FORMS

(A) SPECIAL NOTE: This contract requires specific Key Personnel to possess, prior to advancing to phase 2 and at the time of award, a favorably adjudicated background investigation by the NIST Office of Security (OSY) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 37 Subpart B. This requirement is mandatory for the specific Key Personnel of the exact entity submitting the proposal. NIST will utilize the OPM Clearance Verification System (CVS) to verify previous investigations. This database also ties in to the Department of Defense Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). Offerors are advised that there is insufficient time to complete an initial investigation per 10CFR37 Subpart B 37.25(a) for this solicitation, and shall ensure all specific Key Personnel submitted for Factor 2 evaluation can be adjudicated per 37.25 (b) or 37.25 (c) or per 37.29 relief provisions.

(B) Volume II binder shall include at a minimum each person’s full name and social security number and the contact information of their Agency Security Officer for previously adjudicated actions (point of contact office, location, phone numbers, date(s) of previous clearance) including a signed NIST-1086 Consent for Trustworthiness and Reliability Review(Attachment L2) for each person. The NIST-1086 form is not to be modified; include in the binder a separate summary sheet with all required information along with the signed NIST-1086’s.

Information provided for evaluation as Volume II for submission to NIST’s Office of Security shall be the basis for a determination of acceptability to be eligible for Phase 2 selection and for contract award. FOR ALL SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE EACH NAMED INDIVIDUALS’ SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AS REQUIRED AND CLEARLY LABEL DOCUMENTS AS CONTAINING PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION (PII) IN THE APPLICATIONS.

(C) The following Key Personnel identified in Clause 1352.237-75 KEY PERSONNEL, Section H2, are designated as the specific Key Personnel for evaluation for Factor 2 and shall be included in Volume II binder submission.

From page86:

1. PASS/FAIL FACTOR:

B. Factor 2 - Key Personnel Background Investigation – Pass/Fail: The offeror shall provide the required background investigation information and consent forms for specific Key Personnel. The specific Key Personnel shall be favorably adjudicated by the NIST Office of Security (OSY) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 37 Subpart B.

From page 108:

Relative Importance of Phase 1 evaluation factors:

a. Factor 1-Bonding and Factor 2-Key Personnel Background Investigation factors are Pass/Fail criteria. If an offeror fails either of these factors, it is ineligible to proceed to Phase 2 selection and for award and its proposal will not be further considered. Only offerors that pass these two factors will be considered for award.

From page 109:

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PHASE 1

1. PASS/FAIL FACTORS:

B. Factor 2 -Key Personnel Background Investigation – Pass/Fail NIST will evaluate whether the offeror has provided the required background investigation information and signed consent forms for specific Key Personnel and whether the specific Key Personnel have all been favorably adjudicated by NIST Office of Security (OSY) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 37 Subpart B.

The following specific questions and request for clarification were received:

Question # 5 - The RFP states the following in Section L(d)(2) under Volume II: “(A) SPECIAL NOTE: This contract requires specific Key Personnel to possess, at the time of proposal and the time of award, a favorably adjudicated background investigation by the NIST Office of Security and Investigations (OSI) in accordance with 10 CFR Part 37 Subpart B. This requirement is mandatory for the key personnel of the exact entity submitting the proposal AND THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS who will be receiving the RFP requirement documents for PHASE 2 of the selection process. Offeror’s are advised that there is insufficient time to complete an initial investigation per 10CFR37 Subpart B 37.25(a) for this solicitation, and shall ensure all individuals to have access to the RFP requirements documents for Phase 2 and submitted for Factor 2 evaluation can be adjudicated per 37.25 (b) or 37.25 (c) or per 37.29 relief provisions.” In order for us to provide a price under Phase 2 of this solicitation, we will not only need to engage ourselves and our designers, but also a number of subcontractors to assist in the pricing. With the inclusion of all of these individuals, the number of background investigations to be performed by NIST OSI for just our team will likely number 250 to 300. With a number of teams submitting, the number will very likely top 1,000.

Does the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS intent mean for the Offeror to include Subcontractors in all divisions of work who will receive the documents during the Phase II pricing?

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. NIST has removed the restricted release requirement for offerors to receive the Phase 2 documents. Offerors must still be rated as a PASS for Factor 2 evaluation for their specific Key Personnel submitted in the proposal to be eligible for Phase 2 selection. The number of individuals requiring favorable adjudication to pass this factor has been reduced to three (Project Manager for the project - On Site, Construction Superintendent for the project, Design Firm Senior Architect for the project). Offerors advanced to Phase 2 will be able to distribute the documents as necessary to Sub-Contractors during Phase 2 pricing.

Question #6 – (from Question #5 above) Will anyone that will need to view the Phase 2 documents or design documents resulting from the Phase 2 requirements need to be cleared by NIST?

Response – No. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD and Question #5 above. NIST has removed the restricted release requirement for offerors to receive the Phase 2 documents. Sensitive information subject to 10CFR37 Part B access controls is not included in the Phase 2 documents. Offerors advanced to Phase 2 will be able to distribute the documents as necessary to Sub-Contractors during Phase 2 pricing.

Question #7 - Regarding Section L(d)(2)(B) the RFP states: “Volume II binder shall include at a minimum each person’s full name and social security number included with a signed NIST-1086” form. The NIST-1086 form attached as Attachment L2, however, contains no reference or place to include the social security number. Can the offerors modify Attachment L2 to include social security numbers or does NIST have another preference?

Response – Attachment L2 is a standard NIST form and shall not be modified. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Include in the binder a separate summary sheet with all required information along with the signed NIST-1086’s.

Question #8 - Factor 2 – Key Personnel Background Investigation – Pass/Fail: Due to the size and scope of this project, a good number of personnel will be submitted for the background investigation (see RFI #1 above). Given this large number, there is a good potential that an individual within this large number may be denied access, even if by administrative error.

If a person named in our proposal for ourselves, one of our team members or one of our subcontractors does not pass the Consent for Trustworthiness and Reliability review, can NIST reject the entire proposal or that individual team member of subcontractor? Or, does the term “fail” simply mean the person(s) who do not pass the review “fail” (and therefore are not allowed access to the documents)?

Response – See the CHANGES to the Section L- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M-EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. As now modified for this solicitation, the number of personnel requiring favorable adjudication is reduced to three. Offerors must be rated as a PASS for Factor 2 evaluation for their specific Key Personnel submitted in the proposal to be eligible for Phase 2 selection and for award. If an offeror fails this factor, the proposal is not eligible for award. The Government may contact an offeror for minor clarifications (i.e., misspelled name, typo error on SSN, etc.)

Question #9 - Did individuals to be screened under the security provisions of the solicitation have to be previously cleared on a NIST contract to comply with the instructions?

Response – No. Offerors specific Key Personnel that have a federal background investigation that is current (not over 10 years old) can usually be T&R screened quickly by the Office of Security (OSY). As stated during the site visit briefing, NIST will utilize the OPM Clearance Verification System (CVS) to verify previous investigations. This database also ties in to the Department of Defense Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). If the individual was cleared with one of the Intelligence agencies, he/she will need to provide contact information for their Agency Security Officer since they may not be in either CVS or JPAS for security reasons. Offeror’s responding with Factor 2 required background investigation information should provide this contact information as applicable for each specific Key Personnel individual submitted for this evaluation. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above.

Question #10 - Factor 2 Key Personnel Background Investigations: The RFP states all key personnel must provide personal information for a background investigation, however the Attachment L-2 provided is a Consent form and doesn’t have place to include personal information such as social security. Will NIST provide a form that each Key Personnel can fill out for the background investigation? If not, what specific information is needed from Key Personnel for the background investigation, and in what format is this acceptable?

Response – See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Please also see response to Questions #7 and #9 above. NIST Form 1086 (Attachment L2) shall not be modified. Include in the binder a separate summary sheet with all required information along with the signed NIST-1086’s.

Question #11 - Please clarify Key Personnel positions that must be submitted as part of the Phase 1 for background investigation in order to receive Phase 2 documents as there are references made to personnel in multiple locations of the RFP.

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION -PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Please also see response to Question #5. The specific Key Personnel positions are clarified.

Question #12 - Please clarify the extent of personnel names that must be submitted for background investigation in Phase 1. Is the intent that any organization/individual that will need access to the Phase 2 documents must be submitted with Phase 1? This list cannot be finalized until the Phase 2 documents are provided to ensure the bidder has adequate coverage for scope bidding in order to provide a competitive price to the Government. Will the Government allow adequate time for individuals to be submitted during Phase 2 that have a need to see the documents in order to fully understand the scope?

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Please also see response to Questions #5, #8, and #11 above.

Question #13 - During the pre-bid site walk, it was discussed that the offerors are to include, as part of the PII list in the Volume II Binder, all agencies the given individual has been cleared. Please clarify all information required to be submitted as part of the Volume II Binder. Should the offeror’s include individuals that have expired clearances?

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Specific Key Personnel information on expired clearances should be submitted. Please also see response to Question # 9.

Question #14 - We understand that we need to provide the names of the proposal team that will work on the Phase II proposal (for security background checks) in volume II of our Phase I proposal. We assume that we do not need to supply the names of all personnel who may or will work on the first task order in Volume II of the Phase I proposal (design consultants, subcontractors, etc.). Should our team be selected to move forward to Phase II of this solicitation will we have the opportunity to add names to our list of employees, consultants and subcontractors to work on the project? Please confirm this is correct.

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. Also see the response to Questions #9 and #12 above. Only the specific Key Personnel are required for Factor 2 proposal submission and shall be evaluated, not the names of all personnel who may or will work on the first task order

Question #15 - Will non-US citizens require pre-appointment check that includes an immigration and Customs Enforcement agency check (see page 43, H.1,(b)) in addition to or in advance of the 10CFR Part 37, Subpart B approval to view the RFP documents for Phase II?

Response - As stated in the instructions, “Offeror’s are advised that there is insufficient time to complete an initial investigation per 10CFR37 Subpart B 37.25(a) for this solicitation” which would entail this Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly INS) agency check. See the CHANGES to the Section L- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 and Section M-EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. If the Offeror intends to include a non-US citizen for one of the specific Key Personnel positions to be evaluated for Factor 2 they will need to have had all prior investigation requirements completed and available. This background investigation will only involve the T&R process. NIST has removed the restricted release requirement for offerors to receive the Phase 2 documents which answers the second part of this question. Clause 1352.237-70 on Page 43 will be included in any resultant contract.

Question #16 - Is it expected that all Key Personnel identified on page 44, H.2 1352.237-75 Key Personnel be named at Phase I. If so, and changes in the future are necessary, does paragraph (b) and (c) apply to how these personnel changes must be administered? Is it acceptable to propose more than one candidate for a Key Personnel position at this Phase as long as a signed NIST-1086 Consent for Trustworthiness and Reliability Review form is provided for each individual proposed?

Response – No, all Key Personnel identified on page 44, H.2 1352.237-75 Key Personnel do not need to be named at Phase I. Yes, paragraphs (b) and (c) are the requirements for any key personnel substitutions. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above. The requirement is for specific Key Personnel only; therefore, submitting multiple named individuals for a single position is not acceptable. Please see response to Question #32 with regards to Specialty Personnel requirements for key personnel.

There were multiple questions requesting clarification to Factor 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE. The following CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD are made as follows:

From page 88-89:

C. Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall demonstrate at least a satisfactory past performance record on projects they have performed of a similar scope, complexity, and size to the requirement. The Offeror, or each partner if the Offeror is a proposed joint-venture or consortia, shall provide telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for two (2) references and the Servicing Contracting Office for each project described in the Factor 4-Offeror’s Special Experience & Technical Competency evaluation factor. The Offeror may use the Servicing Contracting Office as one of the two required references. Offerors shall ensure that all references and their contact information are current and correct prior to inclusion with the proposal submission. Offerors shall include information regarding any problems encountered on the projects described above and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

The Past Performance Questionnaire included in the solicitation as Attachment L1 is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the references for each project included in the proposal. The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1 through 6 only of the Past Performance Questionnaire for each project submitted in response to Factor 4 - Offeror Special Experience & Technical Competency. The remaining blocks must be filled out by the client reference. The offeror shall submit this form to its reference to fill out and send to the Government Point of Contact. Completed PPQ’s must be submitted directly from the reference to the Government points of contact, Kandy Clark via email at Kandy.Clark@nist.gov and Brian Johnson at Brian.Johnson@nist.gov prior to RFQ closing date and include the Solicitation Number in the Subject Line. PPQ received directly from offerors will not be considered. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. PPQ forms received after the closing date shall not be considered.

If the offeror has no relevant past performance it should include a statement to that effect in its proposal. The government reserves the right to consider data obtained from sources other than those described by the offeror in its proposal. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of the offeror’s team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, consortia or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal

From page 111:

C. Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE

NIST will evaluate the relevance and quality of the offeror’s past performance information. An offeror who has a performed successfully on projects, listed in Factor 4 Special Experience & Technical Competency, that involved performance of a similar scope, complexity, and size to the requirement, would be rated more favorably. Projects demonstrating a direct correlation with the current requirement and with satisfactory past performance would be rated more favorably than those offerors with lesser to no correlation with the current requirements and satisfactory past performance.

Information will be obtained from the offeror’s list of references and the Servicing Contracting Office to determine its relevance to the current requirements and the extent to which it demonstrates that the offeror has successfully completed similar contracts in the past. In assessing the offeror’s past performance, NIST will evaluate the quality, timeliness, ability to control cost, management, safety/security and customer satisfaction of the past work. Evaluation of this factor will be based on the information provided in the technical proposal and information provided by references. The Government will evaluate past performance by review of Past Performance Questionnaires submitted and contacting appropriate references, including NIST references; if applicable. The Government may also consider other information sources available. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of the offeror’s team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, consortia or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

The following specific questions and request for clarification were received:

Question #17 - Will a PPQ previously completed by a Client be acceptable?

Response - See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION -PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE. All PPQ must be submitted directly from the reference to the Government POC identified Factor 5. No PPQ will be accepted directly from an offeror.

Question #18 - Will a CPARS/CCASS also be considered in lieu of the PPQ form provided in the RFQ?

Response – CPARS/CCAS is the systems that feed into PPIRS. Information may be obtained from PPIRS in evaluating past performance. However, this does not relieve the Offeror of Section L, Factor 5-PAST PERFORMANCE proposal submission requirements, to include having references send PPQ to the government POCs. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

Question #19 - Regarding the PPQs. Section L (page 88-89) of the RFP suggests that past clients are to provide the completed PPQ directly to NIST, whereas the form (Attachment L1) indicates the PPQ is to be returned to the offeror and included in our proposals to NIST. See below. Which is correct? (NOTE: The contractor includes information from Section L, page 88-89, “i” and from Attachment L1 (page 2) (the Note). If needed, I can send-but was previously included and addressed.)

Response - The references are to send the PPQ directly to NIST. No PPQ will be accepted from the offeror. See the CHANGES to the Section L- PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION -PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5-PAST PERFORMANCE. On page 103 (Attachment L1, Past Performance Questionnaire) the NOTE is changed:

NOTE: The Offeror shall complete Blocks 1 through 6 only of the Past Performance Questionnaire for each project submitted in response to Factor 4-Offeror Special Experience & Technical Competency. The remaining blocks must be filled out by the client reference. The offeror shall submit this form to its client reference to fill out and send to the Government Point of Contact. Completed PPQ’s must be submitted directly from the client reference to the Government points of contact, Kandy Clark via email at Kandy.Clark@nist.gov and Brian Johnson at Brian.Johnson@nist.gov prior to RFQ closing date and include the Solicitation Number in the Subject Line.

Question #20 - Page 111, Evaluation Criteria for Phase I, Technical Factor Section C. Factor 5 Past Performance: The evaluation criteria for Factor 5 Past Performance states, "An offeror who has performed successfully on projects, listed in Factor 4 Special Experience & Technical Competency, that involved phased construction projects within operational utility generation plants involved replacement of major steam generation equipment end items, while sustaining uninterrupted services, would be rated more favorably". Will the Government confirm that "operational utility generation plants involved replacement of major steam generation equipment end items" is in error and the evaluation criteria should align with the NIST evaluation criteria for Factor 4?

Response – This was corrected. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

Question #21 - In Section M, Evaluation Criteria for Phase I, Item 2., C. Factor 5 – Past Performance (on page 109), in the second sentence regarding projects listed in Factor 4 Special Experience & Technical Competency, the terms “operational utility generation plants involving replacement of major steam generation equipment end items, while sustaining uninterrupted services” appears not to align with other project evaluation factor criteria provided elsewhere in the RFP documents. Could you please confirm?

Response - This was corrected. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

Question #22 - Page 87, Technical Factors, Factor 4, Section L: On page 87 of 119 (Technical Factors, Factor 4), the RFP requires offerors to provide project examples showing experience with design-build contracting of a similar scope, complexity, and size to the proposed project. However, there are relatively few large scale design-build laboratory research projects that fit the criteria outlined in the lists of scope, complexity, and size criteria provided in Factor 4. In order to ensure that the government has the most competitive selection of offerors, we respectfully request that the language of Factor 4 be amended to allow laboratory and research projects, of any delivery type (including design-bid-build, CM at Risk, General Contractor, etc.) to be presented, as long as they are at least 200,000 SF in size or $50 million in contract value.

Response – Technical Factor 4 on page 87 and the corresponding Evaluation Criteria for Factor 4 on page 110 for Phase 1 shall remain unchanged. Factor 4 does not exclude other contract types. Market research and feedback from industry has indicated adequate sources for competition on this solicitation.

Question #23 - The RFP states the following for Volume III: “B. Factor 4- SPECIAL EXPERIENCE & TECHNICAL COMPENTENCY: The offeror shall describe projects it has performed as either a design-build team, prime, subcontractor or joint venture that indicate its experience with design-build contracting of a similar scope, complexity, and size to the requirement.” Very few projects of this type are delivered using the design-build delivery method and as such, while many contractors may have delivering this type of product and may separately have significant design build experience, the combination of the two is rather rare and will limit competition significantly. Please confirm that the projects under Factor 4 are not required to be design-build delivery but may be similar projects delivered under different methods.

Response – See the response for Question #22 above. Adequate guidance is provided within Sections L and M of the solicitation instructions on the requirements for proposal preparation and how Factor 4 shall be evaluated.

Question #24 - For Factor 1 – Bonding: Given the significant amount of information requested within the page limitations, we respectfully request that the Bonding Letter be excluded from the 150 page limit stipulated in Volume III.

Response – The proposal requirement shall remain unchanged.

Question #25 - The Proposal Submission Requirements for Volume III, Section L(d)(3)(4) stipulate using “elite font” which is a very rare font not typically used by programs such as Microsoft Word and others. Can NIST modify this requirement to allow Offerors the opportunity to choose a font familiar to modern businesses and computers, such as Times New Roman, Helvetica, Calibri, etc.?

Response - The following additional fonts are also acceptable: Arial, Times New Roman, or Calibri. This guidance is applicable for both phases of the solicitation proposal instructions. Pitch size of font shall remain at 12 for all written media.

Question #26 - The Proposal Submission Requirements for Volume III, Section L(d)(3)(4) stipulates double-spaced, 12-pitch type without any exceptions for tables, graphics, call-outs, and other specialty document items. In order to a more comprehensive, easily readable proposal, will NIST allow for a smaller font (11pt or 10pt) and/or single spacing limited to tables, call outs and graphics?

Response – See response for question #13 above regarding written media. Graphics, drawings and charts may adjust font size for the intended application in the offeror’s proposal. No smaller than 9pt for these exceptions.

Question #27- Section 01 10 00 Table of Contents: The creation of a realistic and productive B/C building as the initial building in the progression to completely update and modernize Building 245 requires the bidders under Phase II to quickly and with no access to the individual user groups, create an overall space program for the complex, understand a phasing plan and thus create the B/C addition that effectively starts the modernization process. To aid our team in pulling this all together in what will likely be an aggressively short bidding period, it would be very helpful for NIST to provide current space utilization as well as “final state” programming that may have been developed thus far by the NIST development team. What level of programming, if any, will be provided to the shortlisted firms in Phase II?

Response – Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation. No additional programming information will be provided during Phase 1 of the solicitation.

Question #28 – (from Question # 27 above). Will the Program for Requirements documents be available for the B/C Wing Addition?

Response – Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation.

Question #29 – (from Question #27 above) Will the Program for Requirements documents be available for the complete Building 245e Facility?

Response – Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation.

Question #30 - On the walk through last week it was hard to judge the level of occupancy of the current building. For planning purposes it is important to get an understanding of the current level of occupancy and the planned occupancy during the renovation. For the Phase II submission will we be provided data on the level of occupancy of Building 245 during construction of the B/C Wing Addition?

Response - Yes, Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation.

Question #31 - Please verify proposal delivery location, the RFP lists two different room locations. See below:

Acquisition Management Division (AMD) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) U.S. Department of Commerce 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1640 Building 301, Room B125 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1640 Attn: Kandy Clark, Contract Specialist (301) 975- 5469 Or

NATIONAL INST OF STDS AND TECHNOLOGY

100 BUREAU DRIVE STOP 1640

BUILDING 301 ROOM B129 GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-1640

Response – Deliver proposals to Acquisition Management Division (AMD), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1640, Building 301, Room B158, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1640, Attn: Kandy Clark, Contract Specialist (301) 975-5469.

If a proposal is not received at the place, date, and time specified in the solicitation, it will be considered a “late proposal.”

Offerors that will be hand delivering their proposal to NIST are required to obtain a visitors badge in order to access the Campus. In order to assure access to campus, at least three (3) days prior to Offeror’s delivering their proposals, the name(s), company the individual(s) is representing, and whether the person(s) have U.S. Citizenship shall be provided via e-mail to kandy.clark@nist.gov and teresa.harris@nist.gov.

Question #32 - Please provide specifications for all Specialty Personnel (2.15 Specialty Personnel: 2.15.1 - 2.15.9) to ensure the offerors are submitting individuals that meet and/or exceed the designated qualifications.

Response - The complete contract performance requirements that are outlined in the specifications are not issued until Phase 2 selection. The sections requested applicable for Offerors to make specific Key Personnel decisions at Phase 1 regarding Clause H.2 1352.237-75 KEY PERSONNEL are excerpted below:

2.15 Specialty Personnel: The Contractor’s project team personnel shall include at a minimum, but is not limited to, the following specialty and key personnel for the entire contract performance-

2.15.1 Project Manager(s): The Contractor shall include at least one Project Manager dedicated solely to this project and on-site for the duration of the contract performance. The project manager for this project shall not be assigned to any duties associated with work outside of this project and have experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity. The Contractor’s design team shall have a designated project manager for design that is a senior architect with design experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

2.15.2 Construction Superintendent(s): The Contractor’s team shall include at least one construction superintendent dedicated solely to this project. The construction superintendent for this project shall not be assigned to any duties associated with work outside of this project. The construction superintendent shall have experience with projects of similar size, scope and complexity. The Contractor’s team shall include a construction superintendent for each task order having experience with projects of similar size, scope and complexity unless the Contracting Officer agrees to a key personnel substitution.

2.15.3 Project Safety Manager(s): The Contractor’s team shall include at least one construction safety manager responsible for site safety and on-site for the duration of the contract performance. The construction safety manager will be responsible for monitoring all construction safety in accordance with the contract provisions, Contractor Health & Safety Plan (HASP), and radiation safety coordination between the Contractor’s , Project Manager, certified health physicist, NIST’s OSHE personnel, NIST’s Gaithersburg Radiation Safety Division and the Contracting Officer’s Representative(COR).

2.15.4 Certified Health Physicist: The Contractor’s team shall include a certified health physicist responsible for maintaining radiation safety for the project, in coordination with the Contractor’s project construction safety manager, and in coordination with NIST’s OSHE personnel, including NIST’s Gaithersburg Radiation Safety Division. The Certified Health Physicist must have experience with projects of similar size, scope and complexity. The certified health physicist shall be required to be on site at all times during construction activities.

2.15.5 Radiation Physicist: The contractor shall retain a radiation physicist to assist in calculating, designing and implementing radiation shielding for the project. Refer to section 2.9.3 for additional requirements.

2.15.6 Radiological engineer: The contractor shall retain a radiological engineer to assist in designing and implementing radiation shielding for the project. Refer to section 2.9.3 for additional requirements.

2.15.7 Security Escort(s): The Contractor team shall include specifically dedicated cleared personnel, considered Trusted and Reliable (T&R) by NIST, to provide security escort assignments for non-cleared personnel for any construction activities performed within the facility as deemed applicable by the NIST Security Officer. Security escorts provide a physical presence with individuals or specified crew and will not be assigned any other duties other than security oversight.

2.15.8 Scheduler(s): The Contractor’s team shall include a scheduler responsible for maintaining the project schedules. The scheduler shall have experience on projects of a similar size, scope, and complexity. The Contractor’s scheduler shall attend all contract progress meetings. Refer to section 2.10 for additional requirements.

2.15.9 Additional information: Each of the personnel categories listed above represents a separate individual or group of individuals. Assigning the duties of more than one category of specialty personnel to a single individual shall not be permitted, unless formally authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.

Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents which will include sections 2.9.3 and 2.10. No Phase 2 information will be considered or evaluated at Phase 1 other than that which is specifically requested in the proposal submission instructions.

Question #33 - The contractor teams will expend significant resources responding to the Phase II proposal. Would NIST consider providing a stipend to the three short-listed firms for their design efforts on the sample task?

Response- NIST will not be providing a stipend to Offeror’s associated with this solicitation.

Question #34 - Will NIST supply a list of the attendees at the Pre-Bid Conference on April 8, 2016?

Response - Yes, this list is included as Attachment 4 to this Amendment.

Question #35 - Will NIST supply a copy of the presentation from the Pre-Bid Conference on April 8, 2016?

Response - Yes, this list is included as Attachment 2 to this Amendment.

Question #36 - Regarding the format requirements for Volume III listed in Section L(d)(3)(A)(4) on p. 85, is the double spacing a requirement or can you consider waiving that as long as we provide a legible spacing, and is using elite font required or will a similar font suffice?

Response - Legible line spacing greater than 1.15 is acceptable. See response to Question #25 regarding the acceptable fonts.

Question #36 - Minor clarification request – Reference page 70 of the solicitation. In the first sentence of the Progress Report clause, we believe you require monthly progress reports but both monthly and weekly submissions are referenced. Please clarify.

Response - On Page 70, DELETE I.139, Clause 1352.237-74, Progress Reports (Apr 2010), in its entirety.

Question #37 - The responses to this solicitation is a considerable effort. Will NIST consider extending the due date by two (2) weeks?

Response- No, the submission requirements for Phase 1 will remain unchanged.

Question #38 - Please confirm the required organization/format for Phase 1 RFQ Response.

There seems to be conflicting information regarding the requested organization/format of Volume III.

Section L, (d)(3)(b) on page 85, states: “Format and Content. Volume III, Technical Proposal, shall include the following components:

1. Table of Contents

2. List of Tables and Figures

3. Technical Summary

4. Technical Discussion

5. Technical Exceptions and Deviations”

However, Section L (d)(3)(c) Specific areas to addressed in Volume III for the Phase 1 RFQ: Evaluation Factors (pages 86 – 89) do not match or contain the same components.

Please confirm that the Phase 1 RFQ response is to be formatted per Evaluation Factors as listed pages 86-89.

Response - There is no conflict. Under Format and Content, Volume III, Technical proposal, under sub-paragraphs (1)Technical Summary and (2)Technical Discussion are where the Offeror proposal response is prepared for the Evaluation Factors as listed on pages 86-89. The proposal submission instructions are consistent.

Question #39 - Does NIST have as-builts for 245, and if so when were they last updated?

Response - NIST as-built documents for Building 245 are original blueprints, circa 1961 to 1963. Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation.

Question #40- Will NIST provide shielding design criteria and/or provide site standards for shielding design?

Response - Yes, this information is included with the Phase 2 technical requirements.

Question #41 - Is there an UG utility survey for the area east of B wing (site of proposed extension)?

Response - Yes. Offerors selected to proceed to the Phase 2 selection process will be provided additional technical requirements and resource documents as stated in the solicitation.

Question #42 - Can we use existing PPQ or CCASS forms in lieu of requesting new PPQs from our references for the projects that we name in response to the Factor 5 requirement?

Response - No. Please see response to Questions #17 and 18 above.

Question #43 - We plan to include supplemental information as appendices to the five heading components shown on page 85, (3), (B) Format and Content, Volume III, Technical Proposal. The total number of pages for Volume III Technical proposal is limited to 150 pages. Will pages in appendices be counted against the 150 page limit requirement?

Response - Yes. The proposal requirement shall remain unchanged.

Question #44- Reference Past Performance Questionnaire, and Solicitation Page 89, Paragraph 1: Confirm that if the Offeror’s PPQs completed by the Offeror’s clients can be submitted directly Kandy Clark, per page 89 of the solicitation, and if the client chooses to send said PPQ directly, the Offeror is not required to be furnished the PPQ in the technical proposal, as well.

Response - All PPQ must be sent to the government directly from the reference. No PPQ will be accepted from the offeror. The offeror must complete blocks 1 – 6 prior to giving it to their reference. See the CHANGES to the Section L - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 and Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD above for Factor 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE. All other submission requirements must be followed (list of POCs for projects, etc.) Please see response to Question #19 which corrects the note on Attachment L1 - PPQ form, page 103 of 119.

Question #45 - Reference Request for Qualifications Page 5, Section 11.B: Confirm that completed Past Performance Questionnaires, if required to be included in the Offeror’s technical submission, are not counted towards the 150 page length limit. Also, please confirm that any legal documentation, representations and certifications, financial documents, teaming agreements or other documentation required will not count towards the 150 page limit.

Response - The Volume III page limits are unchanged. PPQ are not in the offeror’s technical submission. All PPQ must be sent directly from the reference and therefore are not counted toward the 150 page limit. All documentation required in Volume III count toward the 150 page limitation.

Question #46 - Reference Solicitation Page 89, Paragraph 2: Confirm that if the government chooses to consider information from other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past experience (CPARS, CCASS, etc.), and negative information is received from sources not noted in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond.

Response – If the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to negative past performance, then the government will give the offeror a chance to respond.