RFI QA Thru - 1Feb23.pdf

RFIs 27 Jan thru 1 Feb 23

Question #27: As part of Amendment 0001 – we are to return a signed SF30. Clarification is needed as to the location of where to place the signed copy? Do we place the signed SF30 as the first page in each volume or do we indicate on the cover or signatory page that we are in receipt of the SF30 for Amendment 0001?

According to the SF30:

“”(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SP ECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.””

** The SF 30 may be returned to our office via email, or included as part of the proposal package with the original and three copies. However, you may find it easier If you annotate receipt of the amendments on page 2 of the SF1442 (proposal).

Question #28: We are listing key personnel that are currently employed with our firm – but have not worked on any of the 5 projects listed in Exhibit A. Please confirm that a resume is all that is required as they are employees?

Yes. For current key personnel, a resume is all that is needed.

Question #29: Based on this contract being an IDIQ MATOC, we do not know what TO’s will be awarded, thus we do not know what subcontractors will be needed nor in what city (location). If we name major subcontractors – are we committed to utilizing them on this contract?

You are not committed to utilizing the subcontractors you identify. Nor can the government force you to in anyway.

Question #30: In VOL I (Pricing) – Can the Gov’t please confirm that the offeror only submits the MATOC Prototypical Task Order Form (page 151) and the Detailed Price Proposal (Page 153) or the complete Exhibit D?

Yes. Only those two pages.

Question #31: Can the Gov’t please confirm that the offeror does not submit the second page of the SF 1442 Pricing for CLIN 0001 and 1001 since it’s not related to the PROTOTYPICAL Project?

Yes. The RFP page 3 CLIN 0001 and 1001 should NOT be filled out for pricing of the prototypical project.

This is administrative information that would be on the base MATOC award document.

Question #32: Exhibit A – Performance Relevancy Questionnaire – Part Two states that the offeror only needs to provide this information once in your submission package. Can the Gov’t please confirm that Part Two does not need to be filled out for each Performance Questionnaire except once as specified to reduce redundancy?

Yes. As stated, the information required of Exhibit A Part 2, must only be provided once.

Question #33: Would the government consider extending the due date to 7 days AFTER RFIs have been answered to allow time for offerors to make any revisions based on responses?

Yes. Already extended to February 15th, 2023.

Question #34: Would the government allow for proposals to be emailed instead of a hard copy submission, or possibly allow an emailed submission with a hardcopy to be mailed within 2 days of the submission due date?

No. Proposals must be hard copy, and proposals must be received by our office by the deadline stated in the (amended) RFP.

Question #35: Section 00120, C. Evaluation Approach, Subfactor 1 Experience and Capability says…

“The proposal must demonstrate capability and plans for meeting Government requirements and shall address as a minimum, but not limited to, the following:

Specification Section 010000-Division 01, Special Contract Requirements, Para. 4, Ordering Procedures for Competitive Task Order.”

How are we to address this as there is no reference to this under Section 00110 Submission Requirements and Instructions, Para 3.2.4 Subfactor 1 Experience and capability? The subfactor is about our experience and capability to perform projects in the scope of work.

The government has amended Section 00110 to make the submission of technical capability information less ambiguous to fall in line with the stated technical evaluation approach, which includes addressing capability and plans for meeting government requirements; specifically referencing Division 01 Special Contract Requirements.

Question #36: After reviewing the prototypical project documents provided, we have been unable to locate a specific Statement of Work. Could the government please provide a Statement of Work?

There is no SOW. The contractor is to use the plans and specs only

Question #37: Section 8.2 Safety Manager(s): The Safety and Health Officer shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience working on projects like the prototypical project described in the RFP, and 5 years of experience working with the requirements described in Paragraph SC38, SAFETY/ACCIDENT

REPORTING.

It’s Section 01000 paragraph 35. “SAFETY/ACCIDENT REPORTING” of the RFP. This was a typo. It has been corrected on the amended RFP.

Question #38: Section 00110, paragraph 3.1.6.2 states “One copy in a sealed envelope of documentation of adequate financial resources.” Please clarify where the “one copy” should be included in our response? Should this envelope be included in the original (printed) binder of Volume 1?

This one copy should be submitted with Volume 1. Will be 1 original and 3 copies, for each proposal submission. All copies will be sealed together in the same envelope. Amendment 2 will reflect the changes.

Question #39: Is the intent to demo the existing concrete slab that your existing AHU is seated on, and pour a new 6" PCC with a thickened edge and the new housekeeping pads? Looks like we need to pour new in the structural drawings, but the demo drawings are a little vague as to demolition scope outside of the building.

Yes

Question #40: There appear to be differences between the electrical drawings standalone file and the electrical drawings in the combined drawings file. Which one should we be bidding on? Appears that the electrical drawings in the combined drawings file are for another project.

The electrical files in the “combined” files are for a different building. Please use the standalone electrical drawings. This was a mistake when the original drawings were put together.

Question #41: Drawings show decomposed granite around fence posts on 6/A402, but the other drawings look to be asphalt. Please clarify what the desired finish material is around the fence posts and slab.

Replace verbiage “decomposed” granite with “ 3” hot-mixed asphalt.”

Question #42: Drawings show decomposed granite around fence posts on 6/A402, but the other drawings look to be asphalt. Please clarify what the desired finish material is around the fence posts and slab.

Replace decomposed granite with 3” hot-mixed asphalt.

Question #43: Would currently installed furniture and equipment be removed by ANG prior to construction?

Only if necessary

Question #44: Would this project happen in a summer time frame, or potentially winter?

This project could occur anytime. The government would find it acceptable to work the project during winter months if necessary.

Question #45: Will there be ANG personnel working in the building when construction is ongoing?

Yes

Question #46: Is a hazardous material survey available for B456? If not, is the contractor to include the cost of performing a survey?

A hazardous material survey is not available for B456 and do not include cost of performing a survey.

B456 was constructed in 2001 and there are no environmental concerns.

Question #47: As a follow up to Question #25;

a. can the Project Manager dual hat with the Super, QC or SSHO?

No

b. Are all these individuals required to be on-site full time?

The Site Superintendent is the only position that must be on-site full time.

Question #48: It appears there is an existing concrete slab at the location of the new mechanical enclosure. Are we to figure demoing the existing slab?

Yes