RFI QA Thru - 25Jan23.pdf

Question #01: SF 1442, block 13A states offerors are to submit 1 original and 2 copies of proposal.

However, Section 00110 Paragraph 2.1 states offerors are to submit one original and 3 copies and one electronic copy of Volumes 1 and 2. Please clarify if 2 or 3 copies of proposals are to be submitted.

It should be 1 original and 3 copies. This has been reflected on the amended RFP. *The maximum task order value is $5,000,000.00

Question #02: Section 00110 paragraph 2.1.2 shows the sealed envelope with proof of financial resources being submitted in Volume 2, Part II. However, Paragraph 3.1.6.2 shows the sealed envelope as being submitted in Volume 1. Please clarify in what Volume the sealed envelope is to be included.

It is an unnecessary redundancy and has been clarified to indicate the proof of financial resources / letters of reference from a financial institution will be submitted with Vol 1.

Question #03: RE: Section 00110 paragraph 3.3.10 Past Performance References. Is it acceptable to provide previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires from clients from other proposal submissions? This alleviates the burden on our clients. Contracting Officers are sometimes unresponsive when kept being asked to complete a new PPQ over again for the same project, with each proposal.

No. The government must make sure that all the questionnaires received are the same across the board from each contractor as to ensure a fair evaluation.

Question #04: Solicitation Page 152 of 153, in the “Instructions” paragraph it directs us to provide a construction schedule in a Gantt chart. Paragraph 3.2.6 on Solicitation Page 23 of 153 provides direction for Subfactor 3 (Scheduling Methodology) but does not mention a Gantt chart schedule.

Please clarify whether a Gantt chart schedule is required and if so, will it count toward the 10-page limit for the narrative discussion under Subfactor 3?

A Gantt chart is not necessary for MATOC proposal or task order request for prototypical. It will not count towards the 10-page total. These instructions and evaluation on page 152 have been edited to be consistent with the rest of the RFP.

Question #05: Solicitation Page 152 of 153, in the “Instructions” paragraph it directs us to provide a construction schedule in a Gantt chart, and a narrative discussion that appears to be specific to the prototypical project we’re pricing. Is this in addition to the Scheduling Methodology narrative under Subfactor 3, which appears to be a generic scheduling methodology narrative (not project specific)? If this is in addition to the non-project specific narrative under Subfactor 3, please clarify where in the proposal we are to include the Gantt chart schedule and associated narrative for the prototypical project.

No. A generic scheduling methodology narrative (not project specific) should be provided for as pg. 23 states for subfactor 3 submission requirements.

Question #05: 52.236-27 states that an organized site visit has been scheduled and participants are to meet at Fairchild AFB, WA. Where specifically at Fairchild AFB will we meet?

The specific building and directions from the main gate to the building will be release the week of the pre-solicitation conference.

Question #06: Will plans, specs, as-builts be provided for the prototypical project?

Plans, specs and as-builts will be provided upon request.

Question #07: Solicitation Page 8 of 153, under para 1.5.2, we are instructed to email our full social security number to register for the site visit. Is there a phone number that we can contact SMSgt Matt Berube to provide social security numbers, so we don’t have to email this sensitive information?

Yes. Please call SMSgt Matt Berube at 509-247-7221, Office Number.

Question #08: Reference Solicitation Page 9 of 153, para 1.8 states that a proposal repository is provided for hand carried proposals. Are offerors able to mail proposals in lieu of hand delivery? If so, please provide the address we can mail proposals to.

Yes. This wasn’t explicitly stated in the RFP, and language in the RFP in Section 00100, 1.8 has been added.

Proposal may also be mailed addressed to:

ATTN: 141st ARW Contracting Office 1320 W Wainwright Blvd Bldg 399 Fairchild AFB, WA 99011

**It is highly recommended that the package is sent via UPS, FedEx, or USPS (or any other carrier of such type) priority mail so it can be expedited and tracked.

Questions #09: We note that RFP Section 1.5 – Notice of Pre-Proposal Conference, states that the pre-proposal conference is scheduled for January 20th, 2023, at 10am PST and will be an in-person event at Fairchild AFB. Please consider hosting a hybrid (both in person and also remote) pre-proposal conference as this would allow contractors not based in the Spokane area (e.g. based out of Tacoma or Seattle) to also participate in the conference.

There is no current plan to host the Pre-Proposal Conference virtually.

Question #10: Exhibit A, ** Note, of the RFP states “The proposal must discuss relevant task order(s) complete to 90%.”. However, the Volume 2, Part II, Past Performance Information of the RFP states “Past Performance includes current/on-going performance that is complete to 70% or greater.”

Please clarify what % of completion the Government will accept for on-going projects.

This has been fixed to show “90% or greater” in all sections so the RFP. To clarify in this answer, Performance must have been completed within the last 5 years from RFP release date; for any current/ongoing performance to be evaluated it must be 90% or greater.

Question #11: Section C of the Exhibit A, also appears to differentiate between stand-alone projects and Task Orders awarded under an IDIQ by having two separate sections to provide contract tile and information (above and below the ** Note). To make Exhibit A more straightforward, would the Government consider consolidating all contract information into one (1) section?

Exhibit A has been modified to make it clearer; see amended RFP. *If you have already began using the original format as part of your proposal submission, that version will also be acceptable.

Question #12: As Exhibit A of the RFP is in PDF format, please confirm that offerors are allows to reformat the form to expand sections to provide longer narratives and project information and to also make the form more user friendly.

Exhibit A, and any page necessary to submit as par to the proposal that’s contained in this RFP, is allowed to be extracted and reformatted for ease of use. *DO NOT change the text size, font, or add/remove any data submission requirements.

Question #13: We require clarification on Volume 2, Part I, paragraph 3.2.6, in relation Exhibit D.

Please clarify if a Construction Schedule based on the Prototypical Project is required to be submitted as identified in Exhibit D of the RFP.

A construction schedule will not be required. Exhibit D has been modified in the amended RFP to reflect the appropriate proposal submission requirements.

(Also reference Questions #s 04 and 05 of the RFI Q&A document).

Question #13a: Is the schedule narrative identified in Paragraph 3.2.6 of Volume 2, Part 2 of the RFP supposed to be based on the Prototypical Project provided in Exhibit D?

No. (Also reference Questions #s 04 and 05 of the RFI Q&A document).

Question #13b: If not, please clarify if the Government is looking for a general narrative on how a project schedule is developed.

The government is looking for a general narrative based on the instructions in Vol 2 Part II. (Also reference Questions #s 04 and 05 of the RFI Q&A document).

Question #14: Is the five potential issues narrative identified in Paragraph 3.2.6 of Volume 2, Part II of the RFP supposed to be based on the Prototypical Project provided in Exhibit D or is the Government looking for general potential issues for the three identified Task Order locations (Fairchild AFB, Camp Murray, and WADS)?

The Government looking for general potential issues for the three identified Task Order locations (Fairchild AFB, Camp Murray, and WADS).

Question #15: In the provided plans, the keynotes on multiple pages mention “included in bid option #....”. Are bid options included in the prototypical pricing or do they need to be priced as options?

NO. In the proposal, do not price the options at all, as either as ABIs or Options. Although these are part of the A&E design plans, they may be included in future requests for task orders if this project moves from a prototypical to an actual funded requirement.

Question #16: Exhibit D indicates bonds may be required; Is a bid guarantee (bond), or any other bonds, required for the prototypical bid?

No. Bid Bonds, or any Bonds, are NOT required as part of the prototypical submission. This has been corrected on the amended RFP.

Question #17: Section 00110, paragraph 2. Requires submission of hard copy proposal responses (Original + 3 hard copies) in addition to one electronic copy on a CD. Will the USPFO-WA respectfully consider allowing offerors to submit all responses electronically via PIEE or DOD SAFE?

We will not be allowing submission of proposals via PIEE or DOD SAFE.

Question #18: Section 00110, 3.1 Volume 1, paragraph 3.1.2, Introductory Page references including a DUNS Number. Please confirm offerors can provide a SAM UEI rather than a DUNS Number since DUNS Numbers are no longer used in SAM.

This section has been modified in the amended RFP to reflect providing a SAM.gov UEI rather than a

DUNS.

Question #19: Section 00110, 3.2 Volume 2, states “Resumes/Letters of Intent are limited to 2 pages each”. This statement could be interpreted in two ways. Is the resume alone limited to two pages with another two pages allowed for the Letter of Intent? Or, does the 2-page limit include both the resume and Letter of Intent?

Resumes can be 2 pages, Letters of Intent can be 2 pages.

Question #20: Section 00120, C. Evaluation Approach, Subfactor 2. Organization and Key Personnel states “Evaluation will consider the following…the list of major subcontractors who will be utilized throughout the life of the contract.” Further it states, “The proposed subcontractors are verifiable, and information provided indicates a good professional relationship with Electrical, Mechanical, Roofing, Horizontal disciplines, Civil Site Work subcontractors. Subcontractors shall have completed Exhibit B in Volume 2, to be considered.”

However, no mention of subcontractor information is requested in Section 00110, paragraph 3.2.5 Subfactor 2. Organization and Key Personnel. Are offerors expected to provide a list of subcontractors and/or other subcontractor information as part of Subfactor 2? If so, please consider excluding this information from the 3-page limitation or expanding the 3-page limit set forth for this subfactor.

A list of Subcontractors are to be provided as part of Exhibit A, a requirement of Vol 2 Part II submission requirements. Although, this list of subcontractors is not submitted as part of Section 00110 Vol 2 Part I Subfactor 2 (and therefore does not count towards Vol 2 Part 1 page limitation), when evaluating Subfactor 2 as described in Section 00120, this list of subcontractors will be taken into account as described. As stated in Exhibit A, Exhibit B will be required for all these Subcontractors in order to be eligible for evaluation in the manner.

Question #21: Section 00110, 3.3 Volume 2, Part II, paragraph 3.3.8 states “Offerors lacking relevant present/past performance experience may submit information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement if such information is relevant to this acquisition.” If an offeror is NOT “lacking relevant present/past performance experience” please confirm that an offeror is NOT required to provide Exhibit B forms for subcontractors, key personnel or predecessor companies. We understand that we must still submit the names of subcontractors to be utilized within Exhibit A, Part 2, item 2B.

Exhibit B is the Form that will provide consent for the government to share past performance information on Subcontractors/teaming partners with prime contractors. So, Yes, Exhibit B is required.

Question #22: Section 00110, 3.3 Volume 2, Part II, Paragraph 3.3.12 indicates that an Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” or Letter of Intent, can be provided for personnel without prior past performance history demonstrated on the submitted

Exhibit A. Will an Exhibit B and Letter of Intent be accepted/evaluated the same or is one form preferred over the other?

Letter of Intent AND Exhibit B are required for Key Personnel, but only Exhibit B for Subcontractors / Teaming Partners.

Question #23: Paragraph 1.1.2 indicates “that the majority of work under these contracts will be for sustainment, repair and maintenance (SRM) at or under the $5,000,000 dollar level.” Further, paragraph 1.3 indicates “The Minimum and Maximum values for a single Task Order are $2,000 and $5,000,000, respectively.” Will a project exceeding the $5,000,000 threshold still be considered “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” in regard to the stated criteria in paragraph 3.3.4 “similar in scope, complexity, and cost magnitude to this project’s plans and specifications” (assuming they meet the other relevancy requirements)?

We cannot definitively answer this question. We will however evaluate in accordance with Section 00120 of the RFP, uniformly and consistently across all proposals.

Question #24: Is the purpose of Exhibit B to verify the experience and competence of the subcontractor we are using for the prototypical project. Or is the Government wanting the Prime to provide Exhibit B Forms for potential subcontractors on the MATOC as a whole? Will submission of Exhibit B be a requirement for future task orders?

Exhibit B Subcontractor Information and Consent Form is the form that will provide consent for the government to share past performance information on Subcontractors/teaming partners with prime contractors. Exhibit B is required for potential subcontractors on the MATOC as a whole. Exhibit B Subcontractor Information and Consent Form MAY be required for future task orders if the particular “basis for award” includes past performance as an evaluation factor.

Question #25: Section 01000 para 8.2 states that an individual Key Team Member may not hold more than one key role. Please confirm that each task order will require three separate individuals to fulfill the roles of Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Safety Manager.

Yes. For Task Orders those key roles must be held by different individuals.

Question #26: Exhibit D indicates that no task order award will be made for the prototypical project, which is being priced for MATOC evaluation purposes only. Section 00120, under Factor 3 Cost/Price, on Solicitation Page 32 of 153 it states, “In the event the Government does not award a contract pursuant to this solicitation within 180 calendar days after receipt of proposals and award will be made without discussions, the following will apply: The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to make an adjustment in their price proposals to accommodate cost changes caused by fluctuating construction material market conditions.” Please confirm that the Prototypical Project is not a real project as it relates to this MATOC and will not result in a task order award.

The prototypical project price proposal is for examination purposes only, and the price proposal submitted by contractors will not be evaluated and therefore not to be part of the overall MATOC evaluation and award decisions. The prototypical project Exhibit D will not result in a Task Order award.