Questions and Answers 1.pdf

Solicitation # W50S9F22R0006 Posted to SAM.Gov 21 Mar 22

Questions & Responses #1

1. Questions: Referencing the Solicitation, Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance, paragraph 3.1.2.1, sub-paragraph 5 – Past Performance Questionnaire. On DoD contracts, our government customers submit performance evaluations on CPARs (PPIRS) that serve as the official record of a contractor’s performance on a project. Accordingly, we have found that many government customers will not complete a separate PPQ if they have completed a formal government CPARs evaluation. For instance, we’ve had at least three customers associated with directly aligned projects, who indicate they are not allowed to complete additional paperwork other than that associated with the formal government performance evaluation in CPARs. Although they completed excellent CPARs for the project, they are not allowed to complete other performance documentation (PPQs, letters of recommendation, etc.) outside of the formal government CPARs. In other cases, there have been personnel changes due to mission changes, retirement, etc. It is common to see language in DoD RFPs directing bidders to provide a PPQ only if a CPARs is not available or giving contractors the choice to provide either a PPQ or a CPARs. We respectfully request that the RFP requirements be amended to allow for submission of a CPARs in lieu of a PPQ, if available. Not amending in this manner will give an advantage towards private sector and constrict DoD contracts.

Response: Solicitation Section 00110, Para 3.1.2.1, - 5) Past Performance Questionnaire. Will be changed to read, ”Contract Descriptions, a “Final” Performance Evaluation (Construction) (also referred to as CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out reference package for the project OR a Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit C) must be completed and submitted. See Amendment 0001

2. Question: Section 00110, Paragraph 3.1.1.2 (RFP page 14) indicates that: “A reiteration of the information prescribed in Exhibit A is neither required nor desired.” Can we assume from this statement that we can delete most of the instructions from Exhibit A since the form itself is over a full page?

Response: The instructions in Exhibit A are not to be deleted. To avoid reiteration of information, include required information in Exhibit A and omit this same information elsewhere.

3. Question: Section 00110, Paragraph 3.1.1.3.1 (RFP page 14)…a statement in this paragraph indicates to “Refer to Section 01000, Part 36, for the minimum qualification requirements for key personnel.” However, we cannot find this reference…can you please clarify?

Response: Section 01000, Part 36 entitled, “PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL, MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL, PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS, PROCESSES, PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS” can be found on page 74 of 85 of the solicitation.

4. Question: Please clarify the font requirements (RFP discrepancy). RFP page 13, Section, Section 00110, Proposal files, 2.1.3 stipulates a 10-pt. font minimum, while 1.1.3 of Section 00110 stipulates a 12-pt. font minimum.

Given that the exhibits appear to be in 10 pt. font, please confirm that the correct reference should be 10 pt., not 12 pt.

Response: 10pt font minimum. See Amendment 0001

5. Question: Please clarify the electronic copy requirements (RFP discrepancy). RFP page 12, Section 00110, 1.1.2 and 1.1.4, indicate that 2 digital copies shall be provided of each volume and each volume needs to be labeled with said digital copy number. RFP page 13, 2.1.5 indicates to provide 1 electronic copy of all volumes. Given the inherent nature of an electronic file submitted via SAFE, please confirm that bidders shall follow the direction of the latter requirement—one electronic/digital copy of each volume.

Response: If submitted via DoD Safe, one electronic/digital copy of each volume is acceptable. If providing a hand carried proposal we ask for two copies on CD/DVD in case one copy is corrupt.

6. Question: Referencing RFP page 14, Section 00110, 3.1, Proposal Volume Contents. Offerors are directed to provide a summary section within each file, in addition to the narrative discussion and table of contents. Please provide more direction on this requirement. Given the summary sections aren’t addressed in any of the subparagraphs of the volume requirements within the subsequent RFP factors, please confirm the separate summary sections will NOT count against the page limits for the factors. Or we may suggest that a page limit be assigned separately for the summary section.

Response: The summary section is included in the page limits

7. Question: The volumes as titled in the 1.1.4 table of RFP page 12, Section 00110, conflict with how they are listed in paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3. and 3.1.4. Please clarify how offerors shall title each volume.

Response: There is not a requirement on how to specifically label each volume.

8. Question: Please identify which Volume and factor the Exhibit A – Performance Relevance Questionnaire & Company Specialized Experience forms are to be placed.

Response: Volume II, Past Performance as stated in 3.1.2.1 number 5 of the solicitation.

9. Question: Please clarify discrepancy in project guidelines for past performance. Attachment A of the solicitation states that projects submitted for past performance shall not have been completed any earlier than 6 years prior to the solicitation date and be at least 75% complete. However, 3.1.2, Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance, states that projects to be submitted shall be in performance or awarded for the past three years.

Response: 6 Years. See Amendment 0001

10. Question: RFP page 20, Section 00120, paragraph 4.5, states that no pricing information shall be displayed in Volume 3, Small Business Participation Plan proposal. However, the Exhibit F and Exhibit G forms that offerors are instructed to use both require dollar amounts be listed. Please confirm that pricing information is acceptable in Volume 3 or revise the forms accordingly.

Response: The pricing information is acceptable and required in Exhibit F and Exhibit G

11. Question: Volume I, Offeror Technical Capability, paragraph 3.1.1.3.1, indicates that resumes are limited to two pages each and do not count against the page limit. Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance also requests resumes for key personnel in its sub-paragraphs (3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.5, 3.1.2.7, etc.). Please identify whether it is acceptable to cross reference to Volume I. If the intent is to provide resumes again in this factor, then please identify if the same guidelines are applicable for Volume II (e.g., resumes are limited to 2 pages, but do not count against the page limit).

Response:

3.1.2.5 is asking for references for key personnel, not resumes.

3.1.2.6 is simply saying that the past performance of the personnel can be used in assessing the contractors past performance.

3.1.2.7 is a reminder that key personnel without past performance history needs a resume, which is part of Volume I.

12. Question: Please identify if the Exhibit A – Performance Relevance Questionnaire & Company Specialized Experience counts against the page limit.

Response: Exhibit A does not count against page limit

13. Question: Referencing RFP page 23,Past/Present Performance, paragraph 5.3.3, the evaluation criteria states that evaluation shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D. Appendix D is not referenced elsewhere in the solicitation. Please provide Appendix D.

Response: Appendix D is Exhibit D. See Amendment 0001

14. Question: Referencing RFP page 17, 3.1.3.1 and page 25, 5.4.1., please confirm the “Small Business Participation Commitment Document” is the same as the Exhibit F, Small Business Participation Plan.

Response: Exhibit F is part of the Small Business Participation Plan. 3.1.3.1.1 and 3.1.3.1.2 are the requirements

15. Question: Referencing RFP page 26, paragraph 5.4.1.4, “Small business utilization metrics/performance requirements are specified in the Performance Requirements Summary of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.” Please provide the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan referenced or clarify the intent of this statement.

Response: Paragraph has been removed. See Amendment 0001

16. Question: Please identify whether PPQs should correlate with the projects submitted on the Exhibit A Performance Relevancy Questionnaires, or those submitted for Offeror Past/Present Performance in 3.1.2.1, Contract Descriptions and Performance? These forms have conflicting criteria regarding period of performance for eligible projects.

Response: PPQ’s are to be relevant to projects submitted for consideration as part of Offeror Past/Present Performance in Para 3.1.2. See Question 9 for PoP clarification.

17. Question: Please clarify Exhibit B intent. The form title is “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form.” Please confirm this form is only required for subcontractors or personnel NOT currently employed with the prime contractor’s firm. Key personnel employed with the prime contractor’s firm are not required to complete this form.

Response: 3.1.1.3.1 States “In the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted then a completed Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” is also required or the information will not be considered.”

18. Question: Please clarify the Exhibit D intent. The form is titled “Letter of Commitment of Key Subcontractor and/or Key Personnel,” but the directions indicate this shall be placed on the subcontractor’s letterhead. Please confirm this would only be for personnel NOT currently employed with the prime contractor’s firm. Key personnel employed with the prime contractor’s firm are not required to complete this form.

Response: Correct. This form is for subcontractors’ technical ability to be considered. Refer to question

19. Question: RFP page 27, Volume III, 3.1.3.2 requires submission of a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-1, FAR 52.219-9 and AFARS Appendix DD. Please identify if the Exhibit G form is mandatory, or if contractors may use their own format, as long as it meets the minimum requirements of FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” and AFARS Appendix DD.

Response: See 3.1.3.2.1 “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan format at Exhibit F may be utilized.”

20. Question: If submitting a proposal electronically, please confirm just a single copy of the bond is required to be mailed.

Response: See 3.1.4.5. A single copy is acceptable.

21. Question: Please confirm that the three Individual Subcontracting Reports requested in Volume III, Small Business Participation Plan do NOT count against the page limit. Offerors cannot control the length of these external documents, and the provision of these can comprise the entirety of the page limit.

Response: 25 Pages is more than enough for all requirements. ISR’s are typically only two pages.

22. Question: We respectfully request the government consider eliminating the page limit for Volume III, Small Business Participation. This has been standard in DoD RFPs due to the nature of these forms. With the request to list information on options as well as subcontractors used and their NAICs/CAGE codes etc., offerors will be prevented from responding compliantly to each question on the form. If the page limit is retained for this factor, we respectfully request the government increase the page limit for large business contractors, or at least eliminate the Subcontracting Plan from the page count. Small Business subcontractors only need to complete a Small Business Participation Plan, while large businesses need to complete both a Small Business Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan. This puts large businesses at a significant disadvantage, as they have much more items to address than a small business subcontractor while contending with the same page count.

Response: From historical data, 25 pages is MORE than enough.

23. Question: Please confirm subcontractor letters of commitment do not count against the page limit.

Response: Letters of Commitment are part of Technical, for major subcontractors. 50 Pages is more than enough for all requirements. See questions 16 and 17

24. Question: Please clarify page limit for Volume II – Past Performance (discrepancy). RFP page 12, Section 00100, paragraph 1.1.4 states 25 pages for the full factor, while RFP page 15, paragraph 3.2.1 indicates 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor.

Response: Para 1.1.4 revised to 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor. See Amendment 0001

25. Question: Referencing Section 00110, RFP page 18, paragraph 3.1.4.2 under Price/Cost Information states, “In addition, the proposal schedule must accompany the proposal package in Volume I.” Exhibit H (page 3—covers the prices for CLINs) is entitled ‘Proposal Schedule.’ Is it the intent to place Exhibit H, “Proposal Schedule,” in Volume I in addition to Volume IV? This would be providing cost information with technical. Or is the “proposal schedule” referenced in this statement intended to denote the “construction schedule.” In which case, Exhibit H would only go in Volume IV.

Response: Para 3.1.4.2 on page 18 should read Volume IV, See Amendment 0001

26. Question: Referencing Section 00110, RFP page 19, paragraph 3.5.1.2 under SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS. The header of this paragraph is “Offer and Section 00010,” but the requirements provide instructions for completing specifically just the SF 1442 Offeror portion.

We understand that the pricing schedule found in Section 00010 is to be included in Volume IV, per the instructions located in 3.1.4.2. Does the government desire to see the 00010 Pricing Schedule within Volume V, in addition to Volume IV where it was initially requested? Or is the intent here to just provide the completed “Offer” section (blocks 14-20C) of the SF 1442, not the Section 00010 Pricing Schedule, in Volume V?

Response: Submit Exhibit H in Volume IV and signed SF 1442 in Volume V

27. Question: We respectfully request a page extension by 1 page to 2 total pages for the Subfactor 3: Quality Control Approach to adequately address all solicitation and evaluation requirements outlined.

Response: 1 Page is sufficient for a narrative, A Quality Control Plan will be upon required upon award.

28. Question: Referencing RFP Page 26, Section 00120, ” paragraph 5.4.1.1, “All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section L.” Please provide the referenced Section L.

Response: Para 5.4.1.1 on page 26 should read Section 00110, See Amendment 0001

29. Question: Page 14 of 85 of the Solicitation paragraph 3.1.1.4.1 (Sub Factor 2: Construction Schedule) indicates the complete project schedule to start from Notice to Proceed date of September 20, 2022. However, under the Technical Evaluation Factor Ratings on page 23 of 85 paragraph 5.2.4 it indicates the project schedule should show a Notice to Proceed date of June 22, 2022. Please clarify the correct NTP Date.

Response: Para 5.2.4 on page 23 should read September 20, 2022, See Amendment 0001

30. Question: On page 16 of 85 of the Solicitation paragraph 3.1.2.1 Section 3 – Subcontracts defines a major subcontractor as one that provides critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price. Under the evaluation paragraph 5.3.3 on page 23 of 85 a major subcontractor is defined as those that perform 20 percent or more of the proposed effort. These confirm the definition of a major subcontractor’s required performance percentage.

Response: 25%. See Amendment 0001

31. Question: Attachment 7 Materials Management Plan PFAS the letter dated July 21, 2021, indicates that all soils at this site are to be treated as if they contain PFAS compounds. The excavation on this project is minimal and therefore the approval to re-use on this site is not an option. The letter also provides approval to use these soils at another F-35 project location on the base. Please confirm there is another location where excavated materials containing PFAS can be taken on base.

Response: Yes, there is a location on base.

32. Question: Spec sec 02 61 13 paragraph 3.1 requires the GC to perform surveys to determine volume of contaminated materials to be removed. In addition, other paragraphs within PART 3 of this spec section further designate requirements for hauling and then sampling excavations once materials are removed. This is in direct conflict of Attachment 07 Material Management Plan PFAS which indicates that the onsite materials can be re-used onsite or can be moved to another F-35 project on base. In addition, this attachment indicates that we are to treat all the soil on the site as if it contains PFAS. Please clarify the order of precedence of these documents and the requirements for contaminated soils that should be included in our price proposal.

Response: MMP takes precedence. VOCs and PFOS was tested for. Based on the results, the WI DNR approved managing excavated soil as per the MMP. In the event during excavation, if there appears to be additional contaminants not identified in the MMP, the requirements of 02 61 13, section 3 would apply.