Attachment 13- Industry Questions and Responses-Fort Novosel.pdf

No. Question

1 Attachments 5, 6 and 7 reflect a very similar pricing sheet to a solicitation we previously proposed on. That RFP used RS Means/e4Clicks. In the RFP for Novosel we noticed several references to e4Clicks, RS Means and even a CCI application – none of which are applicable with the use of the Gordian CTC. Based on the refences to RS Means/e4Clicks and the way the Gordian UPB functions, we don’t believe Attachments 5, 6 and 7 are applicable. The prior Ft. Rucker/Novosel JOC RFP required the contractor’s coefficient workbook accompanied by a narrative for the price volume. Would the government reconsider the requirement to use attachments 5, 6, and 7, and instead allow offerors to provide their internal coefficient workbooks accompanied by their rationale for all three required coefficients?

Please see updated Statement of Work and Construction Task Catalog.

2 Attachments 5, 6, and 7 are very project specific and the level of detail required is difficult at best to predict based on a JOC program which will have a wide variety of scopes of work throughout the duration of the contract. It is impossible to predict costs associated with items such as the cost of financing the work, services required to obtain filings and permits, preparation and modifications of proposals etc., incidental engineering and architectural services, storage devices, excess waste, removing and returning furniture and furnishings, etc. over a five-year contract period with varying trades and specialties involved with any given task order.

Would the government consider omitting attachments 5, 6, and 7 and allowing the use of the contractor’s internal coefficient workbook for all three required coefficients in lieu of the provided attachments for the price volume?

Please see updated Statement of Work and Construction Task Catalog.

3 In the prior Ft. Rucker/Novosel JOC which also used the Gordian CTC, coefficients for option periods were allowed to serve as an economic price adjustment to the Contractor’s indirect costs. Direct costs on the other hand were adjusted by the incorporation of the latest Gordian CTC cost data in each subsequent year. In this RFP, the contractor is not allowed to increase their coefficient to account for economic price adjustments for indirect costs and instead must submit a non-adjustable coefficient that covers the entire 5-year contract period. With award of this contract being determined on an LPTA basis, this presents significant risk to the government due to changing economic conditions and the high potential for contractors to under bid this contract. Would the government consider allowing option year coefficients to be adjusted so contractors can more accurately account for economic conditions?

Please see Statement of Work, Section 20.2 Definitions: Annual Price Adjustment.

4 Section 01 10 00 in the Solicitation calls for a 1-Month Phase In, FFP (Firm Fixed Price) value. a) Should offerors provide this information as a coefficient or a lump sum dollar amount?

b) If the Phase In amount is to be presented as a coefficient, can it differ from the base period coefficient for normal working hours? c) How will the Phase In amount be calculated in the total evaluated price?

The 30-day phase in does not apply to the incumbent. For all other offerors, the amount should be submitted as a lump sum.

5 Volume II, Subfactor (b) – Proposed Staffing states that “a separate and distinct superintendent shall be assigned to each awarded task order under this contract (FAR 52.236-6).” Can you clarify what is meant by “separate and distinct?” One of the main benefits of a JOC is to provide rapid response and execution for a multitude of simultaneously occurring task orders. It would be unreasonable to require 25 superintendents if there are 25 active task orders being performed concurrently. Is the intent of this requirement to simply state that each task order must be assigned a Superintendent?

Each task order must be distinctly assigned to a specific superintendent.

6 Please confirm Superintendents can be assigned multiple active task orders under the JOC.

Yes, a single superintendent can be assigned multiple active task orders at any given time.

7 It appears that a bid bond is required with offerors proposals, however we were not able to locate instructions on where in our proposal response the bid bond should be included. Please confirm if a bid bond is required and if it is acceptable to include it in Volume IV – Price?

A bid bond is required, and it may be included in the price volume.

8 How many “Specific Relevant Contracts” reference sheets are offerors required to include in Volume III – Past Performance for the Government to make a technical acceptability determination?

There is no "required" amount of "specific relevant contracts".

9 The submission requirements for Past Performance do not specify if the Government desires references for individual task orders or similar IDIQ contracts.

Please confirm that offerors may cite similar IDIQ contract experience to demonstrate relevant past performance.

Yes, you may cite similar IDIQ contract experience.

10 In the Instructions to Offerors section, the RFP states that Attachment 3 (Specific Relevant Contracts) form can be up to 4 pages. Under the Evaluation Factors for Award, it states that Attachment 3 can be up to 10 pages per a reference. Please clarify which page limitation is correct.

Yes, you may have up to 10 pages per reference.

11 Volume IV – Price, Paragraph i, states, “the cost/price proposal shall be submitted in MS office Excel format only.” Is it the Government’s intent that this requirement apply to the coefficient worksheets only?

Yes.

12 1. Volume IV – Price, Paragraph i, states, “the cost/price proposal shall be submitted in MS office Excel format only.” Please confirm that the narratives accompanying the coefficient worksheets, the Bondability Letter, and completed Section 001000 can be submitted as a pdf.

Yes.