RFI's_dated_23_Jan_2014_posted.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

SOLICITATION W90FYQ-14-R-0001

Dated 23 Jan 2014

**IMPORTANT REMINDER THAT ALL QUESTIONS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 12 NOON

LOCAL TIME, EST FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO CLOSING DATE **

Make Sure You Have the Latest Version of this Web Page “Refresh” or “Reload”

Dated 23 Dec 13

Q1. Will you please provide the names of incumbent contractors, or recent contractors if the contracts have expired?

A1. The incumbent contractors are; Jacobs Engineering Group; Burns & McDonnell, Inc.; CH2M Hill;

Pond & Company; HDR Engineering, Inc.; Leidos Engineering, LLC; Atkins North America, Inc.;

Frankfurt Short Bruza; Tetra Tech-Mead and Hunt-JV; AECOM Technical Services, Inc.; HNTB-Black & Veatch, a Joint Venture. These contracts will expire from 25 Aug 2014 to 22 Sep 2015.

Q2. Because of the requirement for NEPA experience, will there be a need for the disciplines of Biologist, Ecologist, Archaeologist, and Architectural Historian?

A2. No. Selection will be based on the core team required by synopsis and offered by the A-E firm.

However, it should be noted that in the course of an IDIQ contract, that an A-E firm may team with specific one time associate firms or bring in specific disciplines, for specific task orders.

Q3. The RFP release date of 19 December 2013 coincides with office closures and staff holiday schedules over both the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. Therefore, we respectfully request the RFP due date be extended 2 weeks, to accommodate the lost time during the holiday season, for a due date of Wednesday, 05 February 2014.

REVISED. A3. The SF330's due date has been extended to 28 Jan 2014.

Dated 27 Dec 13

Q4. Would it be possible to get a list of contract holders for the previous solicitation?

A4. See Q1 above.

Q5. Under Selection Criteria, (B) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, Item (4), could you please define the acronym DS in front of the words Interior Design?

A5. DS is a typographical error and is not intended to be any acronym. The synopsis will be updated to remove DS. The Statement should read “Experience providing Comprehensive Interior Design for government projects including space planning and applicable Code of Federal Regulation rules, pre-wired workstations, furniture, demountable wall systems and knowledge of the acquisition process including applicable FAR and funding limitations.

Q6. As part of the Submission Requirements for Section F projects, may a joint venture partnership list a project description that included each prime firm delivering the same scope of services in support of the same National Guard Bureau program but was contracted through two separate task orders?

A6. The Selection Criteria part F from the synopsis is for volume of DoD work which will be considered. However, if the question is related to Section F of PART 1 of the SF 330 response, then the anwswer is: Yes. Please note that it is very important to provide clarity with any A-E SF 330 submission.

A-E firms shall not claim credit for scope of services provided by a differing firm under any task order.

Dated 28 Dec 13

Q7. Why not consider setting aside for SDVOSB firms?

A7. In accordance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR) 219.502-1(2) Requirements for setting aside acquisitions. "Do not set aside acquisitions for- (2) Architect-Engineer services for military construction or family housing projects of $350,000 or more (10 U.S.C. 2855), including indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contracts if the value of all anticipated orders is expected to total $350,000 or more." The subject IDIQ AE contract is for military construction. The anticipated value of the subject AE IDIQ contract is valued at $45M per contract.

Dated 30 Dec 13

Q8. Review of the incumbent list reveals that almost all firms are large A&E Firms- No small business and disadvantaged business even though the large A&Es may have Small business plan.

Thus, even though we strongly feel that we can provide the required services in the Pacific Rim, we can not go ahead and respond as a EDWOSB. We like to learn how NGB will evaluate and weight small business responders if the interest area is only Pacific Rim.

A8. These are National IDIQ contracts for the Army and Air National Guard for all 50 states and US territories. The services provided by each IDIQ contract may be required in any or all areas as stated in the Location(s) part of the synopsis. Firms are highly encouraged to team with other firms if necessary in various locations. However, a firm does not need to be geographically located in all areas, as stated in the synopsis “firms should demonstrate the ability to deliver services to locations defined in the synopsis.”

Q9. In regards to the resume for the required Environmental Engineer, please clarify the qualifications requirements. Is this individual required to have a degree in Environmental Engineering or will other related degrees be acceptable? Since the work under the contract could include NEPA documentation as well as surveys, reports and documents related to the removal of hazardous materials, what type of experience will be evaluated? It could be that these are two separate individuals.

A9. No specific minimum qualifications or degree is required for this discipline. Evaluation will consider level of relevant experience or education offered. All relevant experience with NEPA, its process and requirements as well as preparation of required documentation will be evaluated.

Q10. Project leadership and success is most often driven by the capabilities of the project or task order manager, however, resumes for these individuals are not required. If provided in the SF330’s they also cannot be evaluated as they are not required. Is it the desire of the NGB to evaluate these individuals and should they be added as a required resume?

A10. The SF330’s will be evaluated in accordance with the Fed Biz Ops announcement evaluation criteria.

Q11. Please clarify the typical project size anticipated under this contract. Under CONTRACT INFORMATION, the Solicitation indicates “Task orders will be primarily for projects with a construction value typically between $5 and $20 million dollars; however, as required, larger and/or smaller projects will be executed under this contract.” Then, under SELECTION CRITERIA, (C) Capacity to accomplish multiple task orders in the required time indicates “the capacity to accomplish at least four individual task orders valued at $2.5-$10 million dollars simultaneously (or greater) will receive additional consideration.”Are both value ranges in reference to construction value? Will relevant projects with construction values between $5 and $10 million receive higher consideration than projects with construction value between $10 and $20 million?

A11. The stated dollar values refer to construction cost at the time of award. Both ranges referenced are construction costs at time of award. SF 330 submissions that demonstrate ability to exceed the evaluation standard may be considered more favorably by the Government.

Q12. In Section F, will projects performed for the National Guard be scored more favorably that projects performed for the Active or Reserve Components of our National Defense Forces; including the Navy and Marine Corps?

A12. No, the projects will be evaluated in accordance with the FBO stated criteria for relevant projects.

Q13. Under the submission requirements section of the solicitation, it states "A maximum of ten projects including the prime and consultants will be reviewed in Part I, Section F." Please confirm that projects submitted by the prime and/or subconsultants will be equally evaluated in Section F.

A13. The Government has privity of contract with only the prime contractors. If the offeror chooses a subconsultant as part of their team for any of the projects submitted under Part 1, Section F, then these firms will be evaluated equally as part of the team.

Q14. Does the five year limitation stated in the SOL under:

“(18) In Block H of the SF 330 describe the firm's quality management plan, including quality assurance process, project design-to-cost control, coordination of the in-house work with consultants, and prior experience of the prime firm and any significant consultant. To be considered relevant, all experience demonstrated shall be within five years of the date of this solicitation.”

Does this five year limitation refer to Section F - Projects only? OR throughout Section H - Additional Information, as well?

A14. The five year limitation applies to Section H also.

Dated 8 Jan 2014

Q15. With regard to font size and page limitations, do you mean 10 point font size or 10 pitch?

Also, does this size restriction apply to photo captions, tables, and graphics?

A15. The font size applies to 10 font. Also, the page restriction applies to all pages including photos, tables and graphics.

Q16. Regarding this statement, located under the Submission Requirements section of the RFP, “When listing projects in PART I, Section F an Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) or IDIQ contract with multiple Task Orders as an example, is not considered a project. A task order executed under an IDC/IDIQ contract is a project.”

Question: If services to complete full design for the add/alter of a single facility were separated into 2 task orders under an IDIQ contract, to accommodate NGB scheduling/budget issues, will it be acceptable to submit these 2 TOs as a single project?

A16. Yes. So long as both task orders were to provide Title II services for the same project, demonstrated by ANG Project Number. (Example: UCTL140001 Repair Squadron Operations)

Q17. The RFP states in the Submission Requirements section, “The Organization Chart required in Section D and the Matrix required as Section G, PART I of the SF 330 may be presented on a sheet up to 11 inches by 17 inches. If an 11 inch by 17 inch sheet is used it shall be neatly folded to 8- 1/2 inches by 11 inches, bound in the SF 330 at the proper location, and counted as one page.” May we also use an 11” x 17” page for additional graphics? If so, and as with the Organization Chart and Section G Matrix, will it be counted as one page?

A17. No.

13 Jan 2014

Q18. Will there be a small business version of solicitation W90FYQ14R0001 in the future and if so when will that be projected?

A18. See response to No. 7.

Q. 19. Since FAR Part 9.601 provides that a contractor team arrangement means an arrangement in which two or more companies form a joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor, and since FAR Part 4.102(d) provides that a contract with joint venturers may involve any combination of individuals, partnerships, or corporations, please confirm that this project can be executed by an unpopulated LLC using the overhead of each member (instead of artificially creating one for the LLC), dividing scope through agreement between the LLC and its members.

A19. The term unpopulated LLC is not familiar to this office. Parties wishing to propose as a joint venture must submit, with the Pro Forma documents, an executed copy of the joint venture agreement.

The joint venture agreement shall be executed in accordance with FAR 4.102(d). Each joint venture partner shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer that its Board of Directors has approved its participation in the joint venture or by an instrument of similarly binding character in the case of an unincorporated entity. Offerors are reminded that to obtain an award the awardee, to include a joint venture, must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database.

Q.20. Can you please clarify the requirement for interior designer registrations? Is this person required to be BOTH a registered architect and registered interior designer? Or does the requirement allow them to only have one? In our experience, it is not very common for a person to be both.

A.20. See updated Feb Biz Ops notice dated 15 January 2014.

Q21. Will the National Guard Bureau consider allowing the use of 11 x17 sheets in other Sections (counted as 1 page), other than Sections D and G?

A21. No.

16 Jan 2014

Q22. The solicitation states:

(D) Past Performance on contracts with government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, compliance with performance schedules and customer satisfaction;

evaluations will be based on established ACASS ratings, personal knowledge of Agency members and other credible documentation included in the SF 330.

1. Please clarify how the selection board will use the “personal knowledge of Agency members” to evaluate Past Performance. How will it be obtained or sought out and how will it be documented.

A22.1 – Personal knowledge is that knowledge of a offerors past performance that was gained by an Agency member in the normal course of prior interaction or work with the offeror, or obtained by the Agency member during execution of prior official duties. Personal knowledge that is made part of the source selection process will be captured as part of the rater’s evaluation comments, following the approved A-E Source Selection Plan.

Q22.2. For Design/Build, Design Past Performance will the joint use: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY, NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION be acceptable as “other credible documentation”? The solicitation States: PART I OF THE SF 330 SHALL NOT EXCEED 75 PAGES.

A22.2. Yes

Q22.3. Is it acceptable to include the ACASS Ratings and other credible documentation in a separate section immediately following the conclusion of section H, so they may be excluded from the page count? The total page count of these past performance documents will likely exceed 30 pages. When combined with mandatory sections for PART 1 (Sections A-G), very little room will be left for discussing requested information in Section H. Keeping them in the page count will significantly impact the ability to stay within the 75-page limit and meet the requirements of the solicitation.

A22-3. No. Pages beyond the 75 page limit that are submitted will be not considered or evaluated during the selection process. However it is acceptable to just provide the reference information as to the project/name date/contract number if available. The evaluators will have access to the ACASS evaluations from the central database.

Q23. The response to Question 19 submitted on January 14, 2013 indicates that an executed copy of the Joint Venture agreement will be required. Is this JV agreement to be included as part of the SF 330 to be submitted on January 28, 2014?

A23. Yes, the JV agreement should be submitted with the SF330.

Q24. In Solicitation Selection Criteria “B.7” and “B.9”, there appears to be somewhat duplicate criteria -- “B.7” states: “Technical competence and experience using the International Building Code (IBC)”; and “B.9” states: “Technical competence using International Building Code (IBC)”. Please confirm if it is acceptable to respond to B.7 and for us to put the following note for our response to B.9: “Please see our response to B.7 for an explanation of our technical competence using International Building Code (IBC).”

A24. Duplicate selection criteria: (B)(9) was deleted. See updated FBO notice.

Q.25. In Solicitation Selection Criteria Section “B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence,” there appears to be two no. “(12’s)” indicated resulting in (19) as opposed to (18) numbered items. Can you please confirm the correct numbering of each of the identified selection criteria under Item B?

A.25. The FBO synopsis will be corrected regarding the numbering.

Q.26. Regarding Selection Criteria “F. Volume of DOD Work will be considered,” - we are assuming you would like us to report the total volume of DOD awarded to our firm over the past 12 months. Is this correct? If not, could you please define the period of time you would like us to report?

A26. Yes, the past 12 months.

23 JAN 2014

Q.27. We are assuming deliveries from major carriers (i.e. FedEx, UPS, USPS, etc.) will be accepted at the delivery address shown in the solicitation (43200 Maple Street, Building 105, Selfridge ANGB), please confirm if this is correct? Is it acceptable to alternatively hand-deliver our proposal (five bound paper copies and 1 CD as required) to the address shown in the solicitation (43200 Maple Street, Building 105, Selfridge ANGB)? If so, are there any special Selfridge ANGB Installation access procedures for our firm’s delivery person to get the hand delivery to Building 105? (such as, will our firm’s delivery person need to register with Selfridge ANGB prior to delivery or be required to have any particular forms of identification to access the Installation?)

A27. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. The address is correct as shown in the FBO notice and deliveries will be processed accordingly. You may hand deliver but be aware that the driver MUST have a current/valid driver’s license, valid proof of current insurance when entering the Base. The driver should turn into the Visitor’s Center/Pass & ID Bldg. 901 on the right side of the street to register their vehicle.

This building is located before you reach the security checkpoint. This is where your names will appear on the list as anticipated visitors. Due to heightened security conditions, the following must be submitted to 127wg.ngbzcparcomb@ang.af.mil NLT 1:00 p.m. EST, Thursday, 23 Jan 2014: (1) Company name, (2) Driver’s name (Last, First, M initial), (3) Phone number for driver, (4) date of birth, (5) gender, race, (6) driver’s license number. (The main gate at Selfridge ANGB requires 72 business hours’ notice of visitors’ requests). Failure to comply with the above instructions could jeopardize submission of the firm’s SF330’s. Late receipt of proposals due to base entry delays may not be deemed an excusable delay and the package may be declared late in accordance with FAR 15. 208. Upon arrival at Bldg 105, please call 586- 239-4225.

Q28. Concerning the requirement for “(14) Demonstrate the ability to prepare supporting comprehensive master planning maps and plans using the latest versions of ESRI and ArcGIA”, did the requirement intend to reference “ArcGIS” in lieu of “ArcGIA”?

A28. The requirement for “(14)” is intended to reference “ArcGIS”.

Q29. Concerning the response to RFI 23, can we assume that a submitted Joint Venture agreement will not go against the page count for Part 1 of the SF330? If the answer is yes, can we bind it following Part 2 along with other attachments?

A29. YES to both questions.