Attachment_8_-_Answers_to_Questions_Posed_by_Industry.pdf

ATTACHMENT 8

Answers to Questions Posed by Industry

Solicitation: W91151-17-R-0063

Submitted by: 26 July 2017

Contractual Comments Question Response

We are an 8(a) ANC with an office in the region that is not yet approved as "bona fide".

I did not see reference to this in the Solicitation. My apology in advance if I missed it; thank you for your confirmation.

Can you please confirm whether or not this opportunity still requires a "bona fide" office in the region, as was stated in the Pre-Solicitation notice.

Yes, see DFARS 252.219-7010 and 13 CFR 124.507(c)(2). The determination to limit competition to a specific SBA District Office is made by the SBA District office where the location of the work is to be accomplished, specifically the SBA Santa Ana District.

We are contacting you in regards to Amendment 0001 - This amendment is issued to clarify that in accordance with DFARS 252.219-7010, competition for this solicitation is limited specifically to the SBA Santa Ana District Office. The formal solicitation was released on July, 5th with no limitations, and full and open competition for 8(a) participation; specifically any limitations to a SBA District Office.

Can the Gov’t please clarify their position on why this solicitation is now being limited to firms serviced by the SBA Santa Ana District Office?

As stated in the pre-solicitation notice, the solicitation was already limited to the SBA Santa Ana District Office.

Amendment 0001 was issued to insert the information into DFARS 252.219-7010 that was inadvertently left out when the solicitation was released.

See answer to question 1.

We have already committed a significant amount of time and resources towards this solicitation, going all the way back to responding to multiple iterations of the Sources Sought.

We are respectfully requesting that this solicitation be amended to also include firms serviced by the San Diego District Office.

See answer to question 1.

Our Company has been working out at NTC Fort Irwin for over 5yrs; and we have established an excellent track record working with the USACE. We feel that limiting competition to firms located only in the SBA Santa Ana District Office would be a significant disadvantage to the USACE and Fort Irwin Dept of Public Works, as there are many qualified/competent contractors located in the SBA San Diego District Office.

See answer to question 1.

Technical Exhibit A includes multiple references to Texas such as Section 01 33 00 page 10, Section 01 35 29 page 13 and Section 01 35 29 page 23.

Please confirm that these sections should reference California rather than Texas.

References to Texas and Fort Hood have been updated as appropriate for the location of the solicitation. See Technical Exhibit A Division 1, General Requirements v2, incorporated in Amendment 0003.

In regards to Past Performance Questionnaires, RFP page 24 indicates PPQs are due from references not later than 15 August 2017; however, the questionnaire cover letter provided with Attachment 3 gives a questionnaire response deadline of 31 July 2017.

Please confirm PPQs are due by 15 August 2017.

Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire has been updated to version 2 to reflect the closing date of the solicitation, 15 August 2017.

The PPQ forms require submission by 7-31- 17, but the RFP requires submission of PPQ forms by 8-15-17.

We ask that submission of PPQ forms be allowed up to 8-15-17.

See answer to question 6.

Regarding Notional Task Order No. 5: Please clarify the location of the lightning protection system (line item #3); please clarify the boundaries of the main roof (item #5) and metal standing seam pitched roof area (#6); please clarify all curbs & deck penetrations (line item #7); please clarify the location of the parapet wall (line item #8)

The notional task orders in Attachment 4 and 4a are fictional and provide basic information. Offerors are to proceed with the information as provided.

The ability for some contractors to propose on this contract will depend on the Government responses to the RFI’s.

Will the Government consider extending the proposal due date?

No, the proposal due date is not extended.

Is it acceptable to provide proposal responses in Adobe .pdf format with the exception that pricing/coefficient spreadsheets (Attachments 5, 6 and 7) required in Volume IV be provided in Excel?

Yes, PDF file format is allowable for Volumes I, II, and III only. See the revised Proposal Preparation Instructions, Paragraph C.2.b, pg. 18.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(c) Notional Task Order Requirements:

Is it acceptable to provide notional task-order schedules in Adobe .pdf format rather than Microsoft Word, PowerPoint or Excel format?

See answer to question 10.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(c) Notional Task Order Requirements:

Is it acceptable to provide e4Clicks price proposals in Adobe .pdf rather than Microsoft Word, PowerPoint or Excel format?

See answer to question 10.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(c) Notional Task Order Requirements, Attachment 4 requires a detailed price proposal for each of the five notional task orders. These price proposals prepared in e4Clicks could span 2 to 30 pages per task order.

As such, can the required price proposal documents for each of the five notional task orders be excluded from the 75-page limit for Volume II – Mission Capability?

Table 2 – Page Limits, pg. 19, has been revised to exclude Subfactor (c) from the Mission Capability page limitation. Page limitation for Subfactor (c) - Notional Task Order Requirements only has been added.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(c) Notional Task Order Requirements:

What level of detail is requested for notional task-order schedules given the Volume II 75-page limit? Can the notional task order schedules be excluded from the page limit?

See answer to question 13.

The Rationale is that line item estimates are typically multiple pages and will consume all of the available pages in the volume without allowing the contractor to adequately demonstrate the competency in this technical area.

Page Requirements/Limits for the Notional Projects- will the Government exempt the estimate pages from the overall page count?

See answer to question 13.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(c) Notional Task Order Requirements, Attachment 4 includes a requirement for a detailed price proposal to include UPB line items, quantity take-offs, etc. for each of the five notional task orders. Given the fact that these line-item estimates typically span multiple pages they have the potential to consume a significant portion of the 75-page limitation established for Volume II. As a result, offerors would be extremely limited in addressing Subfactors a and b within Volume

II.

Will the government consider excluding the notional task order line-item estimates from the 75-page limitation?

See answer to question 13.

What volume should include the cover letter to provide the information requested per the ASSIST2Industry instructions?

The ASSIST cover letter shall be added to Volume I as detailed under the revised Proposal Preparation Instructions Paragraph C.3.a.ii.(2), pg. 20.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, provides key positions and minimum qualifications for each position.

However, the RFP does not explicitly state that offerors are required to propose experience and qualifications for specific individuals (e.g. resumes or qualification tables).

Is the government’s intent for offeror’s to propose the key positions demonstrating ability to meet the minimum qualifications with individual qualifications/resumes provided after award?

It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide a detailed explanation in the narrative of Subfactor (b) that demonstrates the minimum qualifications of the key personnel of the contract. NOTE: Subfactor (b) and Section 00800, Key Personnel have been significantly revised.

Can additional years of experience be provided for key personnel in lieu of a degree? For example, can the Contract Manager substitute 10 years of experience rather than a baccalaureate degree plus no less than five years of experience as stated under Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor (b) Proposed Staffing (1) On Site Contract Manager? If this is possible, will an individual submitted with additional experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree be evaluated with the same level of confidence as an individual with a bachelor’s degree?

Subfactor (b) and Section 00800, Key Personnel have been significantly revised.

Section 00800-Special Contract Requirements, Paragraph KEY PERSONNEL, (1) On Site Manager states:

The Contract Manager shall possess at least a baccalaureate degree in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Science, Business Administration, or Construction Management; possess no less than five (5) years of experience in managing construction type contracts for Federal Government agencies that involved multiple, simultaneous multi-disciplined requirements for a single customer, with an average annual value of $8- 10M or more.

Will the Government accept a person who has 10 years of experience managing construction type contracts for Federal agencies that involved multiple, simultaneous multi-disciplined requirements for a single customer, with an average annual value of $8-10M or more in lieu of a baccalaureate degree as stated in the RFP?

See answer to question 19.

Section 0800 Staffing Requirements lays our requirements for Contract Manager. The rationale applied is that there are many 'generations' of construction professionals that have many years (decades) of on the job experience that may be intimately familiar with the RFP requirements, contract management, and IDIQ key performance deliverables. Many times, these 1st generation individuals may not have a 4 year college degree- although they may otherwise be equally or more qualified vs. someone with a college degree and 5 years experience.

Consideration is requested that the Government allow for the submission of a well tenured (10-15 years experience) contract manager with experience in managing IDIQs, specifically - to be submitted on equal evaluation to the CM with a 4 year degree in an effort to better represent the qualified labor force to execute this function and serve the IDIQ JOC program.

Would the Government consider allowing the Contractor to submit an individual with Contract Management experience for a period of 10-15 years on similar IDIQ contracts with the same responsibilities as this contract in lieu of the Baccalaureate Degree requirement? If so, may this substitution be evaluated with the same level of confidence/favorability as someone a candidate with a Baccalaureate degree?

See answer to question 19.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (1) On Site Contract Manager and Section 00800 Special Contract Requirements outlines the minimum requirements for Contract Manager as possessing at least a baccalaureate degree in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Science, Business Administration, or Construction Management; possess no less than five (5) years of experience in managing construction type contracts for Federal Government agencies that involved multiple, simultaneous multi-disciplined requirements for a single customer, with an average annual value of $8- 10M or more. This substitution is requested due to the fact that there are many experienced construction professionals possessing extensive relevant on-the-job experience directly similar to the Fort Irwin JOC RFP requirements, contract management, and IDIQ performance deliverables that do not possess a four-year college degree but would otherwise be equally or more qualified than an individual possessing five years of experience along with a baccalaureate degree. We respectfully request the government to consider well tenured individuals (20+ years of experience) with IDIQ management experience to be submitted and evaluated equally to an individual possessing a four-year degree and five years of construction experience in an effort to better represent the qualified labor force to execute this function and serve the Fort Irwin JOC.

Would the Government consider allowing offerors to propose an individual with Contract Management experience encompassing 20 years of construction experience to include 15 years of IDIQ experience (simultaneous multi-disciplined requirements for a single customer, with an average annual value of $8-10M) with similar responsibilities in lieu of the baccalaureate degree requirement?

If so, may this substitution be evaluated with the same level of confidence/favorability as an individual possessing a baccalaureate degree?

For the Staffing Requirements:

may relevant years of experience in a similar field or capacity be substituted vs. the requirements for a 4 year college degree? Will proposals that don't have a CM with a college degree be evaluated less favorably?

See answer to question 19.

The requirements for a 4 or 2 year college degree vs. equivalent experience for the positions of Contract Manager and Project Manager. There are plenty of qualified candidates for both positions that don't have college degrees, but plenty of commensurate experience.

Will equivalent work experience be measured or given the same weight as a degree?

See answer to question 19.

Section 00800-Special Contract Requirements, Paragraph KEY PERSONNEL, (2) Project Managers states:

Each Project Manager shall possess a minimum of 10 years of experience in the construction field, with at least five (5) of those 10 years of experience in construction management, and shall possess at least an associate’s degree in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Science, Business Management, or Construction Management. Section also states: Project Managers shall be Project Management Professional (PMP) certified from the Project Management Institute and be completely familiar with Federal regulations pertaining to construction and State of California, and local policies and procedures.

Will the Government accept Project Managers who have 10 years of experience in construction management only in lieu of what is stated in the RFP?

Section 0800 Staffing Requirements lays our requirements for Project Manager. The requirement asks for a PMP (Project Manager Professional) certification and Associates for all project managers. Similar to the Contract Manager appeal: The rationale being: there are many tenured and experienced PMs with multi-trade experience (many times, specific to Barstow and Ft. Irwin) that may not have the degree or PMP certification.

Additionally, the accessibility to PMP Project Managers in the San Bernardino area is lacking. Many of the PMP professionals available are working in the Los Angeles and San Diego markets. The requirement for the PMP and Associates degree may disqualify candidates that may otherwise be experienced and capable of performing the required duties, local to the area, and available to work immediately towards a successful JOC program.

Would the Government consider allowing for the equal submission of an equally qualified individual as defined by 10 years of Project Management experience on contracts with multiple task orders in lieu of the PMP and Associates Degree?

See answer to question 19.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (2) Project Managers state, “Each Project Manager shall manage no more than a total if five projects at any given time.” For example, each Project Manager shall manage no more than $XX million in task orders (aggregate) at any given time. By limiting Project Managers to five task orders one Project Manager could have five large task orders while another Project Manager could have five small task orders. An aggregate task order $ threshold would allow for a more equitable division of work.

Will the government consider utilizing an aggregate task order $ threshold rather than quantifying the maximum number of concurrent task orders that a Project Manager can manage?

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (2) Project Manager and Section 00800 Special Contract Requirements outlines the minimum requirements for each Project Manager as possessing a minimum of 10 years of experience in the construction field, with at least five (5) of those 10 years of experience in construction management, and shall possess at least an associate’s degree in a designated discipline as well as be a certified Project Management Professional (PMP).

This substitution is warranted due to the fact that there are many tenured and experienced Project Managers with multi-trade experience (including many located in Barstow and Fort Irwin) that may not have the associate’s degree or PMP certification but still qualified and experienced in performing multiple simultaneous task orders under similar IDIQ contracts. Additionally, the accessibility to Project Managers with a PMP certification within the local San Bernardino area is lacking. Many of the Project Managers possessing PMP certifications are working in the Los Angeles and San Diego markets. The requirement for the PMP and associates degree may disqualify candidates that may otherwise be experienced and capable of performing the required duties, local to the area, and available to immediately work on the Fort Irwin JOC. Furthermore, staffing the JOC with Project Managers possessing as associate’s degree and PMP certification will drive the coefficient up.

Similar to the Contract Manager appeal above, would the Government consider allowing for the equal submission/evaluation of an equally qualified individual possessing 10 years of construction experience including relevant project management experience with multiple, concurrent task orders in place of an associate’s degree and PMP?

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (2) Project Managers and (3) Superintendents indicate limits on the number of task orders that can be concurrently managed.

In order to appropriately staff for these positions, can you please indicate how many simultaneous task orders are typical for the Fort Irwin JOC?

See answer to question 19.

Currently- the RFP reads that 40 simultaneous task orders should be expected and goes on to outline that PMs should have no more than 5 projects and Superintendents 10 projects. This would require a staff of over 20 people- 8 PMs and 10 Superintendents (including the CADD, QCM, Scheduler, and CM).

Is that the intent of the Government to demand these staffing levels? Additionally-will proposals that don't have this staffing model at the contract start be evaluated less favorably?

See answer to question 19.

This seems to indicate that if there are 40 task orders at once- there will be a staff with many people that aren't typically done with a similar IDIQ contract.

Can you provide specifics regarding the number of task orders a Project Manager or Superintendents can manage concurrently? Could you advise if we are interpreting this requirement correctly? Requiring 20 people or more at 40 concurrent task orders?

See answer to question 19.

Section 00800-Special Requirements, Paragraph KEY PERSONNEL (3) Superintendents states: The candidate, as a minimum, shall show evidence of graduating from an accredited technical school in an appropriate field of study relating to an accepted construction trade; credible qualifications through a recognized union in the construction trades arena; or supervisory experience in a business specializing in a construction field.

Will the Government accept Superintendents who have 7 years of journeyman level experience in the construction field and 3 years of experience in a supervisory position only in lieu of what is stated in the RFP?

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (3) Superintendent requirements include showing evidence of:

(1) graduating from an accredited technical school in an appropriate field of study relating to an accepted construction trade;

(2) credible qualifications through a recognized union in the construction trades arena; or

(3) supervisory experience in a business specializing in a construction field.

Please confirm that each Superintendent needs only to meet one of the three listed requirements rather than meet all three requirements. Note that staffing the contract with journeyman-level Superintendents will likely drive the coefficient up.

See answer to question 19.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (3) Superintendent states, “Each superintendent shall manage no more than a total of four (4) projects at any given time, provided there is no more than 10 minutes travel time between job sites.” For example, each Superintendent shall manage no more than $XX million in task orders (aggregate) at any given time. By limiting Superintendents to four task orders one Superintendent could have four large task orders while another Superintendent could have four small task orders. An aggregate task order $ threshold would allow for a more equitable division of work.

Similar to the Project Manager inquiry above, will the government consider utilizing an aggregate task order $ threshold rather than quantifying the maximum number of concurrent task orders that a Superintendent can manage?

See answer to question 19.

Please confirm the Superintendent can also perform the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer.

See answer to question 19. Yes, the Superintendent can also perform the duties of the Site Safety Officer and Health Officer.

The minimum qualifications for the Quality Control Manager (QCM) seem excessive for one individual. For example, it is rare to find one individual that possesses both a master plumber license and a master electrician license as well as concrete testing certification, asbestos training and air conditioning technician certification.

Would the government consider allowing the QCM as well as QC support staff members/specialized personnel and other proposed key personnel to satisfy the list of stated requirements for QCM?

There is not one person that carries all of these certifications. The USACE QCM is reasonable - however, the requirements for master tradesmen negates any company-especially and 8a, to meet this requirement with one person. Historically on commercial and MILCON projects- a subcontractor may be brought in for a special QCM effort that may be necessary.

Will the Government reconsider the QCM requirement.

See answer to question 19.

Section 00800-Special Requirements, Paragraph KEY PERSONNEL (4) Quality Control Plan Manager (QCM) states: As the QCM, this individual shall be responsible for the overall quality of work performed under this contract, and possess knowledge of and show current license/certification in all of the following areas: ACI Concrete Field Testing Grade I Certification; Master Plumber License; Master Electrician License; 40-hour OSHA Safety Inspection Certification;

Asbestos Contractor/Supervisor Training;

Confined Space Entry Training Certification;

Air Conditioning Technician Certification in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 82, Subpart F;

Storm Water Permit Certification; NICET Level 1 Soils Certification; and the US Army Corps of Engineers Quality Control Training Course Completion Certificate. Also under this same section and paragraph it states: The quality control support staff shall possess knowledge of and show current license/certification in their respective areas of responsibility. The qualifications of this person as stated are unusual.

Will the Government accept a person who has 10 years of experience as a QCM and has the US Army Corps of Engineers Quality Control Training Course Completion Certificate only in lieu of what is stated in the RFP?

Section 0800 Staffing Requirements lays our requirements for Quality Control Manager-the requirement to have someone with all the certifications (master electrician, plumber, SWEPP, Asbestos remediation, etc.). As discussed, a person like this does not exist.

Understanding that the requirements for these specialization may be accomplished through a team, including subcontractors- will the Government please formally acknowledge that one individual is not required to hold all of these certifications, that these competencies may be represented (as needed) by a team of professionals including subcontractors.

See answer to question 19.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (4) Quality Control Plan Manager (QCM) and Section 00800 Special Contract Requirements defines the minimum requirements for QCM as someone with ALL of the stated certifications (ACI Concrete Field Testing Grade I certification;

Master Plumber License; Master Electrician License; 40-hour OSHA Certification, etc.).

As discussed during the Pre-proposal Conference, a person possessing all of these certifications/licenses does not exist.

Understanding that the requirements for these specializations may be accomplished by a team effort, including subcontractors, will the Government please formally acknowledge that one individual is not required to hold all of these certifications/licenses, that these certifications/licenses may be represented (as needed) by a team of professionals including subcontractors?

See answer to question 19.

QCM, Quality Control Manager – the requirements indicate this individual must be a master electrician and plumber. It also states this person must have certifications in areas ranging from concrete to air conditioning.

Is it possible to spread these credentials across the team?

Section 00800-Special Requirements, Paragraph KEY PERSONNEL (5) Computer Aided Design and Drafting Manager states:

(5) This individual shall be a full-time, dedicated employee of the prime contractor, speak fluent English, and be directly accountable to the Contract Manager. The CADD Manager shall possess a baccalaureate degree in one of the following construction disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, or Construction Management; demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years specialized experience in the performance of construction drawing development; be proficient in CADD software (current version) such as Bentley's MicroStation; and be able to design and/or oversee the design of all construction drawings on a large number of concurrent projects. If this person is hired full time just for this contract, the total cost of this person will become part of the offeror’s coefficient.

Will the Government consider allowing the contractor to outsource this person as needed?

Also will the Government allow this person to have drafting experience only in lieu of what is stated in the RFP?

See answer to question 19.

Volume II – Mission Capability (3) Subfactor

(b) Proposed Staffing, (5) CADD Manager requirements indicate up to 40 active task orders could be performed simultaneously.

Based on this workload and the PM and Superintendent staffing requirements, it seems that 8 PMs and 10 Superintendents would be necessary in addition to other required staff.

If staffing levels proposed are below this level, will offeror’s be rated as unacceptable?

For joint ventures or teaming agreements - will the JV be required to present experience working together to the Government? Will experience referenced or projects used in the Past Performance of not having worked together be evaluated any differently than having worked together?

Proposal Preparation Instructions Paragraph C.3.c.ii., pg.

22, is revised.

Volume III Past Performance, ii (page 23 of 72), states "In the case of a joint venture, the prime offeror joint venture shall demonstrates successful experience and past performance as the joint venture, not just as separate companies, to include at least one project/contract for which the offering joint venture was the prime contractor."

As such, will a joint venture entity that does not have at least one relevant project/contract performed as the prime contractor be rated with satisfactory or limited confidence? Would this same/similar requirement also apply to teaming agreements/key subcontractor agreements whereas a team (prime offeror and key subcontractors/teaming partner) that does not have experience working together on at least one relevant project would be rated at a lower confidence level?

See answer to question 44.

Will the Gov't accept final CPAR evaluations in lieu of PPQ's for relevant past performance experience?

No, CPAR evaluations cannot be submitted in lieu of PPQs.

In regards to Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3), is it acceptable to provide CPAR/CCASS evaluations or previously completed PPQs (submitted directly from the reference) rather than requesting our references complete a new PPQ (Attachment 3)?

See answer to question 46.

Due to the Government’s work load at this time of fiscal year end, would the Government be willing to accept CPAR evaluations in Lieu of Client Sent PPQ’s due to time constraints?

See answer to question 46.

The SF1442 and 52.228-1 both indicate that a Bid Guarantee is required; however, Volume IV only requires a bondability letter.

Is a bid guarantee required for the proposal submittal?

Yes, IAW FAR 52.228-1 and DFARS 252.228-7004, a bid guarantee of 20% or $3M is required submission of the proposal. The bondability letter is a part of Volume

IV.

Please confirm that the City Cost

Index multiplier is not part of the coefficient and will be added to each task order.

All components of price shall be included in the Offerors coefficients as no allowance for an omitted cost will be made later.

Volume IV, Price (6) Contractor Manpower Reporting: It is understood that offeror’s should include a price/cost for CMRA on CLIN X004 within (2) Section 00010 (Solicitation Contract Form).

Please specify what, if any, information the government expects to be submitted under (6) Contractor Manpower Reporting (e.g., narrative of CMRA price/cost rationale or restating the CMRA price/cost)

As part of its proposal, the offeror shall provide the estimated total cost (if any).

During the Pre-proposal Conference it was discussed that offerors will be required to self-perform 15% of the cost of the contract.

This requirement is not currently addressed in the submission or evaluation criteria.

Can you provide direction on where (volume and section/subfactor) self-performance capabilities should be addressed with our proposal submissions?

FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting requires that the concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees. It is the contractor’s responsibility to comply with all terms and conditions of the contract as necessary.

Further, given the 15% self-performance requirement and assuming $15 million annually this equates to approximately $2.25 million/year in self performance. At this level it is assumed that self-performance could not be fulfilled solely with contract/project management professionals ($2.25 million would equate to 19 full-time professionals at an average annual salary of $120,000).

As such, is it the intent of the government for offerors to perform specific trades to contribute to the 15% requirement? Would offerors who do not propose trade capabilities be evaluated as unacceptable?

See answer to question 52.

Submitted by: 26 July 2017