Attachment 23 Solicitation RFI Responses W911S222R8001.pdf

Fort Drum Solicitation W911S222R8001

Request for Information

1. Section 00100, paragraph 2 – “Joint Ventures” requires specific information related to the Joint Venture. This information is contained in the SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement. Please advise if this paragraph 2 requirement would be satisfied by including a copy of the executed Joint Venture Agreement within the proposal.

If your SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement includes all the information the solicitation requests, that would be acceptable. Joint ventures must comply with Class Deviation 2023-O0001.

2. Section 00100, paragraph 3.3 requires the signed and dated first pages of all amendments to be included in Section I of the proposal. Considering that amendments are acknowledged in Block 19 of the SF1442, can the requirement to also provide the first page of all amendments be deleted?

No. In accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 1.7, “The Offeror is required to acknowledge amendments in block 19 of the SF 1442. Failure to respond to an amendment shall render the offer ineligible for award”, and Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3.3 states,” The second page of the SF 1442 shall be signed and dated, and the first page of all amendments to the solicitation shall be signed and dated (if applicable).”

3. Section 00100, paragraph 3.3, 2nd section, requires Representations and Certifications identified in 00100 paragraph 1.8 be included in Section I. 00100, paragraph 1.8 relates to the Representations and Certifications completed in SAM. Please confirm that we are also to print and include the SAM Representations and Certifications within Section I of the proposal.

As stated in 00100 Paragraph 1.8, “The Offeror must have completed the Representations and Certifications section within their SAM record or in FAR 52.204-8 in this solicitation.” If an offeror does not have their SAM record FAR 52.204-8 provision updated, they must complete FAR 52.204-8 in the solicitation and include it as a part of their submission.

4. Please confirm that the proposal is to be submitted in 2 Volumes, Volume 1 containing Section I per 00100,3.3 and Volume 2 containing Sections II through VI per 00100,3.4.

Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3, which states “Written proposals shall be submitted in six sections.” Nowhere in the solicitation does it state proposal to be submitted in two volumes.

5. Section 00100, paragraph 4.2 – Subfactor 2: Safety, please confirm that for a

Joint Venture Offeror EMR information from each party to the Joint Venture will be acceptable. Joint Ventures are unpopulated and therefore do not have EMR experience.

Yes, a Joint Venture Offeror EMR information from each party will be acceptable.

6. Section 00100, paragraph 8.1.3 indicates the PPQ’s are to be emailed to the 2 listed POC’s. The cover letter included in Attachment 14 states to mail the PPQ to the MICC office and email a copy to only one of the two POC’s listed in section 00100. Please clarify the directions for the submission of the PPQ’s.

Noted. Attachment 14 will be modified. (List both POCs for submission electronically or mailed to the MICC)

7. Can an offeror use recent and relevant projects from predecessor companies (e.g., acquired companies) and/or sister companies (e.g., subsidiary firms that share a parent and that are managed by the same president) to demonstrate the offeror’s construction experience and past performance?

Recent and relevant projects must have been performed by the offeror’s company itself, the offeror’s subcontractor, joint venture partner, and or teaming arrangement.

8. For Factor 2 Subfactor 1 (Construction Experience), is there a specific format desired for the project summaries?

No. The offeror shall follow the page limitations, format, and file type cited in Section 00100, Paragraph 3-3.5.

9. Is there a preferred format or length for the resumes submitted for Factor 4 Subfactor 1 (construction management personnel)?

No. However, the offeror should consider page limitations specified in Section 00100 Paragraph 3.

10. Subsection 8.1.3 in Section 00100 (Bidding Schedule / Instructions to Bidders), Part I (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors) says that “Offerors shall identify and submit a separate reference for five of the most similar/relevant federal, state, local government, and private sector contracts and subcontracts the firm has performed within the last six years, these references must be from the same projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Management Approach;

Factor 2. Subfactor 1, Construction Experience; Factor 2, Subfactor 2, Design-

Build Experience. To comply with this requirement. Offerors shall send the Performance Assessment Questionnaire found in Attachment 14…” Please clarify the number of references required. Are we correct to assume that the RFP requires ten questionnaires (five for the projects in Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and five for the projects in Factor 2 Subfactor 2)?

Section 00100 paragraph 8.1.3 requires offerors to, “submit a separate reference for five of the most similar/relevant federal, state, local government, and private sector contracts and subcontracts the firm has performed within the last six years, these references must be from the same projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Management Approach; Factor 2. Subfactor 1, Construction Experience; Factor 2, Subfactor 2, Design-Build Experience.”

11. Section 8 (FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE) in Section 00100 (Bidding

Schedule / Instructions to Bidders) says that “Sources of past performance information for evaluation will be provided by the Offeror from the Performance Assessment Questionnaire, which will be tailored to this acquisition. Offerors are advised that the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to, other contracts or subcontracts (whether listed or not), and established performance reporting systems such as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).” If an offeror has a completed CPARS evaluation for one or more of the projects featured in Factor 2, can the CPARS evaluation(s) be provided in Factor 5 instead of requesting that our customer(s) complete and submit the Performance Assessment Questionnaire?

No. Offerors shall comply with Factor 5 Past Performance as required in the solicitation section 00100 paragraph 8.1.3.

12. SOW paragraph 1.3.4 states that the contractor “shall provide personnel to design projects on this contract that meet the following minimum requirements” and this is followed later by “1.2.4.2 New York licensed professional.” Do all of the design staff need to be NYS licensed?

Yes. All Key Design Team Personnel must meet the criteria listed in 1.3.4 of the

SOW.

13. For the projects in Factor 2 Subfactor 2, can projects be used for which the design work is complete but the construction work is ongoing?

Yes.

14. Can CPARs be used in lieu of the Performance Assessment Questionnaire?

No. For performance on prior contracts to be evaluated as acceptable, an Offeror, subcontractor, teaming arrangement, and/or joint venture partner must be rated “Satisfactory Confidence” or higher on the Performance Assessment Questionnaire, and “Satisfactory” or higher in CPARS.

15. Reference: Factor – 5(Past Performance), Question: Please confirm if we can provide CPARS under this Factor.

No. For performance on prior contracts to be evaluated as acceptable, an Offeror, subcontractor, teaming arrangement, and/or joint venture partner must

Questionnaire, and “Satisfactory” or higher in CPARS.

16. Reference: Factor – 3(Bonding Capacity), Question: We understand that this opportunity is set aside for 8(a) firms only that are in development stage, most of the 8a firms won’t be able to meet this requirement simply because to get a $60 Million bonding capacity, the companies will need to carry assets on the balance sheet of approximately $6 Million or over. And if an 8(a) company meets $6 Million on the assets side in their balance sheet, they are early graduated from the 8(a) program and won’t qualify to submit a proposal. We request you to reconsider this requirement and make necessary changes.

Section 00100, Paragraph 6.1 states that Performance and Payment Bond capacity shall be evaluated to ensure that an Offeror can provide adequate bonds to protect the interests of the Government and fulfill the requirements of the contract. There will be no change to the aggregate bonding capacity.

17. In describing the evaluation factors for Factor 2 Subfactor 1 (Construction Experience), Paragraph 2.3.2.1 says that “This subfactor is met when an Offeror submits a minimum of five projects it has completed within six years from the release date…” In the instructions for this same subfactor, Paragraph 5.1 says that “The Offeror shall submit five (5) projects…” Please clarify whether the offeror is expected to provide exactly five or more than five projects to demonstrate construction experience.

Section 00100 paragraph 5.1 states “The Offeror shall submit five (5) projects it has completed within six years from the release date of the solicitation that demonstrate its experience and ability to successfully perform the following construction disciplines:

1) HVAC.

2) Fire Protection.

3) Roads and Paving.

4) Earthwork and Grading.

5) Foundation and Site Work.

6) Communications.

7) Inside Electrical.

8) Utility Infrastructure.”

Offerors should consider page limitations for this factor, found in section 00100, paragraph 3. When submitting projects for this factor, especially if Offerors must use more than five projects to demonstrate their ability to successfully perform all 8 construction disciplines mentioned in section 00100, paragraph 5.1.

18. Are we correct to assume that the design team resumes do not need to be included (again) in Section V (Factor 4 Key Personnel) because they are included in the whole SF 330 that will be included in Section III (Factor 2 Experience)?

In accordance with section 00100, paragraph 7.2, “The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s proposed key design team personnel to assess whether the Offeror has the personnel required to successfully complete designs for design-build projects. The Offeror shall submit SF 330s to be used to evaluate an Offerors qualifications and experience. Offerors may submit the same SF 330s submitted for Factor 2 Experience, Subfactor 2, Design-Build Experience if the resumes for their design team personnel are listed in those SF 330s.

19. If an offeror has entered into a teaming agreement in order to respond to this solicitation, are the teaming agreements supposed to be included in the offeror’s proposal? If so, where?

Yes, the Offeror shall submit their Contractor Teaming Arrangement (see definition of contractor teaming agreement in SOW Part 2 Definitions and Acronyms) with their proposal. Section 00100, paragraph 3 states” Section I:

Executed Request for Proposal (Filled out Section 00600, and Joint Venture and or Team Arrangement documentation, if applicable).”

20. In Section 00100, Paragraph 5.2 SUBFACTOR 2: DESIGN BUILD EXPERIENCE says that “SF330 forms shall be provided to include all firms/team members of the design team with a minimum of five (5) example projects included, (Offerors may submit projects used for the Construction Experience subfactor).” Is there a maximum number of design-build projects expected for Section F?

Section 00100, Paragraph 5.2 SUBFACTOR 2: DESIGN BUILD EXPERIENCE states that “SF330 forms shall be provided to include all firms/team members of the design team with a minimum of five (5) example projects included, (Offerors may submit projects used for the Construction Experience subfactor).” Offerors are cautioned not to exceed maximum number of pages for each section, shown in the table in section 00100 paragraph 3.

21. In Section 00100, Paragraph 3.2 “Each page must have a one-inch margin at the top, the bottom, and on each side.” Would MICC Fort Drum please consider making the SF 330 exempt from this requirement for 1-inch side margins? Half-inch side margins are more reasonable. The PDF versions of GSA’s SF 330 templates use a 3/8-inch margin on the right and left sides. Given their tabular nature, it will be very difficult to laterally compress the forms to fit in 6.5 inches (8.5-inch-wide pages with 1-inch side margins).

Yes. Only the SF 330s are exempt from the one-inch margin requirement as stated in section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3.2.

22. Is each Section (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) supposed to be provided in a separate three-ring binder?

Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with section 00100, paragraph 3.1.

the solicitation to submit this way.

23. Factor 5: Past Performance. Will previously completed PPQ be acceptable to be included as part of the bid (the reason being some of the clients with NAVFAC and USACE are not prompt at turning over on time)

No. Use Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 14 in the solicitation to submit past performance in accordance with section 00100 paragraph 8.1.3.

24. Factor 5: Past Performance. Will CPARS be accepted instead of PPQ for a project if available?

No. In accordance with section 00100, Part II, paragraph 2.3.5.1.3, “For performance on prior contracts to be evaluated as acceptable, an Offeror, subcontractor, contractor teaming arrangement, and/or joint venture partner must

Questionnaire, and “Satisfactory” or higher in CPARS.”

25. Reference overall contract general question: How many contractors are anticipated to be selected for this procurement?

In accordance with section 00100, Part II, paragraph 1.1, “The Government intends to award to all Offerors an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) Repair, Rehabilitation and Minor Construction (RRC) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) who are a responsible source, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation.”

26. Reference paragraph 8.1.3: Performance on prior contracts: Question: Can a previous performance evaluation form filled out by the project customer be submitted for the performance assessment form 14?

27. Reference paragraph 8.1.3: Performance on prior contracts: Question: If a CCASS rating by the Government has already been completed for the past performance factor for a project- does an Assessment Form 14 still need to be obtained from the customer or can a copy of the CCASS evaluation be included to suffice Assessment Form?

28. We are requesting that past construction experience be allowed to go back 10 years instead of the stated 6 years.

No. In accordance with the solicitation, section 00100, Part II, paragraph 2.3.2.1., “This subfactor is met when an Offeror submits a minimum of five projects it has completed within six years from the release date of the solicitation, that demonstrate its experience and ability to successfully complete projects which contain the eight-construction disciplines found in Part I – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, paragraph 5. Factor 2 Experience, Subfactor 1 Construction Experience.”

29. SOW paragraph 8.13.2.1 introduces a list of minimum requirements for the CQC Plan. One subsection in that list is SOW paragraph “8.13.2.1.5. Control testing procedures for each specific test performed on any Task Order.” Please clarify what offerors are expected to provide in this section of the CQC Plan. Without knowing which tests will be performed, it is difficult to describe the control testing procedures.

The requirement has been removed from SOW Part 8, paragraph 8.13.2.1.

30. Is the past performance required limited to any particular region? Can we include federal projects done overseas?

Projects submitted by Offeror shall be in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 5.1 and 5.2.

31. Will the evaluation consider ongoing projects as past performance?

No. Offerors shall submit projects that meet the requirement of Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 5.1.

32. Can the DOA consider accepting soft copies via email in lieu of hard copy and digital copy on compact disk?

No. Offerors shall submit proposal in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 1.12., paragraph 3.3., and 3.4.

33. Are we required to provide the pricing during this stage of the submission?

No. Proposal are being evaluated in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3.4.

34. We are requesting the DOA to consider extending the deadline for proposal submission.

No. The solicitation due date will remain 3 February 2023.

35. Will there be a seed project?

No. Proposal are being evaluated in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3.4.

36. Section 00100, paragraph 2 – “Joint Ventures” requires specific information related to the Joint Venture. This information is contained in the SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement. Please advise if this paragraph 2 requirement would be satisfied by including a copy of the executed Joint Venture Agreement within the proposal.

If your SBA approved Joint Venture Agreement includes all the information the solicitation requests, that would be acceptable. Joint ventures must comply with Class Deviation 2023-O0001.

37. Section 00100, paragraph 3.3 requires the signed and dated first pages of all amendments to be included in Section I of the proposal. Considering that amendments are acknowledged in Block 19 of the SF1442, can the requirement to also provide the first page of all amendments be deleted?

No. In accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 1.7, “The Offeror is required to acknowledge amendments in block 19 of the SF 1442. Failure to respond to an amendment shall render the offer ineligible for award”, and Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3.3 states,” The second page of the SF 1442 shall be signed and dated, and the first page of all amendments to the solicitation shall be signed and dated (if applicable).”

38. Section 00100, paragraph 3.3, 2nd section, requires Representations and

Certifications identified in 00100 paragraph 1.8 be included in Section I. 00100, paragraph 1.8 relates to the Representations and Certifications completed in SAM. Please confirm that we are also to print and include the SAM Representations and Certifications within Section I of the proposal.

As stated in 00100 Paragraph 1.8, “The Offeror must have completed the Representations and Certifications section within their SAM record or in FAR 52.204-8 in this solicitation.” If an offeror does not have their SAM record FAR 52.204-8 provision updated, they must complete FAR 52.204-8 in the solicitation and include it as a part of their submission.

39. Please confirm that the proposal is to be submitted in 2 Volumes, Volume 1 containing Section I per 00100,3.3 and Volume 2 containing Sections II through VI per 00100,3.4.

Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 3, which states “Written proposals shall be submitted in six sections.” Nowhere in the solicitation does it state proposal to be submitted in two volumes.

40. Section 00100, paragraph 4.2 – Subfactor 2: Safety, please confirm that for a Joint Venture Offeror EMR information from each party to the Joint Venture will be acceptable. Joint Ventures are unpopulated and therefore do not have EMR experience.

Yes, a Joint Venture Offeror EMR information from each party will be acceptable.

41. Section 00100, paragraph 8.1.3 indicates the PPQ’s are to be emailed to the 2 listed POC’s. The cover letter included in Attachment 14 states to mail the PPQ to the MICC office and email a copy to only one of the two POC’s listed in section 00100. Please clarify the directions for the submission of the PPQ’s.

Noted. Attachment 14 will be modified. (List both POCs for submission electronically or mailed to the MICC)

42. Section 00100, paragraph 5.2 please advise if documentation is required to demonstrate the Offerors commitment to subcontract or team with each of the architectural/engineering firms listed in the Factor 2, Subfactor 2 section of the proposal.

Section 00100, Paragraph 5.2 SUBFACTOR 2: DESIGN BUILD EXPERIENCE states that “SF330 forms shall be provided to include all firms/team members of the design team with a minimum of five (5) example projects included, (Offerors may submit projects used for the Construction Experience subfactor).” Offerors are cautioned not to exceed maximum number of pages for each section, shown in the table in section 00100 paragraph 3.

43. Section 00100, paragraph 1.3.4.2 is entitled “New York licensed professional” but has no other description of the requirement. Please clarify.

SOW Part 1, paragraph 1.3.4.2. was updated to clarify requirement.

44. Section 00100, paragraph 1.3.4.1.7 is entitled “Environmental Administration”, this is not a design discipline that is described in 00100,1.2. Please confirm that

1.3.4.1.7 should state “Environmental”.

SOW Part 1, paragraph 1.3.4.1.7. was updated to clarify requirement.

45. On 1/11/2023 the SAM posting for this solicitation updated and it appears the update revised the Statement of Work file and it is now dated Jan 11, 2023.

Please confirm that there were no wording changes within the Jan 11, 2023 Statement of Work from the version of the Statement of Work that was issued on Jan 04, 2023.

No there was not. The only change was the title of the document from SOW to Attachment 1 SOW. However, there will be an updated SOW in response to the RFI questions.

46. Attachment 1 Statement of Work – Section 8.31.5.5.2 includes a note on the PDF file stating “Make change here”. Please clarify if the currently worded Section

8.31.5.5.2 is correct?

This is a typo and has been corrected in the updated SOW.

47. Attachment 1 Statement of Work – Section 8.33.1 includes a note on the PDF file stating “here”. There are no statements given under Section 8.33.1. Please clarify if the currently shown Section 8.33.1 is accurate?

This is a typo and has been corrected in the updated SOW.

48. Attachment 1 Statement of Work – Section 8.31.5.5.2 states that Task Order Proposals will be prepared utilizing ‘RS Means databases’, Section 8.31.5.5.2.1 states “CSI Codes shall be provided with the proposal”, and Section 8.31.5.5.2.1 states “The contract required the use of an estimating software that utilizes RS Means Databases”. Additionally, Section 4.2 states that Contractors must provide the following RSMeans Databases updated annually on January 1st: Heavy Construction Costs, Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs, and Facilities Construction Costs.

Please confirm that all associated costs related to the contractor’s procurement of the above RSMeans Databases annually, and estimating software must be beared by the contractor for the full life of the contract?

Yes.

49. Attachment 1 Statement of Work – Section 8.31.5.5.2 states that Task Order states “CSI Codes shall be provided with the proposal”, and Section 8.31.5.5.2.1 states “The contract required the use of an estimating software that utilizes RS Means Databases”. Additionally, Section 4.2 states that Contractors must provide the following RSMeans Databases updated annually on January 1st: Heavy Construction Costs, Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs, and Facilities Construction Costs.

Please confirm that for this RRC MATOC contract at the task order proposal level, the pricing of individual line-item activities is NOT predetermined or set in any way by the published RS Means Database pricing, and that contractors may price individual line item activities at the contractor’s discretion during development of each individual task order proposal.

Yes. In accordance with SOW Part 8, paragraph 8.31.5.5.2.1, “CSI codes shall be provided with the proposal. The Government will use, if necessary, the CSI codes to clarify what a particular line item is in a proposal in its review of the contractor’s proposal for technical acceptability. Where RS Means Databases do not have a line item comparable to that which is required, a unique line item may be generated in the proposal.” However, understand that the Government uses RS Means to build the Independent Government Estimate.

50. Attachment 1 Statement of Work – Section 8.31.5.5.2 states that Task Order states “CSI Codes shall be provided with the proposal”, and Section 8.31.5.5.2.1 states “The contract required the use of an estimating software that utilizes RS Means Databases”. Additionally, Section 4.2 states that Contractors must provide the following RSMeans Databases updated annually on January 1st: Heavy Construction Costs, Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs, and Facilities Construction Costs.

Please confirm that for this RRC MATOC contract at the task order proposal level, the sole intent of utilizing the RS Means Databases is to obtain line-item descriptions and CSI codes ONLY.

Yes. In accordance with SOW Part 8, paragraph 8.31.5.5.2.1, “CSI codes shall be provided with the proposal. The Government will use, if necessary, the CSI codes to clarify what a particular line item is in a proposal in its review of the contractor’s proposal for technical acceptability. Where RS Means Databases do not have a line item comparable to that which is required, a unique line item may be generated in the proposal.” However, understand that the Government uses RS Means to build the Independent Government Estimate.

51. In lieu of the education requirement for the Contract Manager, can experience be used to qualify personnel for this role?

No. Contract Manager shall meet the minimum requirements of SOW Part 1, paragraph 1.3.1.

52. Can the proposal be submitted electronically as opposed to a physical copy?

No. Offerors shall submit proposal in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 1.12., paragraph 3.3., and 3.4.

53. Can CPARS be used in lieu of PAQs?

No. Offerors shall comply with Factor 5 Past Performance as required in the solicitation section 00100 paragraph 8.1.3.

54. Can previously utilized PPQs be used in lieu of new PAQs?

55. The solicitation states that the PAQs are to be sent directly to the government from the project reference. Is it acceptable for the project reference to send them back to the Contractor for submission?

Yes. However, risk is on the Offeror if the Performance Assessment Questionnaire is NOT returned with the Offerors proposal in accordance with the requirements in Attachment 14 which states, “ Please complete the enclosure and return to the MICC-Fort Drum, 4205 Po Valley Road, Fort Drum, NY 13602- 5220, no later than 15 days after receipt of request or before the due date for receipt of proposals, whichever occurs first.”

56. Are the current page limits correct?

No. There was a change in the page limit for Section I from 100 pages to 200 pages.

57. The Design Team’s SF 330s are mentioned in Factor 2 and in Factor 4. Are these required to be submitted in both places or just one, and if just one, which section section should they be submitted in?

In accordance with section 00100, paragraph 7.2, “The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s proposed key design team personnel to assess whether the Offeror has the personnel required to successfully complete designs for design-build projects. The Offeror shall submit SF 330s to be used to evaluate an Offerors qualifications and experience. Offerors may submit the same SF 330s submitted for Factor 2 Experience, Subfactor 2, Design-Build Experience if the resumes for their design team personnel are listed in those SF 330s.

58. Is the Quality Control Plan required to be submitted in the Proposal?

Yes. Offeror shall submit a Contractor Quality Control Plan in accordance with Section 00100, Part I, paragraph 4.1.2.

59. Please provide clarification on Statement of Work (SOW) 1.3.4. Key Design Team Personnel. Many DoD agencies and facilities allow designs to be sealed by professional engineers registered in states other than the facility’s home state.

If the contractor’s key design engineers can provide professional resumes showing 5+ years’ experience on relevant DB projects, can they be considered acceptable if registered in states other than NY?”

No. Personnel shall meet the minimum requirements stated in SOW Part 1, paragraph 1.3.4.