Q A_2_W911S8-15-R-0004 _MATOC_12_May_2016.pdf

Questions & Answers #2 Joint Base Lewis-McChord

MATOC

W911S8-15-R-0004

QUESTION 1: What furniture will remain for us to move prior to carpet demo?

ANSWER 1: An amendment that addresses this issue is forthcoming.

QUESTION 2: Can we get a sample of the existing tile so we can match color, texture and aesthetics?

What is the product name/number of the tile we are matching?

ANSWER 2: A sample of the existing tile is not available. The product name/number of the existing tile is not known.

QUESTION 3: Has a hazmat survey of the existing carpet/tile been performed? What year was it installed?

ANSWER 3: No hazmat survey has been conducted for the existing carpet. The original construction of the Dining Facility occurred in 1990 with a carpet replacement conducted in 1999. No Asbestos containing mastic is expected for this task order due to the years of construction. However, per SOW Section 9.1,”If suspect material is discovered, inspections shall be accomplished in accordance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), Federal and Local regulations. A Certified AHERA Asbestos Building Inspector shall perform all inspections. The inspection documentation shall comply with AHERA, Federal and Local regulations and shall include assessment of each asbestos‐containing material (ACM), its location, quantity, type, friability and percentage of asbestos.”

QUESTION 4: Where is the staging area for this project?

ANSWER 4: Due to the DFAC (Dining Facility) being in use during construction, there will be no designated staging area for this project. The Contractor is allowed to keep materials and equipment within their construction site but will be responsible for the security of their own property per Seed Project SOW Paragraph 10.7.2.

QUESTION 5: Is the contractor required to have office near the base?

ANSWER 5: No, the contractor is not required to have an office near the base. However, the contractor should note Section L, Paragraph 7.3.1.2 of the RFP.

QUESTION 6: Is the contract open to all HubZone contractors across the country?

ANSWER 6: Yes, the contract [RFP] is open to all HUBZone contractor across the country.

QUESTION 7: Reference Section L para 2.1.8.6 – Proposal Table of Contents file: Does this need to be its own separate file independent of the proposal volumes? This would require manually updating the Table of Contents as we assemble the proposal vs. embedding the TOC within the proposal volumes which can then be updated with the click of a button.

ANSWER 7: No, the Proposal Table of Contents file does not need to be its own separate file independent of the proposal volumes.

QUESTION 8: Section L para 2.1.8.7 indicates that data files should be .XLS file format (MS‐Excel 2007 or earlier). Is Microsoft Excel 2010 acceptable?

ANSWER 8: Microsoft Excel 2010 is acceptable.

QUESTION 9: Section L para 4.2 provides the address for mailed and hand‐delivered proposals. This address differs from the address shown in Block 7 on the SF 1442. Please confirm that proposals should be delivered to the address shown in Section L para 4.2.

ANSWER 9: The Government confirms that the proposal shall be delivered to the address at Section L, Paragraph 4.2 of the RFP.

QUESTION 10: Section L para 7.3.1.3 states that the Offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan that addresses the organizational structure of the Offeror’s proposed team… for this project. Is this portion of Management Approach geared toward the seed project or the MATOC as a whole?

ANSWER 10: This portion of the Management Approach is geared toward the MATOC as a whole.

QUESTION 11: Section L para 7.3.4.1.2 requires the project schedule for the seed project to be submitted in either Microsoft Project or Microsoft Excel. We are currently using Primavera P6, which can be exported to Excel. We’re curious if the Government has the ability to open a P6 data file, which would provide a lot more information than an Excel file (i.e. schedule logic), and would prefer and/or accept a P6 data file in lieu of an Excel file?

ANSWER 11: Offerors shall submit a project schedule in the format stated at Section L, Paragraph 7.3.4.1.2, “Submit a project schedule in either Microsoft project or Microsoft excel.” The Government will not accept a P6 data file in lieu of an Excel file.

QUESTION 12: Reference Attachment 3 (provided in Amendment 0001): Block 4 states “Describe the type of Protective Coating predominately done by your company for this effort.” Also Block 6 is asking us to include a copy of any cure notices.

Are projects submitted for relevant experience required to include protective coatings?

If the entity filling out this Attachment 3 did not self‐perform protective coatings on the project(s) submitted, will this result in a negative impact to the rating for this factor?

Please clarify why projects that included protective coatings are being singled out as “relevant” for past performance.

ANSWER 12: Projects submitted for relevant experience are not required to include protective coatings experience. Not self‐performing protective coatings on project(s) submitted will not result in a negative impact to the rating for this factor. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, Paragraph 3.0 of the RFP. Protective coating is one item that will be reviewed by the Government.

QUESTION 13: Section L para 8.1 states that Past Performance information is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 50% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. Section M para 3.4 states that for the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. This paragraph also defines relevant contracts as projects consisting of any performance on multi‐discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property as well as contract compliance in supplying indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity construction services with a total contract value of at least $5,000,000.00.

Is Past Performance information required for major subcontractors proposed for the seed project or is the Government only requiring Past Performance information for proposed major subcontractors that will team with the Offeror for the MATOC as a whole? (most flooring subcontractors do not have experience supplying IDIQ services).

ANSWER 13: The Government requires Past Performance information for proposed major subcontractors that will team with the Offeror for the MATOC as a whole.

QUESTION 14: The Past Performance Factor requires submission of Attachment 3 – Relevant Contract Reference Sheets, and Attachment 1 – Past Performance Questionnaires. Relevancy is defined in Section M as including projects consisting of performance on multi‐discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property as well as contract compliance in supplying IDIQ construction services with a total contract value of at least $5,000,000.00.

Both of these attachments are mostly tailored to a single project and do not lend themselves very well to providing information on IDIQs and their overall value, though there are a couple of fields that pertain to IDIQ type contracts. For example, Attachment 3 asks for Original Completion Date, then asks for Option Period/Years… then asks for original and modified price and the reason for change in price. This is confusing and we’re not sure what kind of contracts the Government is looking for on these attachments (i.e. individual projects/task orders, IDIQ contracts, or a blend of information showing both). Furthermore if we are to include a combination of single contracts and IDIQs on Attachment 3, the corresponding PPQ (Attachment

1) does not accommodate this blending of information. Please clarify how the Government would like us to demonstrate relevant experience on single projects and experience on IDIQ contracts using these two sheets.

ANSWER 14: Attachments 1 & 3 are for contract information, not individual projects/task orders. Past Performance shall be in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 8 and will be evaluated in accordance with Section M, Paragraph 3.

QUESTION 15: Section L para 8.1.5 directs us to submit Past Performance Questionnaires for the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference (Attachment 3).

The quantity of projects/contracts that we should submit on Attachment 3 is not specified. Is there a minimum/maximum number or projects or contracts we should submit on Attachment 3?

Are these to be the same projects submitted under Volume II Subfactor B? (keep in mind that Volume II Subfactor B has a maximum of five projects and does not ask for key subcontractor experience, where the Past Performance factor requires key subcontractor Past Performance).

ANSWER 15: An amendment is forthcoming that will indicated the quantity of Past Performance Questionnaires required. The contracts/projects submitted under Volume II Subfactor B are not required to be the same contracts submitted using Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire.

QUESTION 16: We have submitted numerous proposals in the past with similar requirements to this solicitation and understand that requesting Clients to fill out Past Performance Questionnaires repeatedly for the same project(s) is very cumbersome. We respectfully request that completed CCASS/CPARS submitted with our proposal be acceptable in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires.

ANSWER 16: Offerors shall submit Past Performance Questionnaires as required by the RFP, Section L, Paragraph 8.1.5.

QUESTION 17: Section L para 9.2 directs us to provide a total lump sum price using Technical Exhibit 9, Attachment 1 (per Amendment 0001). TE 9 – Attachment #1 is a site map for the seed project. Please advise.

ANSWER 17: An amendment is forthcoming to clarify this issue.

QUESTION 18: Section L para 1.11.2 states that all comments and/or questions must be gathered and submitted via a SINGLE email per offeror. Typically this would result in us waiting until right before the deadline to submit questions (18 May 2016) as more questions tend to arise after initial questions are submitted. However, there are many questions that are time sensitive, requiring response/clarification well ahead of the proposal closing date (ex. clarification on PPQ requirements that must be submitted directly to the Government by the Client) which is why we’re submitting these questions right now.

Please confirm that offerors will be allowed to submit questions through multiple emails if necessary up until the cutoff for questions.

ANSWER 18: The Government confirms that offerors will be allowed to submit questions through multiple emails if necessary up until the cutoff for questions. An amendment is forthcoming to clarify this issue.

QUESTION 19: We understand that the purpose of the extensive, very detailed, and very specific proposal preparation requirements for this solicitation are to ensure uniform proposal format among offerors, to provide ease of evaluation for the Government, and to demonstrate that the offeror can follow detailed instructions. We’ve been successful on many IDIQ contracts of greater magnitudes and complexity where the proposals were not as granular in their requirements. Our concern is the level of effort required to respond to RFPs under this MATOC may prove to be cumbersome for the relatively low magnitude of the task orders on this MATOC. Will the level of effort required to submit this MATOC proposal will be typical of the Task Order RFPs?

ANSWER 19: The Government anticipated that the level of effort required for Task Order RDFs to be less than that of this MATOC.

QUESTION 20: Were drawings for the seed project included in the documentation?

ANSWER 20: The drawings for the seed project were included in the documentation as Technical Exhibit (TE) 10 – Attachment #2 – Building J00548 Floorplan (SEED PROJECT).