Atch_006_-_Questions-Answers.pdf

ATTACHMENT 006

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Question: When will the site visit be for the MAIDIQ?

Answer: 17 October 2017 at 0900, Bldg 6923 38th & Desert Storm Ave

2. Question: Reference PWS 1.3.5. Would a person qualify as Professional Level 4 with a Bachelor's Degree from a University in Business Management and holding Master Plumbing Licenses, Master Electrical Licenses and Master HVAC Licenses with ten Years’ experience in Management and Supervision, and five years’ experience in engineering, design in maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and construction projects?

Answer: Yes.

3. Question: For Volume III – Past Performance, Tab E Past Performance Questionnaire may we provide completed CPARs evaluations in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires?

Answer: Page 109, Section L, Paragraph beginning with “TAB E” states that “any questionnaires not returned directly to the KO will not be reviewed and evaluated.” The intent of this statement is to mean that completed questionnaires that are not received directly from the POC reference or not received at all will not be utilized in the performance confidence assessment. The Government will then utilize other means identified in on Page 112, Section M, to conduct the performance confidence assessment.

Offerors are not instructed to provide their CPARS Evaluations in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires. The contracting office has access to all contractor CPARS in the system.

4. Question: Reference Section B. No quantities or order values are given in the Table for the CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY. Please clarify.

Answer: This paragraph has been removed.

5. Question: Reference Section C, Para. 1.12. “Technical Exhibit (TE) A”. The Index Page of Technical Exhibit A states “Technical Exhibit 1”. Should this be Technical Exhibit A?

Answer: Yes, the index page of technical exhibit should be “A.”

6. Question: Reference Page 20. Paragraph 2.1.10 New Work. States “That work which results in the creation of an addition to an existing facility, or of a building component or system which CDRL not exist prior to the work…” Which CDRL is this referring to?

Answer: Nothing, this is a typographical error. Revised PWS to remove reference to CDRL.

7. Question: Reference Page 26. Paragraph 5.2.1.1 Reserved. Are there no documents to be identified from Paragraph 5.2.1?

Answer: There are no documents required to be submitted.

8. Question: Reference Page 70 and Page 81. The solicitation contains two different Ordering Clauses and each clause has a different ordering period. Do both clauses apply to this solicitation? What is the correct ordering period?

Answer: The ordering clause FAR 52.216‐18 on page 71 has been removed. DFARS 252.216‐7006 on page 81 is the correct ordering clause. The correct ordering period is 5 years from the date of contract award. The clause will be edited at time of award to reflect the actual date the ordering period will begin.

9. Question: Reference Page 83. The solicitation states that a separate bid guarantee is required for each proposal 10 days after award. All offerors shall submit a Bid Bond with their proposals. Is a bid guarantee required “10 days after award”? Upon award of the contracts, is a separate bid bond required to be submitted for all task order proposals?

Answer: This paragraph and the phrase “bid bond” will be removed from the solicitation in this amendment.

A Bid Guarantee IAW FAR 52.228‐1 is due with the proposal for each task order.

A Performance and Payment Bond IAW FAR 52.228‐15 is required to be submitted for each task order over the simplified acquisition threshold. It shall be submitted only be the awardee of the task order. It is required to be submitted within 10 days after award.

Alternative Payment Protections IAW FAR 52.228‐13 is required to be submitted for each task order when the value exceeds $35,000 but does not exceed $150,000.

Section L of this solicitation requires the offerors to submit proof/demonstration of Performance and Payment Bonding Capacity. This submission is not to be confused with the actual Performance and Payment Bond, which is submitted within 10 days after task order award.

10. Question: Reference Page 10. Paragraph 1.4.7.2.2 states when rescheduling work due unforeseen installation closure that is should be mutually satisfactory. Is “mutually satisfactory” to be interpreted as the Contracting Officer and the Contractor make the determination that the day the work is rescheduled is satisfactory?

Answer: This statement means that the date will be rescheduled to a date that is mutually agreed upon by both parties.

11. Question: Reference Page 12. Paragraph 1.12 References “Technical Exhibit (TE) A”. The Index Page of Technical Exhibit A states “Technical Exhibit 1”. Should this be Technical Exhibit A?

12. Question: Reference Page 37. Paragraph 12.1 states to relocate all property as specified in the TO or follow the instructions of the COR. Will the instructions of the COR be known at the time of scoping and submission of the task order proposal?

Answer: The question is referring to the IDIQ Statement of Work. If a task order requires the relocation of government property it will be identified in the Task Order SOW.

13. Question: Reference Page 45 Paragraph 18.4 states that the Contractor’s schedule must reflect anticipated adverse weather days as noted in the Solicitation. What date does the Government anticipate that the Task Order Seed Project will be awarded?

Answer: The IDIQ contracts and the first task order will be issued concurrently.

14. Question: Reference Page 12. Paragraph 1.12 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). “..number a destination of the submittals…” – what does this mean?

Answer: This is a typo and now is corrected.

15. Question: Reference Pages 64‐65. Paragraph (g) (1) does not list the WAWF point of contact; please provide this information.

Answer: This information varies by task order and will be provided at the task order level.

16. Question: Reference Page 64. Paragraph (f) (2) states the acceptance DODAAC as W34GM1;

paragraph (f) (3) states W34GM5. Request clarification.

Answer: The correct DODAAC is W34GM5. This has been corrected.

17. Question: Reference Page 93. Clause 252.204‐7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications states to substitute paragraphs (d) and (e) for paragraph (d) in the provision at FAR 52.204‐8. If “Paragraph (d) applies” is checked in FAR 52.204‐8 does this also satisfy 252.204‐7007?

Or is there a separate fill‐in for 252.204‐7007?

Answer: All the fill‐in data should be in the SAM website.

18. Question: Based on the amount of information required to be submitted, can the page limit for Volume II be increased to 50 pages?

Answer: The page limitation has been increased to 40 as a result of this amendment.

19. Question: The solicitation states that the SF 1442 must contain an original signature in block 30B of the form. Should this be 20B instead of 30B?

Answer: This was a typo that is now corrected.

20. Question: Is the offeror required to provide documentation that the surety is listed in the Department of Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties?

Answer: No. The Government will verify the surety against the list.

21. Question: What is to be submitted in TAB E of Volume III – Past Performance if all questionnaires are to be submitted directly to MICC?

Answer: Subsequent renumbering has taking place, this question and answer refers to Tab D. The instruction to forward past performance questionnaires to the customer references is associated with past performance and therefore included in the Past Performance Volume. It is a separate instruction and identified as a separate Tab. The questionnaires received from the customer references will be filed as Tab D by the Government. There is nothing the offeror needs to submit to the government related to this tab.

22. Question: Why are detailed narratives required in Pricing Volumes IV and V if a detailed narrative is already provided in Volume II – Technical? Won’t Technical Acceptability be established thru Volume II? Volumes IV and V labelled as Price and are not to be scored or rated and are to be evaluated using Price analysis so why is a narrative required?

Answer: Refer to revised to Section L language.

23. Question: If the 7 awards are made based on pricing in Volume IV, then why does Volume V contain more detailed instructions and require submittal of a narrative and detail backup? If Volume V will be awarded to only the seven IDIQ awardees, why is Volume V required prior to award of the IDIQ contracts? When will Volume V be evaluated if only pricing submitted by the IDIQ awardees is to be evaluated?

Answer: Refer to revised Section M, IDIQ Pricing and Task Order Pricing.

24. Question: What is supposed to be submitted under Subfactor 3 – Safety other than the EMR? The evaluation criteria for Subfactor 3 contains no measurement. How will this be evaluated?

Answer: The evaluation criteria has been revised via Amendment 003 to identify the measurement standard for technically acceptable.

25. Question: Can projects with an estimated value larger than $100K and $500K be submitted for Subfactor 1 – IDIQ Contract Management Approach?

Answer: This evaluation factor has changed to require that each project shall exceed $500K.

26. Question: Price is referred to Factor 4 in Section M. Should this be Factor 3?

Answer: Yes, this is a typo.

27. Question: Section L. Past Performance verbiage states that the overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. Could you clarify what is meant by a “subjective decision”?

Answer: In this context ‘subjective’ means pertaining to or characteristic of an entity. Since each offeror will submit past performance experiences with varying characteristics, each offeror is different. As a result the overall confidence assessment is subjective (pertaining) to the experiences of the offeror (entity). The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

28. Proposal Format, paragraph (a), the instruction is to submit an original and number of copies listed in paragraph (c) below; paragraph (c) does not give this instruction and the chart only indicates the number of hard copies to submit. Please provide the total number of copies in addition to the original required, and do the copies need to be identified as such.

Answer: Submission instructions are changed to electronic only.

29. Question: Volume III. Past Performance. Are subcontractors required to submit past performance questionnaires? If yes, what are the procedures? What if the subcontractors are bidding to multiple Prime Contractors?

Answer: Amendment 0003 removed the submission and evaluation of subcontractor past performance.

30. Question: Attachment 002 – Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet. There are duplications of the information requested. Please clarify.

Answer: Acknowledged that there are duplication and as a result the numbering is off. Amendment 0003 provides a revised attachment which consolidates the information requested.

31. Question: Reference Attachment 002. Page 1 makes reference to “Limited or No Confidence rating” and “Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence”. What are these ratings and where are they defined in the Solicitation? Section M states that the ratings for Past Performance will be either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Answer: Changed verbiage to replace “trade‐off” terminology with LPTA terminology (acceptable, unacceptable).

32. Question: Section 4: Evaluation shows “S” (Satisfactory) as the highest performance level allowed.

CPAR allows for “Exceptional” as the highest rating level. Is Satisfactory the highest performance level allowed in this solicitation?

Answer: The past performance confidence assessment will result in either an acceptable or unacceptable rating. An acceptable performance rating is assigned when a performance record provides the government a reasonable expectation of successful performance. A reasonable expectation of successful performance is achieved through satisfactory. A CPARS rating higher than satisfactory will not achieve a rating higher than acceptable.

33. Question: Block 14 states “Amendment 001 to this solicitation is to add Attachment 005 Questions and Answers….” Should this say Attachment 006 as Attachment 005 is Task Order Proposal Summary Format?

Answer: Yes, Attachment 006.

34. Question: Paragraph 20.1 states that “The as‐built drawings shell be submitted in an electronic format compatible with Bentley Microstation (. DGN) File” Microstation is rarely used in the industry now as most design firms use AutoCAD software for design and drawings are .DWG File, is this acceptable?

Answer: CAD format .DWG is acceptable.

35. Question: The Solicitation states that he prices for the proposed IDIQ contract labor rates shall be utilized as maximum allowable rates on subsequent task order proposals for the entire contract ordering period. This seems to impose an Undue Burden on Offeror’s as the Government is requiring Offeror’s to provide labor rates and guarantee them for five (5) years. It is not possible to forecast inflation rates, changes in Workmen’s Compensation and General Liability that often occur in the insurance market. In addition, if Government imposed rates for Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment rates are changed it is not possible for Offeror’s to know this at the time of award of the 7 Contracts.

Answer: The proposed rates should be calculated based on projected events like those identified in the question.

36. Question: The last sentence of the first paragraph states “Lump sum proposals will not be accepted”. Can the Government clarify what is meant by this statement since most Task Orders are priced using Lump Sum amount instead of Unit Prices?

Answer: Refer to revised Section L

37. Question: Will Adobe PDF files be an accepted file format for the required digital proposal volumes, in addition to Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel?

Answer: All proposal files shall be provided in their native format, i.e. Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and/or Excel. Files with signatures shall be in read‐only format, using PDF files.

38. Question: Are completed copies of “Attachment 005 – Task Order Proposal Summary Format” required to be included in both Volume IV: IDIQ Pricing and Volume V: Task Order Pricing?

39. Question: Can a copy of the attendees from August 24th Site Visit be distributed to the bidders?

Answer: A list of site‐visit attendees will be provided.

40. Question: What is the amount of the Construction Cost Limit (CCL)?

Answer: $1 million for new work and $5 million for maintenance/repair.

41. Question: Reference Section L. Please confirm that the number of past performance projects has no limit.

Answer: Section L is updated limiting past performance submission to five (5).

42. Question: Reference Section M, Factor 2. Please confirm the criteria for determining relevance as it relates to past performance.

Answer: Since relevancy is defined only as similar in nature of work, size, and complexity; there are no specific relevance criteria. As a result relevancy is established based on nature, size, and complexity. Since task orders can be issued for any task that is within the scope of the IDIQ SOW, and within the min/max dollar value limits, then any past performance submission that is within the scope of the IDIQ PWS and within the min/max limits is determined relevant.

43. Question: As both the Government and the contracting community have enter the last six weeks of the government fiscal year there is significant amounts of work being performed by each side to meet respective year end requirements. We are concerned that several of our government clients will be unable or unwilling to provide additional PPQ information for this solicitation when a relevant CPARS is already on file. From the response to Question 3 in attachment six, we request that the government confirm that the lack of a PPQ being submitted with a completed CPARS in place will not negatively impact a prospective offerors evaluation?

Answer: RFP Section M states the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists.

44. Question: Statement of work section 1.3.1 Key Personnel Positions requires that the Project

Manager, Superintendents, and QC Managers have 5 years of experience in maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and construction projects. Conversely section 1.3.5 required that the Project manager, Superintendents, and QC Managers meet the minimum qualifications of Professional Level

4. Professional Level 4 requires that the aforementioned personnel have a Bachelor’s degree in engineering or related technical field or business/management with 10 years’ experience in

Management & Supervision and 5 years’ experience in engineering, design, repair, rehabilitation, and construction projects. Which section is correct 1.3.1 or 1.3.5?

Answer: Section 1.3.1 is referencing Key Construction Management Personnel. Section 1.3.5 is referencing Key Design and Engineering Personnel.

45. Question: Please confirm that the contractor will not be considered the generator – as defined by the EPA – of any pre‐existing hazardous or contaminated materials.

Answer: The contractor will not be considered the “generator” of existing hazardous materials if no existing hazardous materials are disturbed by any of the contractor’s personnel or sub‐contractors without specific permission to disturb. If hazardous material is discovered or suspected to be present, the contractor shall immediately notify the COR.

46. Question: Reference Section L. Subfactor 2 requires a complete UNPRICED breakdown of tasks utilizing WINEST or equivalent. Would it be acceptable to present this breakdown of tasks in a table format summarized by the 2004 CSI MasterFormat Divisions with detailed breakdowns for each division?

Answer: This is an acceptable format.

47. Question: Instruction to offerors Volume V requires that subcontractor proposals be included with the submission. Can this requirement be waived and made available upon request after the bid date. Subcontractor proposals typically aren’t received until shortly before bid time and there typically isn’t enough time to get the proposal documents into the finished proposal binders in time for submission.

48. Question: Reference Section M. Please clarify the Basis of Award and Evaluation Criteria contained in Section M pages 111 thru 114. The RPP states that the proposal will be evaluated under 3 evaluation factors. The RFP further states that factors 1 & 2 will be rated as Acceptable or

Unacceptable. The RFP then states that Factor 3 (Price) will NOT be rated. Will you be awarding the contract to proposers (up to 7 proposers) who have an “Acceptable” ratings in factors 1 and 2 and then have the lowest price for factor 3? Essentially a LPTA?

Answer: The basis for award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable as stated in Section M, Paragraph 1a. Factors 1 & 2 will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as stated. Factor 3 is evaluated as stated, price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404‐1. Through these techniques the

Government will determine whether prices are reasonable and complete.

49. Question: Please confirm we are to use the Davis Bacon Wage Scale dated 1/6/2017? Is there a more current wage scale that all the contractors should use on pricing?

Answer: Refer to the updated Attachments C001‐C007 and D001‐D007.

50. Question: Will the Government accept AUTOCAD Revit drawing format on design build projects?

The RFP seems to limit the drawing format to Bentley MicroStation. Most architectural firms have adopted AutoCAD Revit at this time. Will AUTOCAD Revit drawing format be acceptable for as‐built drawing submittals?

Answer: Each drawing sheet shall be prepared in computer‐aided design (CAD) Bentley Microstation

(DGN) format. The Government will not accept AutoCAD Revit format. The Government uses

MicroStation V8i. Revit is a data intensive 3D modeling program which is not utilized by the

Government.

51. Question: When is closing date of W91248‐17‐R‐0001?

Answer: December 11, 2017 at 12:00 (noon) CST

52. Question: Will specifications be provided?

Answer: In Amendment 005, it states that specifications have been removed.

53. Question: Will the chimney be painted or removed?

Answer: It shall be capped and removed below the roof line.

54. Question: Who will be removing the furniture in the building?

Answer: The contractor is required to move the furniture.

55. Question: Can you please send us the attendee sign in sheet for the site visit yesterday?

Answer: No. the attendee list will not be disbursed.

56. Question: Are the attached plans the only drawings released for this solicitation as it appears that there are pages missing due to the following page breaks from A‐102 to A‐701 and E1 of 5 to E5 of 5.

Can you please advise in regards to the drawings?

Answer: The drawings in the solicitation are the only drawings we felt were necessary to perform the work indicated in the SOW.

57. Question: Attachment 004 includes Labor Rates for three (3) specific job functions. The proposal instructions state that these rates shall be the maximum allowable rates for the entire contracting period. Understanding that this is a five (5) year contract, are we to propose labor rates that would assume labor costs five (5) years from now rather than current labor costs?

Answer: See Question 35

58. Question: The proposal instructions under Volume IV, Factor 3 also state that Attachment 004 shall include the Task Order SOW (Exhibit B001) Pricing Proposal inclusive of labor rates WITHOUT DISCOUNT. If we are to assume labor rates for five years into the future, the labor rates for the current task order would be excessive for today’s market.

Answer: Volume IV of the proposal instructions covers IDIQ Pricing includes labor rates without discount. This price covers all five years. See Question #35. Volume V of the proposal instructions covers Task Order Pricing. The offeror may discount their labor rate for the LPTA competition of the task order award.

59. Question: The proposal instructions under Volume V, state that we are to provide a price proposal equal to that as part of Attachment 004, with the exception of any applied discounts to labor rates.

However, Volume IV, Sections specifically states that no discounts are allowed. Please clarify if labor discounts are allowed, if the assumption is that pricing in Attachment 004 & 005 are to be equal.

Answer: Volume IV of the proposal instructions covers IDIQ Pricing and Volume V of the proposal instructions covers Task Order Pricing. These are separate volume because they are not the same evaluations. See Section M. IDIQ Pricing will be evaluated to determine IDIQ contract awards. Task Order Pricing will be evaluated to determine the task order award.

60. Question: The Solicitation as revised by Amendment 0005 requires that all proposal files be provided in their native format, i.e. Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel. If the native format for the proposal files is not Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel, is the Offeror required to convert the files?

Answer: The native format is the format the document was originally created in. Typically this is a Microsoft Office application. If the document was scanned in PDF by a subcontractor that is acceptable.

61. Question: The Solicitation requires that all price breakdown information be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Subcontractors/Suppliers submit their pricing in PDF files. Is this an acceptable format for proposal backup information?

Answer: Yes, PDF Files are acceptable as backup.

62. Question: Is it acceptable to submit the Bid Guarantee for the Task Order electronically in a PDF file?

Answer: Section L revised. The Bid Guarantee will be submitted electronically with the proposal submission and in hardcopy via mail within 4 days of proposal submission.

63. Question: Page 84, Section J, Technical Exhibit A lists CDRL 0001 ‐ 0012. The current Exhibit A contains only CDRL 0001 ‐ 0011. Will a revised Technical Exhibit A be issued to correct this?

Answer: Revised Section J.

64. Question: Based on the Questions/Answers in Attachment 006, Amendment 0005 concerning the format for submission of as‐built drawings, it is our understanding that CAD format .DWG is an acceptable format (Q34) and that Revit is not an acceptable format (Q50). Is this correct?

Answer: That is correct.

65. Question: Are KY170145 Heavy and KY170102 Highway the correct Davis Bacon Act wage determinations for the Task Order – BLDG 39 RESET?

Answer: KY170168 Building is the appropriate wage determination for this task order.

66. Question: The solicitation requires that the SSHO must be dedicated to each project and cannot be shared between different project sites. Based on the following excerpts from EM 385‐1‐1, the Superintendent can function as the SSHO or Safety POC (based on the RAC) with a designated qualified subcontractor serving as Alternate. Is this acceptable?

67. Question: Page 63 of the Amendment 0005 Conformed Copy, Paragraph (f) (1) states to use “2‐in‐1” as the document type; please verify this is correct.

Answer: The invoicing type will vary by task order.

68. Question: Does the Government have any suspect material reports for Building 39?

Answer: Assuming this question refers to “hazardous material reports.” An Asbestos report will be provided in this amendment.

69. Question: The Solicitation requires that each Volume of the proposal contain a Glossary. Is a Glossary required to be submitted for Volume I, Volume IV and Volume V?

Answer: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. If there are no abbreviations that are not spelled out, then no glossary is required.

70. Question: Please provide existing as built drawings for Building 39 showing the type of construction to be encountered through the duration of this project?

Answer: Attached PDF is the as‐build wall sections located in the archives.

71. Question: Please provide all existing information (drawings, sketches, photos from previous work) regarding the construction of the walls associated with the replacement of the windows?

Answer: The walls are of original construction with vinyl siding applied directly on the clap board style siding using a Styrofoam insulation board.

72. Question: How would the government like for offerors to address the issue of damaged materials that cannot be estimated until the work commences? As an example in Exhibit B001 SOW for Building 39 under 3.0 Project Description, 3.1.3.9 states to demo damaged underlayment and,

3.1.3.10 states to replace damaged wood. Until the siding is removed the condition of the existing material and the quantity of the damaged wood cannot be reasonably assessed and quantified.

Please provide quantities for all bidders to use in order to ensure consistent evaluation of offers.

Answer: Each contractor should allow for up to 4,000 square feet of sheathing to be replaced. This is an estimated quantity to be priced per SF.

73. Question: In accordance with UFC 4‐010‐01 the windows and framing that the windows mount to need to be brought into compliance with current standards. This includes the provision for blast rated windows to be provided as a function of the project and the associated mounting substrate being of sufficient structural integrity to support the loads transferred from the windows. There is no discussion of this in the SOW however as part of the IDIQ requirements in Part 28 Applicable Codes and Regulations this would be a requirement of the project. Please confirm this is a requirement?

Answer: This is a WWII structure with the project value less than 50% of the replacement value therefore this is not required.

74. Question: Will the offerors be required to provide all Engineering associated with the AT/FP issue related to this project?

Answer: See answer 73.

75. Question: Request secondary site walk for offerors engineers and window contractors to review the existing structure.

Answer: Revised to add secondary site visit.

76. Question: Due to the extremely short window between the site visit and the bid date we request an extension of no less than two weeks to allow for reasonable engineering an pricing efforts to occur prior to bidding. This will allow for the government to get the most cost effective pricing by allowing offerors and their subcontractors to fully analyze the risks associated with the AT/FP aspects of this project.

Answer: December 11, 2017 at 12:00 (noon) CST is the final extension for this MAIDIQ

77. Question: Please confirm the period of performance for this project remains 180 days after Notice to Proceed? This is a concern as window lead times along with the submittal process may not allow sufficient time to complete within the stated period.

Answer: The Period of Performance is 180 days however lead times plays an important part so if more time is required it can be adjusted.

78. Question: For the purpose of establishing the appropriate prevailing wage for the seed project, please confirm if the project is located within Kentucky or Tennessee?

Answer: T‐39 is located in Kentucky.

79. Question: When reviewing all the documentation for Addendum #5 there is no specifications on this particular project. Can you please provide these or advise as soon as possible.

Answer: Per Amendment 005 it states “REMOVED Specifications”

80. Question: Is it Contracting's intent for offerors to utilize wage rates under "building" construction type? Please confirm the appropriate construction type designation for wage rates‐there are marked rate differences between each. First page of Scope of Work references Heavy and Highway Construction types in effect for wage rates‐the updated wage rate documents (C001‐C007 and D001‐D‐007) are acknowledged.

Answer: Previously addressed in Question 65

81. Question: Electronic submission and retaining native file formats will result in a multitude of differing files in our emailed bid or perhaps one email per volume (I‐V); also a limitation on file sizes in emails. To avoid that confusion, is it acceptable to provide link to a ShareFile folder with folders for each volume or alternatively to provide a "zipped" folder for each Volume (I‐V) so folder can be unzipped by Contract Specialist yielding the various requested, native files? Please advise best method(s) for file reception/submission

Answer: Proposals can be submitted via multiple emails if the ‘Subject’ includes a naming convention similar to “Email X of X”.

82. Question: Will the Owner of Bldg 39 remove all furniture, electronics, etc. in preparation for the carpet removal/installation and reset after completion?

Answer: See answer 54.

83. Question: Will the contractor be allowed to use a lift for the exterior work instead of scaffolding?

Answer: Yes.

84. Question: Will the contractor be allowed to place a dumpster on site for waste/demolition refuse?

85. Answer: Yes.

86. Question: Will the contractor be allowed to have a temporary storage unit set during, or part of the project duration to store the materials that will be removed from the exterior building and reinstalled?

Answer: Yes but storage is outside Gate 7 only

87. Question: We only see the listing for 24 ga. panel and 90 mph wind uplift. It references per the FT

Campbell Design Guide in 3.1.1.8. I do not see the design guide attachment. Could you provide this?

Answer: Paragraph 3.1.1.8 is to be replaced with the following in its entirety. The new Roof system shall be a 24 Gauge architectural standing seam roof, to match the roof at building 2601 directly to the west (behind). The roof system installed at 2601 is “Ultra‐Dek” by Star Building systems, color

“Medium Bronze”. (Data sheet and color chart included). The areas to install the SSMR are sections

A thru G and I, Roof Section Drawing 1, to include all flashing, drip edge, GAF felt‐buster synthetic felt or equivalent and provide roof with a 90 mph wind load rating and 20 year manufacturer’s warranty.

88. Question: Since we are now 1 week away from due date, and recognizing that all answers will have a significant impact on how we provide our pricing, we respectfully request that MICC Fort Campbell consider an extension of at least one week to accommodate time to modify our proposal based on the answers to be provided.

Answer: Previously addressed above.

89. Question: Vol. V Task Order Pricing states “that the offeror shall submit a proposed price with sufficient detailed narrative and backup for each task in the Task Order PWS (Exhibit B001). Please confirm that “each task” is referencing tasks 3.1.1 Roofing, 3.1.2 Awning, 3.1.3 Exterior Walls, etc.

(equaling 10 tasks).

Answer: Correct.

90. Question: Paragraph 3.1.10.4 of the SOW Exhibit B001 states that “all window sizes shall be field verified, and windows shall meet or exceed the following minimum requirements: a, b, c, d, e, f, and

g. However, it does not reference any specifics to the Fort Campbell Design Guide or any other specifications. Is there any kind of rating for the new windows being installed, such as storm, blast, etc. as that can alter the cost of the window substantially?

Answer: Specification are listed in the paragraph as a‐g. And Answer 24

91. Question: Paragraph 3.1.1.10.2.1 of the SOW Exhibit B001 states that “the contractor is required to provide a RCI Registered Roof Consultant (RRC)…”. Can the role of this person be dual hatted if the Quality Control Manager of the project is certified by RCI? If not, then does this person need to be noted separately in the Attachment 005 Task Order Proposal Summary Format due to cost incurred by the contractor?

Answer: The idea is to have a 3rd party individual perform this task, recommend separate entry or include as part of roof costs

92. Question: At the site visit, it was mentioned several times there were no Specifications for this project. The statement of work (SOW) for example, reads ‐Section 3.1.1.8 Install a 24 gauge standing seam metal roof per Fort Campbell Design Guide…. Can we receive a copy of the Fort Campbell Design Guide?

Answer: See answer 37

93. Question: The Past Performance Questionnaires have already been returned in time for the original solicitation due date. Will these Questionnaires still be used since the proposal due date has been changed?

Answer: Yes

94. Question: Paragraph 3.1.1.1 states to demo the entire roof on sections A thru G and section I which will include all flashing, drip edge, felt paper, and asphalt shingles. However, it does not mention anything about the existing decking that is left exposed. Are we to assume that the decking is in acceptable condition to remain or do we need to make provisions to replace since those are conditions we are not able to see currently?

Answer: Please assume existing decking is sufficient to install new SSMR.

95. Question: Paragraph 3.1.10.1 states to demo/replace seventy nine (79) windows. Is the

Government going to be responsible for providing clear accessibility within the interior location of the replaced window? If not, do we need to make provisions within the proposal to account for moving of furniture, etc.?

Answer: Contractor shall provide labor required for window access.

96. Question: Will the offerors be required to provide a Designer of Record as a function of the current seed project?

Answer: Other than the roof design (shop drawings which should be stamped) there should not be any other design involved in the project.

97. Question: If there are modifications required to the structural system of the current window openings as a function of the ATFP requirements will said modification require design deliverables for review of appropriate government stakeholders? If so what iterations (i.e. 35%, 50, etc.) will be required?

Answer: Previously addressed these are WWII building does not apply