Atch_006_-_Questions-Answers.pdf

ATTACHMENT 006

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

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

Answer: August 24, 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 is automatically generated when creating a solicitation for an IDIQ contract.

Values are not provided because there are no established minimum and maximum limitations on the value of task orders.

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: At this time there are no documents required to be submitted, that’s why the paragraph is reserved.

8. Question: What date does the Government anticipate that the Task Order Seed Project will be awarded?

Answer: The government anticipates the first task order will be issued a within a month after the contracts are awarded.

9. 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.

10. 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: The phrase “bid bond” should not have been in this solicitation. There is no such thing as a “bid bond.” This paragraph 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 58.228‐15 is required to be submitted for each task order. It shall be submitted only be the awardee of the task order. It is required to be submitted within 10 days after award.

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.

11. 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 that is mutually agreed upon by both parties.

12. 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?

13. 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 PWS, otherwise it is not a requirement. If the Task Order PWS requires relocation of property but does not specify instructions then instructions will be provided in during a site‐visit prior to the proposal due date. The site‐visit for the first task order was conducted on 24 August 2017. This response assumes ‘scoping’ is intended to mean ‘site‐visit.’ Scoping is an incorrect terminology.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 government contends that the 30 page limitation is sufficient to address the technical subfactors in Volume II.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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: 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 E by the Government. There is nothing the offeror needs to submit to the government related to this tab.

23. 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: Volumes IV and V require pricing for each task and short narrative detailing or explaining how the price was derived. Volumes IV and V are not asking for a detailed narrative on the technical performance of each task.

24. 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 Section M, IDIQ Pricing and Task Order Pricing. Volume IV will be evaluated to make the IDIQ Contract awards. Volume V will be evaluated to make the first Task Order award.

Volume V will be evaluated immediately after the IDIQ awards have been determined.

25. 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 to identify the measurement standard for technically acceptable.

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

Answer: Since the instruction requires multiple projects of varying size and complexity, it will be interpreted that at least one project is in the range of $100K to $500K and the other projects can vary outside that range. The answer is yes.

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

Answer: Yes, this is a typo.

28. 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 one is different.

As a result the overall confidence assessment is subjective each offer’s submission. 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.

29. 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 via this amendment to electronic only.

30. 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: This amendment will remove the submission and evaluation of subcontractor past performance. This answer is the response to all questing regarding subcontractor past performance evaluation.

31. 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. Please consolidate any redundancies and duplications into a single responses. Please present all the consolidate information in a logical format following the general outline of the attachment.

32. 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).

33. 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.

34. 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?

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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: Lump Sum pricing is the submission of a price with only the total price and no supporting breakouts show how the price was derived. This is why a narrative supporting the pricing elements is required in the same paragraph.