W9124922R0006 Questions and Answers .pdf

Solicitation # W9124922R0006 Project: DE05323-1P Job Order Contracting (JOC)

1. Past performance is, understandably, a consideration. Many contractors have substantial experience with the types of task orders described in the solicitation but not necessarily under an IDIQ. I saw that this lack of past performance under an IDIQ was not supposed to count in the evaluation against vendors but, if others that have worked under an IDIQ are getting credit for this, doesn’t this place those without at a disadvantage? (Many located in a HUBZone are unlikely to have significant experience of this type). The sources sought was not written in such a restricted way.

Government Response: There is no advantage or extra credit given to those who have extensive past performance under IDIQ contracts. Past performance is not based on what the contractor has done but how well the contractor performed the work as similar in scope and complexity of the IDIQ requirements.

2. Many contractors are familiar with RS Means. The requirement, however, to demonstrate working knowledge of e4clicks seems to be unduly restrictive. Were we to be awarded this contract, we would gladly subscribe to the software and learn it. Can this be made a requirement post award and not part of the evaluation criteria during the proposal process?

Government Response: The Contractor shall meet the requirements regarding establishing a cost estimate utilizing RS Means utilizing RS Means unit price books (UPB) per the solicitation.

3. I have been following the Solicitation for the JOC at Fort Gordon.

(#W9124922R0006) I am trying to determine the incumbent. I have found several, including one JOC that was cancelled (W9124920D0003) and a bridge contract that expired in September 2021 (W9124921D0004). I also found W9124920D0005, but it expires in 2025, according to FPDS. Can you provide the actual contract number and vendor name?

Government Response: The MICC does not have a JOC contract at this time.

4. The solicitation states that hard copies will only be accepted. Later, it reads that email submissions only will be accepted. Please clarify.

Governments Response: Only Electronic submissions via email will be accepted.

Mailed, faxed or Hand carried proposal will Not be accepted

5. The proposal requires that a Past Performance Questionnaire be submitted however, there is no PPQ attached. Can you provide us with the proper form or is there another alternative?

Governments Response: The Past Performance Questionnaire will be uploaded into Sam.gov with the Amended Solicitation.

6. What is the total pool of funds for the five-year contract? Is it $5M per year (totaling $25M for the five years) or $5M for all five years?

Government Response: $4,999,999.80 (Base Plus 4 Option Periods).

Total Contract Value $24,999,999.00

7. In the Instructions to Offers section of the Solicitation, number 3 Proposal Preparation Instructions and number 4 Proposal Format (found on pages 54-55) provide conflicting instructions in regard to the number of volumes required for the proposal, the name of the volumes, and the exact method and format of submission. Can you clarify?

Government Response: See Amendment 001.

8. The solicitation makes multiple references to Attachment 1 (experience Overview Sheet) and Attachment 2 (Experience Information Sheet). The Proposal Requirements for Volume 2 Tab A: Subfactor 2 – Experience (page 58) says they are included at the end of Section L, but I have been unable to locate them. Please clarify where the attachments are.

Government Response: Attachments 1 Experience Overview and Attachment 2 Experience Information Sheet will be posted on Sam.gov.

9. Similarly, I have not been able to find Attachment 3 (Past Performance Questionnaire). Please clarify where the attachment is located.

Governments Response: Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaire will be posted to Sam.gov.

10. In Volume 3: Past Performance, is “Tab B: Matrix of Past Performance to Various Projects” included in the 10-page limit? If so, we request an increased page limit for this volume, as it would be impossible to include documentation of the maximum 10 projects in addition to the matrix.

Governments Response: Per solicitation requirements regarding Proposal Format, page limit excludes charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, and drawings.

11. The solicitation states that PPQs are to be sent to the Point of Contact. USACE dictates that the CPARS rating is the official means of giving past performance on their projects. As such their officers have been instructed to not complete PPQs on submissions. Will you accept the CPARS ratings in lieu of PPQs for USACE projects?

Governments Response: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): This is not to be provided with the Offeror’s proposal. For the contracts identified in the offeror’s completed Attachments 1 and 2, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the PPQ Survey (Attachment 3) to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under those contracts. Offerors are to request their references complete the survey and submit them to the Government point of contact shown on the Standard Form 1442. PPQ’s are due prior to the RFP closing time and date.

12. The instructions for Volume 4: Price Proposal (page 60) start with, “In addition to a completed Section B” I cannot find reference to a Section B anywhere else in the solicitation. Are you referring to Section 00 10 00 (pages 3-7)?

Governments Response: “In addition to a completed section B” does not exist and has been removed.

NASCO is interested in pursuing this contract as we were the prime contractor for a very successful JOC at Fort Gordon from 2007-2013 in which we burned over $27M.

The following JOC was also pretty successful and was awarded to our protégé partner Northcon. Since that time, based on our research, the JOC program doesn’t appear to have been used under the 2017 Ashford Leebcor JV award or the 2020 EPMH JV award. We are concerned about the lack of spending through the JOC vehicle since 2017, coupled with the requirement to have 4-5 personnel on-site. This scenario poses a significant risk to the contractor. We’re hoping you can provide some clarification that will help us to assess the risk and determine a fair and accurate coefficient.

13. From what we can tell, the last two JOC’s show little to no spending under the JOC contracting vehicle. Will the Government provide the historical annual spend under the

JOC?

Governments Response: The FY21 AWP program awarded over $7M to the JOC in only one year (2021-2022).

14.This JOC has an advertised annual max ceiling of $5M per year, does the Government anticipate reaching the max ceiling each year? If not, please indicate the Government’s anticipated annual spending under the JOC.

Governments Response: The Government anticipates reaching the max ceiling each year.