RFPAttachment18FHL_QAs.doc

Questions and Answers

FHL JOC

W9124J-12-R-0015 Attachment 18

1. Question: At L-A.3, it states that all questions should be submitted “within ten (10) calendar days of the solicitation being posted.” That would be October 1, 2012, two days prior to the site visit/pre-proposal conference. Would it be possible for the RFI period to be extended a few days after the site visit/pre-proposal conference?

Response: Yes, the closing date for receiving questions was extended until 9 Oct 12. This was communicated at the pre-proposal conference.

2. Question: We would like to know if there is an intent to award the Sample Project after the Contract has been awarded?

Response: No. There is no intent to award the Sample Project after the Contract has been awarded.

3. Question: Will any project under Vol-III (Factor 2--Past Performance) be considered outside the anticipated task order price range of $2,000-$750,000?

Response: Section M states, “To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity.” Also, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations, the typical JOC task order’s size will be $2,000 - $750,000. Contracts that are outside the typical price range will be considered, provided the contracts are similar in size.

4. Question: What projects types will be more favorably evaluated; a project with fewer trades/scopes within the TO price range or a project that has multiple-trades but outside the TO price range?

Response: A contract submitted for past performance purposes will be evaluated as relevant or not relevant. There are no “degrees of relevancy.” Consequently, one relevant contract will not be viewed as “more favorable” over another relevant contract. Once a contract is determined to be recent and relevant, then performance on the contract is evaluated.

The RFP, Section M, Paragraph B.3(c) defines Relevancy Assessment as “To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

5. Question: Can an official CCASS Performance Evaluation be included in lieu of a Past-Performance-Questionnaire (PPQ) under Vol-III?

Response: No, the PPQs shall be submitted, even if CCASS reports exist on the referenced contract.

6. Question: Can a prior PPQ for the same relevant project be included in lieu of a new Past-Performance-Questionnaire under Vol-III?

Response: No, the solicitation PPQ must be used, and shall be sent directly from the individual completing the PPQ to the contract specialist. Instructions are found in Section L, paragraph (c).

7. Question: In the RFP at Section C Paragraph C.1.5.1 reference is made to, and a link is provided, the “Fort Hunter Liggett Job Order Contract Technical Specifications, Divisions 1 through 48.” When the link is followed, you end up with an unedited specification volume. Is there an edited version of the document?

Response: No, there is not an edited version of the document.

8. Question: Are we to enter our coefficient (Unit Price), Max Amount, and Max Net Amt for the NPP CLINs (0004, 1004, 2004, 3004 and 4004)?

Response: Yes, per Section M4, FACTOR 3(a) – PRICE EVALUATION, “The Offeror shall respond to Section B and propose a Coefficient for pre-priced work and a Coefficient for Non-Pre-priced Work not in the UPB.”

9. Question: C.1.4.4 states that plumber trades personnel working on the JOC will require a license. As far as I know there is no such license for working plumbers in California. Please clarify.

Response: SOW paragraph C.1.4.4 have been deleted. The SOW has been amended to reflect this change.

10. Question: C1.6.4.1 seems to require that the QC Manager not be the on-site project manager or the project superintendent. Is this correct?

Response: Yes, the QC Manager shall not be the on-site project manager or project superintendent.

11. Question: H.12.a states that for NPP work in excess of $2,500, three competitive quotes are required. If applicable, will this be required for the Sample Task Order?

Response: Yes, if applicable, three competitive quotes are required.

12. Question: L.C.2.(c)(1) states that the “Original” of each volume is to be placed in a six-part classification folder. For other proposals, the requirement for the six-part folder has only been for the “General” volume. Please confirm the requirement pertains to all four volumes.

Response: This requirement pertains to the “Original” of all four (4) volumes.

13. Question: The directions for Volume I – General indicate that Tab E is for SBA approved Joint Venture Agreements. If we are not a joint venture, does Tab E become “Bid Guarantee”?

Response: No, please indicate “Not Applicable” under Tab E, and continue to use Tab F for the Bid Guarantee.

14. Question: Will this JOC have a design-build component?

Response: No, minimal designs through shop drawings, joint scoping with the contractor is the preferred method to address design.

15. Question: Is a bid bond required for the Sample Project? Will this project be awarded?

Response: No, a bid bond is not required for the sample project. The sample project will not be awarded.

16. Question: Section M, A.4 states “Offers received for less than stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award”. No bid schedule was found, can you please provide?

Response: Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices) of the RFP is the Bid Schedule.

17. Question: Is Attachment 14 (Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet) to be completed and submitted as is or may we revise the Attachment 14 form to eliminate obvious duplications and numbering conflicts?

Response: Yes, the form at Attachment 14 can be revised to eliminate obvious duplications and numbering conflicts. The form is just a sample of what is required. However, please review the answers to all questions below before changes are made to the form.

18. Question: Completion Date/delivery schedule is included twice on the form. (Attachment 14) Response: The first Completion Date/delivery schedule is to be used if the contract is completed. The second instance of the Completion Date/delivery schedule is if the contract is for current contract not yet completed.

19. Question: The number 7 POC on the instruction sheet is combined with the "Relevancy Description", which does not have a number on the actual form. (Attachment 14) Response: The “Relevancy Description” is one part of number 7.

20. Question: On item number 4, is the information being requested the contracting agency (the client)? There are also no lines to include their information on the form. (Attachment 14) Response: Item number 4 states what is to be provided. Numbers 5 and 6 are where the information requested in number 4 is to be provided.

21. Question: Number 10 is listed on the instruction sheet, but there is no number 10 on the form. (Attachment 14) Response: The instruction sheet describes what needs to be part of specific relevant contracts, should have been in Attachment 14 work sheets. The Offeror can add number 10 and follow the instructions for number 10 of the instruction sheet.

22. Question: We are inquiring if the Bonding Request can be reduced to reflect each task assignment? As an 8a firm it is difficult obtain this much bonding for a project is not awarded the full value on one given task as a standalone project. Bonding a JOC is normally premised on the work reflecting each task.

Response: No, the RFP Bonding Request cannot be reduced. The JOC Guide, Chapter 5, Work Execution and Contract Administration, page 5-15 states “Bonding. The solicitation shall clearly notify offerors of initial and continuing bonding requirements. Initial bonding must be sufficient to cover the stated estimated annual maximum contract value. The estimated annual maximum contract value is $6M.

23. Question: May we submit a CCAS in place of a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)?

Response: No. See the response to question #5.

24. Question: In the discussion of the requirements for Volume 2 – Technical at (2)a.(2), it is stated that we must demonstrate understanding of events to be considered in a task order schedule. Then in (2)e.(4) it indicates that the Sample Task Order (STO) proposal is to specify the number of days to complete the STO. To fulfill these two proposal requirements, should we submit a schedule for the STO?

Response: Yes, a schedule shall be submitted.

25. Question: During the site visit/pre-proposal conference, Ft. Hunter Liggett’s “Net Zero” goal was stressed. For the STO, should we include Net Zero elements such as solar tubes and motion sensor switches on lights?

Response: Yes, Net Zero elements should be included.

26. Question: I believe the wage decision listed in the RFP has been superseded by one dated 9/28/12. Should we use this later wage decision?

Response: Yes, the wage determinations dated 28 Sep 12, should be used. The solicitation will be amended to include the newest wage determinations.

27. Question: It is our understanding that the Sample Task (Attachment 17) will not be awarded. Is this correct?

Response: Yes correct, the sample task will not be awarded.

28. Question: The Sample Task Order (STO) SOW indicates that the lighting for the classroom shall be 2’ x 2’ fluorescent fixtures. Is the entire acoustic ceiling to be on a 2’ x 2’ grid? Or is 2’ x 4’ preferred?

Response: Sample task order is intentionally vague, see section L subfactor 1E: comprehension of requirements ‘sample task’.

29. Question: The instructions for the proposals indicate we are to use a font no smaller than 12 point. Attachment 14, Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet is in 10 Point. Should we: 1) complete the form in 10 point; 2) convert the attachment to 12 point; or, 3) leave the heading in 10 point and provide the responses in 12 point?

Response: Offeror’s can convert Attachment 14 to 12 point.

30. Question: There is a significant difference, for example, in a coefficient of 1.12 and one of 1.13. If a contractor believes that his coefficient needs to be 12.5%, then he must either choose 1.12 (and possibly lose money) or 1.13 (and charge more than necessary). Would the government consider allowing coefficients be expressed to three (3) decimal places, e.g., 1.125? In addition to eliminating the dilemma expressed above, it would allow for a finer discrimination between contractors.

Response: Yes, upon further consideration, offerors can submit coefficients expressed to three (3) decimal places, i.e. 1.273. If an offeror submits a coefficient expressed to four (4) decimal places, then the Government shall round UP to three decimal places, i.e. 1.2732 would be rounded up to 1.274.

31. Question: For the price volume, paragraph 2) directs the offeror to describe any discounts off RS Means that are anticipated and how they are arrived at. What is considered to be a discount off RS Means – a coefficient less than 1.0?

Response: Generally, yes. However, the Government is not stating that ONLY those coefficients at 1.0 or below are considered to have proposed discounts off RSMeans. For example, a coefficient above 1.0 (e.g. 1.043 or 1.098) may also indicate the offeror is anticipating discounts off the RSMeans prices. Each Offeror will need to make this determination.

32. Question: When a new option period is awarded, will new $6 million payment and performance bonds be required?

Response: Yes, new $6 million payment and performance bonds will be required to cover the option period.

33. Question: Paragraph B.1.4 enumerates numerous items that are to be accounted for in the contractor’s coefficient. Item number 5 is for safety and compliance with EPA/OSHA requirements. Past project experience at Fort Hunter Liggett (because of its natural resources) has ended up with compliance costs of 2-5%. Can items such as SWPPP measures (waddles, silt fences) be treated as non-pre-priced items?

Response: No, not in every case, silt fences for example are in the unit price book.

34. Question: Regarding EPA/OSHA requirements, what about environmental tasks such as lead, asbestos, and mold abatement? Are they to be an element of the coefficient? Or will we be able to use the appropriate RS Means line items in Division 2?

Response: Contractor will be able to use the appropriate RS Means line items when available for lead, asbestos and mold abatement.

35. Question: For Attachment 14, the description for item 7 COR appears to be for “relevancy.” Is this correct?

Response: Yes, item 7 is used to identify the Government or commercial technical representative or COR and for relevancy.

36. Question: The RFP states that if we are submitting past performance information for a “commercial” customer” we are to submit with our proposal a “client authorization letter.” Do state and local governments qualify as commercial customers? Can a sample “client authorization letter” be provided?

Response: Yes, State and local governments qualify as commercial customers, no sample authorization letter will be provided, see Attachment 15.

37. Question: Under Vol-1, Tab-F, reference is made to a bid bond (SF24) in the amount of 20% or $3M whichever is less is to be submitted. And under Vol-2, Factor-1, a bondability letter is required showing a minimum capacity of $6M. Please confirm the $6M bondability letter from our bonding company is for an aggregate amount.

Response: These are two separate subjects.

First, Vol-1, Tab-F, reference is made to a bid bond (SF24) in the amount of 20% of the bid price or $3M, whichever is less, is to be submitted. For clarification, the “the bid price” is the total proposed price, including option periods.

Second, no, the $6M bondability letter is for “contract bonding”, not aggregate bonding.

38. Question: We understand each task order will require payment & performance bonds separately and upon actual TO award. Please confirm.

Response: No, this is incorrect. Payment & performance bonds are not issued for each task order. Payment & performance bonds are required to cover the stated estimated annual maximum contract value, which is $6M. If the estimated annual maximum value is exceeded, FAR 28.102-2(a) and (b) apply.

39. Question: Though several key personnel will be designated to support this IDIQ contract, can the government confirm which personnel will be required to be onsite full-time, at minimum, since some of the personnel would likely be onsite on as-need basis?

Response: The Contractor’s on-site project manager will be the only key person who is required to be on-site, full-time. The SOW paragraphs C.1.4.1 and C.2.1.6.1 will be updated to reflect this change. Although no other Key Personnel are identified as required to be on-site full-time, the SOW is clear that “The Contractor shall have an on-site staff to respond to the requirements set forth in this contract.”

40. Question: Page 120 of 128, Vol. III, seems to imply this includes RFP attachment#14 (Specific Relevant Contract Sheet) and RFP attachment#15 (Past Performance Questionnaire). We initially understood the intent was to have our evaluators submit PPQs for each selected project by the early date (16 Oct 12), and then Contract Sheets for each project would be included within the proposal submission package due on 23 Oct 12 and this would not include the PPQs as these would have been transmitted directly by the project references/evaluators. Please clarify the early submission materials/data needed by the government.

Response: Section L, paragraph 3(c)(1), Early Proposal Information, states, “The Offeror is requested to submit the Past Performance Volume III no later than 16 October 2012, to the Contract Specialist at the address specified in L-I A.1.” However, the government is extending the receipt date for the past performance volume until 18 Oct 2012. Amendment 0001 will indicate this change.

Section L, paragraph 3(c) Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 15) also states, “The points of contact shall return the questionnaires directly to the Contract Specialist (KS) not later than 16 October 2012.” However, the government is extending the receipt date for the Past Performance Questionnaire until 18 Oct 2012. Amendment 0001 will indicate this change.

41. Question: If DPW government employees at Fort Hunter Liggett already know of the quality and type of construction work my company has performed on Post, do I still need to provide details in my proposal?

Response: Yes! ONLY the material submitted in your proposal will be evaluated.