MATOC_RFI_Answers4.docx

NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD

UNITED STATES PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICE

PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING DIVISION

2452 Fairview Drive Carson City, Nevada 89701

NVMD-PFO-PC 12 March 2013

SUBJECT: Answers to Requests for Information, MATOC 2013

1. The following are questions and the government’s answers:

a. Page 22 of 143 Paragraph 2.3, Binder 2 volume 3, Technical Information, states “Volume 3 is limited to 10 double-sided sheets (2) pages.” Please clarify if it should state “10 double-sided (20) single pages.

-ANSWER: 10 double-sided (20) pages.

b. Page 73 of 143, Section 00800 Paragraph SC1 Purpose and Scope 1.16.3 states that “The purpose of this MATOC is to provide construction services for a broad range of military renovation and construction projects, primarily in support of National Guard facilities in the Washington D.C. area including…in the state of Maryland…in the state of Virginia.” Please confirm this is a typographical error and it should state only the state of Nevada as outlined in the Areas of Consideration locations of work.

-ANSWER: For the purpose of this solicitation, this MATOC is primarily in support of National Guard Facilities in the State of Nevada.

c. Do you desire to see design firms included in the list of subcontractors?

-ANSWER: If submitting for design-build, include who you will be partnering with.

Please clarify this answer. Nowhere in the proposal preparation/evaluation criteria pages is there any mention of submitting a design firm as part of our proposal. Are we required to include a design firm? If so, in which binder/volume should the information be included? What information will be required?

-ANSWER: If submitting for design-build and you do not have in-house design capabilities, submit subcontractor/teaming information for design firm in accordance with Section 00120.

d. Is the Introductory Letter in Volume 1 to be inserted behind Exhibit E, or as the first page of Volume 1?

-ANSWER: Introductory Letter should be first.

Please clarify this answer. Paragraph 2.1.6.3 of the Solicitation states, “Include an introductory letter that contains a points of contact with names and email and phone numbers. Provide the names of authorized negotiators. Provide Cage Code, Duns number, Tax ID number. Statement of socio-economic size. (Also include this letter on the CD required for Binder 2-Volumes 2 and 3).”

The answer in RFI #3 implies that the introductory letter should be included with Volume 1. Should this letter be included with Binder 1 (Volume 1) or Binder 2 (Volumes 2 and 3), and the CD for Binder 2?

-ANSWER: Binder 1, Volume 1.

e. Paragraph 2.1.6.1 on Page 19 states that Offerors shall provide all price/cost information necessary to provide a meaningful basis for Government’s analysis and evaluation of price/cost for the prototypical project. But the paragraph later states that offerors may be required, during the evaluation process to provide sufficient price/cost information that will enable the Government to perform an evaluation.

In the proposal response, are we required to submit price/cost information for the prototypical project other than Exhibit E, and, if so, what information does the Government wish to see?

-ANSWER: In accordance with 2.1.6.1, if the Government requests FURTHER price/cost information, the “request for clarification of pricing will not be construed as being discussions. Request is only to obtain a better understanding of price proposed.”

f. Is the schedule for the prototypical project included in the 20 page count for Exhibit D, as this may be multiple pages?

-ANSWER: See Section 00120: 3.4 and 3.5.

g. Is it acceptable for the prototypical project schedule to be on an 11 x 17 sheet?

-ANSWER: See Section 00110: 1.6.3.

h. Normally on all past MATOC and MACCS, teaming agreements are used because the General Contractor/Prime Contractor does not have the experience necessary for the contract/solicitation. When asking us to provide this information, this will limit us to whomever we submit for (5) five years, or the duration of this MATOC. We do not believe this is in the best interest of the Government, and will actually limit competition in the future amongst subcontractors.

This was an old requirement from over 10 years ago, that was a part of the original SOC (Solution Order Contracts) now called MACCs that has long been done away with for many reasons that are of interest to the Government.

If a General contractor qualifies on their own merit, is the above required?

-ANSWER: Listing subcontractors will not disqualify the general contractor from self performing. If the intent of the general contractor is to self-perform all aspects of all task orders, specific information related to Capability and Experience and Key Personnel must be provided in accordance with EXHIBIT D.

i. On the answers and Questions page dated March 6, the answer to question H notes that “Valid previously completed Past Performance Evaluations may be resubmitted for consideration.” Does a “valid” form constitute a form exactly similar to the Exhibit C2, or can alternate past performance forms (ie., a NAVFAC USACE questionnaire) be submitted as well?

-ANSWER: Section 00110, 2.2.1. Offerors shall discuss, using the Performance Relevancy Questionnaire format, Exhibit A, Part 1 their performance for six (6) general construction projects.

j. Please clarify what areas are included within “Other Outlying Areas of Nevada” in order for us to make a determination of whether we can respond within the 120 minute timeframe.

-ANSWER: “Other Outlying Areas of Nevada” was intentionally inserted to avoid limiting locations to only specific sites, and are not predetermined or necessarily identifiable.

k. We request that the response time be increased to 180 minutes to enable us to respond to an additional Location.

-ANSWER: Response time remains 120 minutes.

l. Response to RFI “h” asking if previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires may be submitted in lieu of asking clients to complete the forms again states, “Valid previously completed Past Performance Evaluations may be resubmitted for consideration.” However, during the pre-proposal conference the same question was asked verbally and attendees were informed that previous questionnaires could not be resubmitted. Please clarify.

-ANSWER: The intent of the response at the Pre Proposal Conference was to convey the message that Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted by the clients, not the contractor being evaluated. The response to question “h” remains valid if it complies with Section 00110, 2.2.1: Offerors shall discuss, using the Performance Relevancy Questionnaire format, Exhibit A, Part 1 their performance for six (6) general construction projects.

m. The “Date” on the latest revision of EXHIBIT E PROTOTYPICAL PROJECT …..is still February 14, 2013. Will this affect the pricing for Building 55?

-ANSWER: The revised verbiage in the NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROJECT, SOLICITATION (EXHIBIT E) did not affect the date of the original notice. No inferences as to price should be drawn from not revising the date of the NOTICE.

n. Following the pre-proposal conference, we would like to confirm that we may respond to Elko and other outlying areas in greater timeframe than 120 minutes.

-ANSWER: Please address your ABILITY to respond within 120 minutes.

o. We believe that we heard that a subcontractor may respond for the prime contractor in some situations. Can you confirm this? Is this a specific location? Following the pre-proposal conference, we would like to confirm that we may respond to Elko and other outlying areas in greater timeframe than 120 minutes.

-ANSWER: If awarded a MATOC contract, a contractor may be requested at a site. Privity of contract exists only between the recipient of the contract award and the Government. While a subcontractor may respond, no contractual relationship or obligation exists, other than between the Government and the General Contractor. Therefore, the response of a subcontractor may not adequately address the requirement of the Government.

Please address your ABILITY to respond within 120 minutes.

p. When do you anticipate posting the pre-proposal attendance list and slides?

-ANSWER: The pre-proposal attendance roster and slides were posted on 12 March 2013.