RFI 02 QA 20210901 - W9127Q-21-R-0005 MATOC IDIQ Construction .pdf

W9127Q-21-R-0005 MATOC IDIQ for CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) #2

31 August 2021

I. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:

13. Question: Volume2: Part 1: Subfactor 4: Quality Control and Safety Plan

Are you wanting statements regarding a company’s approach to QC and Safety, or are you wanting a complete copy of each plan? If you are wanting the actual plans themselves, is there a page limit for each plan?

On page 17 of 106, 5.2.7 Subfactor 4. Quality Control and Safety Plan, can the government please clarify if offerors are to submit standard company QC and Safety Plans in addition to responding to the prompts under paragraphs 5.2.7.1 and 5.2.7.2?

Answer #13: IAW 4.1.4.1. A Quality Control narrative shall be provided by the offeror. Safety plan in 4.1.4.2 should also be a narrative. Both should be sufficient enough to address items as listed in the solicitation in 4.1.4 Subfactor 4 (page 23), Paragraph 35 (page 104), and any other reference in the solicitation.

14. Question: On PDF page 14 of 106 of the Solicitation, paragraph 4.4 under Proposal Format: Please confirm, tabs are excluded from the page limits?

Answer #14: As stated in other sections of this solicitation (page 15-para. 4.4; page 13-paragraph 2.2.1), tabs are not included in page counts.

15. Question: Due to the complexity of the schedule and the required detail needed to answer the requirements under Subfactor 5 and Subfactor 6 of Volume 2, Part I – May charts such as the Gantt Chart, be on a 11X17 or 11x14 sized paper?

Answer #15: Though other sections of the solicitation state 8.5x11 paper, this is considered for standard type written pages. Charts such as the Gantt need to be legible. If 11x17 is needed to make it legible, then it shall be 11x17. If legal size 8.5 x 14 works for legible, then that is it.

16. Question: Paragraph 8.2.4 - Proposed Key Personnel (page 92 of solicitation) references SC38, SAFETY/ACCIDENT REPORTING. However, paragraph 38. Concerns FAR Clause 52.204-10 Reporting (page 105). Is this correct?

Answer #16: page 92 of 106, paragraph 8.2.4 SHOULD REFERENCE 35. Safety/Accident Reporting (page 104 of solicitation), NOT SC 38 concerning FAR 52.204-10 Reporting. PENDING AMENDMENT

17. Question:

a.) Page 19 of 106, paragraph 5.3.9, regarding Exhibit B Consent Form needs to be provided for subcontractors/teaming partners. Can the government please clarify what determines if a subcontractor needs to provide this consent form? Is there a certain % of work that they have to perform to be required to provide this consent form?

b.) In addition, will offerors be allowed to add subcontractors to their team after award to accommodate for scopes of work that were not listed in the solicitation?

c.) Are these subcontractors then considered “major subcontractors” in accordance with page 18 of 106, paragraph 5.3.7. If so, will an Exhibit B be required for each of the subcontractors listed as well as three references as stated in paragraph 5.3.8?

Answer #17:

a.) This question is basically answered in Exhibit A, Part II; we need the Consent form for your major subcontractors as relates to the disciplines listed in Exhibit A or other main disciplines you deem relevant to your success in completing construction projects.

b.) we are aware that subcontractors come and go for various reasons. Yes, subcontractors can be replaced after award with Government clearance and authorization.

c.) this paragraph/section has nothing to do with previous Exhibit B Consent Form and does not require that Form. This is relevant to LACK of past performance experience.

18. Question: This solicitation is total small business set-aside with $39.5M is the small business size standard. In reference to Solicitation section 12.5 Off-Ramping: If we exceed the $39.5M standards during the course of the five year ordering period, is this a condition that would result in Off-Ramping?

Answer #18: Potentially yes, but not without proper reviews, documentation, and confirmation from SBA, to ensure this is the case. On and Off ramping are new applications for our MATOC contracts. Main purpose of these is to maintain a competitive pool of small businesses capable of providing proposals & construction services through the course of this IDIQ.

19. Question:

Answer #19:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) #1

26 August 2021

I. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:

1. Question: With the proposal date falling on Sept. 30th which is the end of the government’s fiscal year. It will be difficult for firms to meet the bid date while finalizing end of year contracts. Would the National Guard allow the bid date to change to October 30th?”

Answer #1: At this time, there is no intention of extending the closing date for this solicitation.

2. Question: Attachment 1-Prototypical Project Statement of Work (REV) – AOG Facility, B104; Paragraph I.A. (Applicable Reference Documents). This paragraph lists 3 reference documents and only 2 are available. Please provide As-Built Facility Drawings for B-104

Answer #2: As-Builts were uploaded to SAM on 08/24/2021

3. Question: Paragraph 2.2.1 of Section 00110, limits the Technical Capability Proposal to 20 pages. The Technical Capability Proposal includes Subfactor 1 thru Subfactor 6. However, Paragraph 5.2.4 of Section 00110 (pg 17) limits Subfactor 1, Experience and Capability to 20 pages. Please clarify if this 20-page limit is only for Subfactor 1 or if it is for all of Volume 2, Part 1, Offeror Technical Capability Proposal?

Answer #3: The 20 page limit applies to Subfactor 1, Experience and Capability only as stated in Paragraph 5.2.4 of the RFP.

4. Question: Paragraph 5.2.8 of Section 00110, Subfactor 5, Project Scheduling Methodology, requires the submission of a construct schedule in a Gantt chart for the Prototypical Project. Can a different scheduling chart be provided in lieu of the Gantt chart?

Answer #4 A different chart for construction scheduling may be used in place of the Gantt chart provided this alternative shows the complete project schedule for this prototypical project from notice to proceed to completion, to include all construction activities as well as concurrent activities, and outline the critical path activities that will show successful execution of the construction project within the period of performance outlined

5. Question: Paragraph 5.3.10 of Section 00110 references Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). PPIRS is the same thing as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Correct?

Answer #5: Yes, these two platforms work together. One is the reporting element (CPARS) and the other is the retrieval element (PPIRS)

6. Question: Volume 1: Part 1: Subfactor 6 indicates the performance period on “Exhibit D” is 270 calendar days from NTP. Please advise to the anticipated NTP for the Prototypical Project.

Answer #6: Exhibit D PoP for the Prototypical Project is 270 days. The anticipated Notice to Proceed (NTP) would be November 01, 2021 if this project were to be awarded.

However this is just a Prototypical Project and WILL NOT BE AWARDED; this is only for MATOC Proposal evaluation purposes.

7. Question: RFP, SF 1442. Please confirm that an offer guarantee is NOT required.

Answer #7: See FAR 52.228-1 and 28-101-1. Bid Guarantee is required when payment and performance bonds are necessary. Our Prototypical Project is not to be awarded, thus does not require payment nor performance bonds and NO BID

BONDS

8. Question: RFP Exhibit C, Past Performance Questionnaires. Exhibit C states that the project reference is to fill out the PPQ and email it to the Contracting Officer and Specialist no later than five days after the solicitation date. Many of our Federal references mandate use of Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to document our past performance; several have refused to do Past Performance Questionnaires because they have already done CPARS ratings. Please confirm that offerors may use CPARS in lieu of PPQs.

Answer #8: If available, offeror may provide any CPARS/PIPPRS reports with Exhibit A, Part-

1. (place behind applicable Exhibit A). However, we still require response for Exhibit C-Past Performance Reference Questionnaire, directly from your references and to be emailed to the Contracting Officer and Specialist. offerors may not use CPARS/PIPPRS in lieu of PPQs, but may use CPARS/PIPPRS in addition to.

Many of our contractors do not have any CPAR/PIPPR reports available to provide past performance information. Thus in the name of fairness (apples to apples) we still require the PPQ from your references. CPARS reporting is not required for projects less than $750,000 and majority of our projects are less than this level. We do very little reporting at this level as well.

9. Question: RFP Section 3.2. Given the rising COVID rates, we respectfully request that the Government consider allowing electronic submittal via DoD SAFE or AMRDEC.

Answer #9: Electronic submission of Proposals is not permissible. For contactless submission, feel free to mail proposals to the address provided in the solicitation, Section 7.1/page 11.

10. Question: Prototypical Project Exhibit D lists only Bid Option 1 for ATFP windows. Prototypical Drawings (C1.0) lists 4 bid options (1) ATFP windows, (2) asphalt mill and overlay, (3) landscaping, (4) irrigation system. Which options are we to provide pricing for?

Answer #10: See Project Description, last sentence on same page of Exhibit D

11. Question: RFP Sections 4.2.1 and 5.3. RFP Section 4.2.1 and Exhibit A state that a project will be considered relevant if it has achieved 70% completion or greater. RFP Section

5.3 requires 90% completion or greater. Please clarify which is correct.

Answer #11: RFP Section “5.3. VOLUME 2, Part II, PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION” (pg 18) should state 70% or greater. Amendment to follow.

12. Question: SAM.gov Solicitation Listing. The files classified as “Restricted” are difficult for our personnel and subcontractors to access and download. Would it be possible to make them “Public?”

Answer #12: Distribution of restricted documents is the responsibility of the contractor. In today’s on-line world and the security risks that have become most evident, we (Government) are required to post building plans and specifications as “restricted” in SAM.gov. Contractors with SAM.gov registration and clearance are permitted to request access to these documents. Once gaining access, please use caution in distributing these items to your subcontractors and others and only share information that is relevant to that party. The Government only works with/communicates with the prime offeror. It is the prime contractor’s responsibility to share with his/her team as they deem necessary.

II. PENDING AMENDMENT 02:

1. Remove any & all references to Design Build, specifically page 1, Block 10 of solicitation.

No RFQs nor task orders utilizing this MATOC IDIQ, will be issued for Design Build. All requirements will already have design complete where applicable.

2. RFP Section “5.3. VOLUME 2, Part II, PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION” (pg 18) shall be changed from “requires 90% completion or greater” to 70% or greater as is stated in other section of this solicitation.

3. Solicitation paragraph 8.2.4. Safety Manager(s)-REMOVE REFERENCE for SC38.

Safety/Accident Reporting to REPLACE REFERENCE as 35. Safety/Accident Reporting

III. REMINDER:

1. Proposal Due Date – Thursday, September 30, 2021 @ 1:00 PM (CST)