RFI 04 QA 20210922 - W9127Q-21-R-0005 MATOC IDIQ Construction .pdf

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

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) #04

22 September 2021

I. Question and Answers

22. Question: Specification Division 23 – Mechanical Construction/Division 26 – Electrical;

Drawings and As-Builts, Mechanical. In order to provide accurate pricing, please provide the name of the energy management system (i.e. Siemens, Johnson Controls, etc.) to be used in the prototypical project.

Answer #22: "Automated Logic Controls" provided by The Comfort Group

23. Question: Regarding Paragraph 5.2.4, Subfactor 1, "The proposal discussion should address familiarity with construction in the locations selected," relationships with local subcontractors, building standards and certifications, and familiarity with issues pertaining to work in this/these areas including involvement of the local workforce. Is there a location selection form that should be completed, if so, it is not contained in the solicitation.

Answer #23: there is no location selection form. We do not have “area of consideration” so there are no options to contract coverage…it is for the entire state of MS.

However, "The proposal discussion should address familiarity with construction in the locations selected," would still apply in that contractors from across the nation are considering this requirement.

24. Question: Regarding Prototypical Project B104 Addition - Section 075400, Paragraph 2.01: Will Firestone XR Fleeceback TPO be acceptable equal to the specified Carlisle or Johns- Manville TPO Fleeceback membranes? **Note, there is no Section 016000 Product Requirements in the spec’s. (See the attached technical information sheet).

Answer #24: Yes, Firestone XR Fleeceback TPO will be acceptable at 60-mil thickness with equal or greater warranty certification. No other exceptions/substitution shall be considered during this solicitation process.

25. Question: Regarding Prototypical Project B104 Addition - Section 075400, Paragraph 2.05, Item A.3: states the polyisocyanurate roof insulation is to be 1.5” thick. This has an R-value of 8.6 (see the attached ISO chart). Item A.4 “The total system shall have a minimum R value of not less than 25”. R-25 ISO is 4.25” thick. Now refer to Plan Sheet A5.0. See the TYPICAL TPO ROOF ASSEMBLY- It states the insulation is to be 4” thick and with a R-value of

26. See the Polyiso chart, 4” ISO has a R-value of 23.6. To achieve an R-value of 26 the polyiso needs to be 4.4” thick.

Please provide the correct minimum thickness and R-value for the tapered roof insulation system.

Answer #26: Specifications call for a minimum of 1-1/2” board thickness, not total insulation thickness. Per Section 2.05 Insulation, par. A, subpar. 4: “R-Value: The total system shall have a minimum R-Value not less than R-25.”

26. Question: Regarding Prototypical Project B104 Addition - Section 075400, Paragraph 2.04, Item A states cover board to be ¼” thick. Plan Sheet A5.0 TYPICAL TPO ROOF ASSEMBLY lists cover board to be ½” thick. Which thickness will be required?

Answer #26: Revise Technical Specifications section 07 54 00, subsection 2.04 Deck Sheathing and Cover Boards, par. A: “Deck Sheathing and Cover Board: Glass mat faced gypsum panels, ASTM C1177/C1177M, fire resistant type, ½ inch thick.”

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) #03

07 September 2021

I. Question and Answers

19. Question: In Amendment 2, SF 30, Block 14 the government stated " 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 w ill already have design complete where applicable." In the Solicitation, page 17 of 106, paragraph 5.2.6 Subfactor 3. Specific Personnel the government states in paragraph 2 "Additionally, Indicate the key construction personnel that have experience and required qualification in assigned roles with building to USGBC LEED Standards or similar construction/building standards program."

Meeting USGB LEED Standards or similar construction/building standards is typically the job of a design professional/personnel. Since Design Build is being completed removed from this contract, and all designs will be issued with each task order, the offerors no longer need to include a design team as part of their subcontractors. As such, can the government please clarify or remove the requirement for a USGBC LEED Standard experienced personnel as this is typically someone from a design firm?

Answer #19: Understand, However, this shall remain as is; “No RFQs nor task orders utilizing this MATOC IDIQ, will be issued for Design Build. All requirements will already have design complete where applicable." A&E Contracts, when applicable, shall be separate contract action with the Government. Construction contractor too should have experience and qualifications with building to USGBC LEED Standards or similar construction/building standards program. Construction contractor must be able to understand, build, and report to these standards as applicable to the task order awarded. This may include communications/ coordination with the A&E of record (separate contract) to achieve this building standard.

20. Question: These questions concern the Prototypical Project & pricing.

a. Is there a certain form or format to submit this information?

b. Should the bid options shown on Sheet C1.0 be priced in addition to base bid? If so, Bid option NO. 2 refers to asphalt milling and overlay. Sheet C2.0 shows pavement to be removed but no reference to pavement milling and Sheet C3.0 shows new pavement that appears to be part of the base bid.

c. Is there anything else that should be submitted for protypical project?

Answer #20: The answer to all three is see Exhibit D-RFP for Prototypical Project 20210225 MS MATOC (REV) as posted in SAM.gov Contracting Opportunities.

21. Question: RFP Exhibit D, page 5/7. Option #1 on Exhibit D indicates that pricing is to be provided for “ATFP Windows per SOW.” We were unable to determine from the SOW, specifications, or drawings what is to be included. Are specifications and details available for the intended installation?

Answer #21: Regarding ATFP Windows - See attached exert from specifications 08 43 13 & plans; note highlighted items. Additionally: AMENDMENT #03 PENDING.

a.) In reference to Specification 08 43 13, section 2.02 Framing for Monolithic Glazing, for Doors, Interior Door 101 needs to be as specified, as well as to receive the same type G-2 Monolithic Interior Vision Glazing.

b.) Further details for standoff distance and blast weight criteria, wind load and component & cladding for hurricane resistance for the option to upgrade storefront framing.

Clarification to Technical Specifications section 08 43 13, subsection 2.04 Storefront, par. B Performance Requirements to add the following subparagraph 6:

ADD to Bid Option 01: Blast Mitigation Design per Table C-1 of UFC 4-010-01.

a. Explosive Weight: 55 lbs

b. Standoff Distance: 40’. Actual minimum distance from face of building to parking curb is 10. See S100.1 for Components & Cladding.

c.) Detail 11 on Sheet A10.1 calls for a cont. 1-1/2"x1-1/2"x1/8" aluminum angle installation method. AMENDMENT #03 PENDING

Revise/Add note on 11/A10.1 to read “CONT 1-1/2”X1-1/2”X1/8” ALUM ANGLE SET IN

BED OF SEALANT AND SECURELY ATTACHED TO SLAB.”

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) #3

03 September 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 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. AMENDMENT 02

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.

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 01.

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 -0003:

1. Technical Specifications section 08 43 13, subsection 2.04 Storefront, par. B Performance Requirements to add the following subparagraph 6: AMENDMENT #03 PENDING

ADD to Bid Option 01: Blast Mitigation Design per Table C-1 of UFC 4-010-01.

a. Explosive Weight: 55 lbs

b. Standoff Distance: 40’. Actual minimum distance from face of building to parking curb is 10. See S100.1 for Components & Cladding.

2. Detail 11 on Sheet A10.1 calls for a cont. 1-1/2"x1-1/2"x1/8" aluminum angle installation method. AMENDMENT #03 PENDING

Revise/Add note on 11/A10.1 to read “CONT 1-1/2”X1-1/2”X1/8” ALUM ANGLE SET IN

BED OF SEALANT AND SECURELY ATTACHED TO SLAB.”

III. REMINDER:

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