Projnet_Answers1.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: FY19 CAVHS LETC Dining Facility-VA Review: RFI Review (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 19 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec 8367916 Architectural Volume 3, Technical Design 10.2.1 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Per the documents (page 40 of 71), we're instructed to develop drawings and MEP design if we were to advance to Phase 2. Will there be any stipend or compensation for time and materials spent to develop that design?

On: Jan 28 2020.

Government Response. . Reference Section 4.8 (Proposal Cost). The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Offeror submitting an offer in response to this Solicitation. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8368778 Contracting Section 00 22 11 - Paragraph 7.2.1.1

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The RFP directs Offerors to submit a minimum of five (5) relevant dining facilities, food service, or similar facility of the Design-Build Team that have been completed together within the last seven (7) years.

In our experience, Dining Facility projects tend to be solicited less frequently than other federal procurements. As a result, many companies have fewer Dining Facilities in their portfolios than other building types. Other DoD contracting offices have typically allowed a longer relevancy period (i.e., 10 years) for demonstrating past Dining Facility experience. In addition, the federal funding sequestration that occurred in the past 5 years resulted in fewer awards being made during that period and, subsequently, fewer Dining Facility project deliveries.

In order for the Government to have a reasonable number of qualified offerors, we respectfully request that the RFP be amended to allow offerors to present projects that were completed within the past ten (10) years.

On: Jan 29 2020.

Government Response. . The government takes no exception to this request and will amend the solicitation to allow offerors to submit projects that were completed within the past ten (10) years. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8370012 Contracting 1.0 Description of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 1.0 Description of the Project (page 8 of the RFP) references the accompanying Appendices in 01 11 00.10;

however, the Appendices are not included in the RFP.

This section also references an Attachment Section, which is not included as well.

Please provide the Appendices and Attachments so that we may review. Thank you!

On: Jan 29 2020.

Government Response. . Reference the attached PDF which is a combined file for the Proposed Project Location and Program For Design (PFD) dated 02 DEC 19. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8378788 General RFP 7.2.3.1 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 1 of 5ProjNet: Logged In User

2/15/2020https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicPublicReportAl...

In regards to Factor 3, Tab C - Past Performance, would you allow for PPQs previously completed by a project's POC for a different proposal submission to be submitted in this proposal in lieu of having the POC fill out a new PPQ form and mailing it directly to the contract specialist? This would prevent our client's POCs from having to duplicate their references multiple times.

On: Feb 03 2020.

Government Response. . Yes, the government will allow the requested approach for the PPQs provided that any previously submitted PPQs for other projects clearly meet the requirements per 7.2.3.1. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8378796 General RFP 7.2.3.1 - Past Performance

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Should a copy of the available CPARS for each project be provided in the proposal?

On: Feb 03 2020.

Government Response. . Per Section 7.2.3.1 Submission Requirements, "The government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings." On:

Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381316 Civil 1.0 Discription of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will any parking capacity lost due to our design be required to be replaced?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . This information will be further addressed in Step 2 of the solicitation process.

Any parking that is impacted by the DB Contractor's approach will be required to be replaced. On: Feb 06 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381318 Civil 1.0 Discription of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will there be any additional parking required based on this facility?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . This will be further addressed in Step 2 of the solicitation process. Additional parking is a component of this project. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381339 Building Design & Engineering Factor 4, Item 8d

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What is the Configuration Management System that will be used for the design of this project?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . The government does not dictate what and/or how a configuration management system will be used between the various team members of the Design-Build (DB) Contractor. On: Feb 06 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381347 Construction Management Factor 1, Tab A, Item 2

Page 2 of 5ProjNet: Logged In User

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can the Site Safety and Helth Officer be combined with one of the other on-site personnel such as the Superintendent or QC Manager?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . Yes, the SSHO may be dual-hatted with either the Superintendent or QC Manager provided that they meet all of the requirements for both positions. On: Feb 10 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381349 Utilities Engineering 1.0 Discription of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

What agencies (State, municipal, County) other than the VA and USACE have jurisdictional authority for the water, sewer, natural gas, or electrical systems to this facility?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . The VA ultimately is the authority having jurisdiction over the site utilities on their campus. The DB Contractor shall also coordinate with the utility providers such as Central Arkansas Water, NLR Electric, CenterPoint Energy, etc. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381352 Environmental Engineering 1.0 Discription of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will the Government be furnishing the NEPA Environmental Survey for the project?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . No, the government will not be furnishing a NEPA Environmental Survey for the project. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381359 Commissioning 1.0 Discription of the Project Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

With this project being HPSB, will commissioning be a part of the design build contract or a separate contract with the Government?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . This specific requirement will be further addressed/developed prior to Step 2 of the solicitation. As of this date, it is anticipated that a third party independent Commissioning Agent (CxA) which is contracted by the government will work in conjunction with the DB Contractor's Commissioning Manager (CxM). Each agency will have specific roles and responsibilities. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8381368 General General Procedures Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Since the Phase I proposals are not due until 26Feb2020, can the Projnet window be extended beyond 06Feb2020?

On: Feb 04 2020.

Government Response. . The current ProjNet session will be extended to February 12, 2020. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8383300 General 7.2.3 Factor 3, Tab C - Past Performance 7.2.3.1 2. Past Performance

References Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 3 of 5ProjNet: Logged In User

Is it the intent for the Offeror to submit a copy of the CPARS or Contact Information page(s) of the PPQs? There is a NTE limit of 10-double-sided-pages. If it is only the intent for the Offeror to provide a list of reference contacts that were mailed a PPQ and a brief discussion regarding past performance, the page limit seems excessive.

If the 10 page limit isn't fully utilized or needed can you please re-distribute the page limits elsewhere in the RFP that may need additional pages for the requested information, for example, Factor 4, Tab D - Organization and Technical Approach?

Please clarify what is expected to be submitted in TAB C and also if pages can be re-distributed.

On: Feb 05 2020.

Government Response. . This question is rather unclear. It is up to each individual offeror to provide sufficient information for the government to adequately review the past performance of said offeror including CPARS ratings or PPQs. Generally speaking, the government has the ability to run CPARS ratings from past projects that the DB Contractor has identified. Therefore, including print outs of CPARS ratings in the proposal response is not necessary.

In reference to page limitations, please note that not all offerors will present the same information in the same manner. Based on this fact, the government prefers not to redistribute any page limitations. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8383310 General 7.2.4 Factor 4, Tab D - Organization and Technical Approach 7.2.4.1 1.

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

(1.) states NTE 8 double sided pages. Is this limit for item(1.) only, or is that 8 double sided pages to address items 1.-10. under that section?

On: Feb 05 2020.

Government Response. . The NTE eight (8) double sided pages shall cover the offeror's responses to all questions 1 through 10. On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8383330 General 7.2.3 Factor 3, Tab C - Past Performance 7.2.3.1 2. Past Performance

References Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

If the DB team completed a DB project together and a CPARS was received for that project, will that CPARS count as past performance reference for both the contractor and designer of record under that contract?

Also, if the team is submitting different projects for experience, will CPARS be considered relevant for the chosen Designer of Record for their showcased DB experience? Or is the Designer of Record required to request PPQs for their DB experience?

On: Feb 05 2020.

Government Response. . Part 1: If the offeror is submitting past performance on a project that was completed as a DB Team, then the CPARS rating counts for the entire team unless the offeror clearly states/requests otherwise in narrative form.

Part 2: Per Section 7.2.3.1, "When an Offerors firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm that will actually perform the work." On: Feb 06 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8393317 Contracting Section 00 22 11 - Paragraph 7.2.1.1

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Regarding the Government's response to ProjNet Question 8368778, please confirm when the Government will issue Amendment 0001 to allow offerors to submit projects that were completed within the past ten (10) years.

Page 4 of 5ProjNet: Logged In User

On: Feb 11 2020.

Government Response. . Amendment 0001 will be issued by 14 February On: Feb 12 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8394761 General Factor 3, Tab C Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The PPQ questionaire is designed for a construction project and doesn't really fit a design project. Is there another form that could be used for the design team PPQ or should we make due with the form provided?

On: Feb 11 2020.

Government Response. . Please make due with the form provided. On: Feb 12 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

8394831 General Past Performance 7.2.3.1 2. Past Performance References

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will available CPARS be considered past performance validation for a designer's design-build experience, or are they required to request a PPQ even if a CPARS is available for that project?

On: Feb 11 2020.

Government Response. . A PPQ is not required if CPARS is available for that project. On: Feb 12 2020 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

Page 5 of 5ProjNet: Logged In User