W912DQ-18-R-7000_Responses_to_Questions_20_April_2018.pdf

NOTE – The last day for questions is 13 April 2018

Question 1 - The solicitation identifies seven key disciplines that you would like us to include resumes for. May we add additional disciplines so that we may more fully cover the services you have requested?

Response - Resumes for the 7 key disciplines should be provided. Only one resume (the lead for that discipline) will be evaluated for each discipline. Resumes for additional disciplines will not be evaluated.

Question 2- Under the selection criteria for specialized experience and technical competence, the solicitation restricts experience to performing “construction management services on large design-build construction projects,” yet the government desires a demonstration of the best range of experience among project portfolios. Please confirm that it is acceptable to submit CM services on a design-bid-build project and that such a project would be comparably scored.

Response - Design-bid-build projects may be submitted, but greater weight will be given to design-build projects.

RESPONSE: An Amendment will be issued to remove “design-build”.

Issue Amendment: Remove "design-build" from the sentence above to read "...services on large construction projects."

Question - 3. In reference to Part 3. Selection Criteria b. Professional Qualifications, will the Government please add a Construction Manager, Program Manager, and/or a Commissioning Assist Manager to the

Selection Criteria? If not, with the Government please allow Offerors to submit up to three additional resumes in Section E beyond the key disciplines listed to be considered as part of the Selection Criteria?

Response: Resumes for additional disciplines will not be evaluated.

Question - 4. In reference to Part 3. Selection Criteria d. Knowledge of the Locality, will the Government please clarify whether for each condition listed Offerors need to demonstrate “appropriate experience . . .

in each discipline to be counted” (each of the seven disciplines listed) or is the intent to be evaluated based on demonstrating “appropriate experience” in the key discipline listed alongside each condition?

For example, Offerors will only be evaluated based on demonstrating “appropriate experience” in the mechanical discipline for (1) climatic conditions.

Response: There are 3 sub-criteria to Knowledge of Locality. First sub-criterion is Climatic Conditions, and for this sub-criterion the Mechanical Engineer should show project experience in Missouri and

Illinois and project experience in greater St. Louis area will have greater importance. Second sub-criterion is Local Construction Methods, and for this sub-criterion the Civil engineer should show project experience in Missouri and Illinois and project experience in greater St. Louis area will have greater importance. Third sub-criterion is Local Construction Climate Impact on Cost Estimating, and for this sub-criterion the Cost Engineer/Estimator should show project experience in Missouri and Illinois and project experience in greater St. Louis area will have greater importance. Evaluation will look at the specific project experience of the proposed team as stated in Section E of the SF 330.

Question - 5. In reference to Part 3. Selection Criteria c. Past Performance, the Government states that

Past Performance will be evaluated based on CPARS (not PPQs), performance evaluations for team subcontractors, or other sources. Will the Government please consider addition formal means of evaluating past performance of Offerors in the instance a project in Section F does not have a CPARS?

Response: The firms may submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for the projects in Section F.

3.1 c. states "The Contract Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) is the primary source of information on past performance. The past performance questionnaire information will NOT count towards the page limit.

Question - 6. In reference to Part 3. Selection Criteria d. Knowledge of the Locality, will the Government please look at the specific experience of the team as stated in Section F of the SF 330 to provide a rating for this evaluation criteria? Considering both Section E and Section F in the evaluation will allow

Offerors to fully showcase their knowledge of the locality, and be evaluated for it.

RESPONSE: Evaluation will look at the specific project experience of the proposed team.

Question - 7. In reference to Part 3. Selection Criteria e. Capacity to initiate work and complete within the time parameters of the project, will the Government please clarify the “time parameters of the project”? It is our understanding that the contract could be as long as eight years. How will this time parameter be used to evaluate whether an Offeror has an “adequate number of personnel” per discipline?

Response: The evaluation will consider the current number of mechanical engineers; electrical engineers;

civil engineers, schedulers; architects; and cost estimators. The evaluation will look at numbers listed in

Part II of the SF330 to evaluate the overall capacity of the firm.

Question - 8. In reference to all of the sub-criteria listed in Part 3. Selection Criteria, will the Government please use information provided in Section H of the SF 330 to evaluate Offerors for more than just g.

Volume of DoD AE contract awards in the last 12 months? Sections E and F are often limiting to demonstrate an Offeror’s ability to satisfy some of the most heavily weighted evaluation criteria (a, b, and d). If the Government allows the information provided in Section H to be used in its rating of Offerors for any of the evaluation criteria, Offerors will be able to fully demonstrate their applicable capabilities for each evaluation criteria.

Response: The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers has found that this format helps provide a consistent and fair evaluation of the all of the SF330s, and should help lower the firms' time required to submit a SF330. USACE is not requesting additional information to be submitted in Section H.

Question - 9. Synopsis, Section 2. Project Information, paragraph 2 states “…The A-E shall possess extensive knowledge in the functional areas of civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, cost engineering, and construction testing and inspections…”

And

Synopsis, Section 3.1 Primary Selection Criteria, b. Professional Qualifications, lists the following key disciplines:

1) Mechanical engineer

2) Electrical engineer

3) Civil engineer

4) Scheduler

5) Architect

6) Cost Engineer/Estimator

7) Fire Protection Engineer

a. Fire Protection engineering is required in Section 3.1 but is not included in Section 2. Please clarify for consistency.

Response: Section 2 only identifies the functional areas of the CMS scope of work. Key disciplines for evaluation were identified in section 3.1 and may or may not cover all functional areas.

b. Construction testing and inspections is required in Section 2, but is not listed as a key discipline in

Section 3.1. Please consider including both Construction Manager and Construction Inspector as key disciplines for consistency.

Response: Section 2 only identifies the functional areas of the CMS scope of work. Key disciplines for evaluation are identified in section 3.1 and may or may not cover all functional areas.

c. See Question #3. Please consider adding Structural engineer to accurately capture geotechnical/seismic requirements.

Response: A separate Structural Engineer is not required for submission and will not be evaluated.

Question - 10. Synopsis, Section 3.1 Primary Selection Criteria, b. Professional Qualifications, last paragraph states “…The lead personnel for each discipline should be clearly identified in Section E. Only one resume (the lead for that discipline) will be evaluated for each discipline.”

a. You state that only one resume will be evaluated for each discipline. Please confirm that you are limiting the submission to one resume for each key discipline listed in Section 3.1, currently a total of seven resumes.

b. Can we submit resumes for additional disciplines which we consider key in the performance of your requirement?

Response: Only the seven (7) disciplines will be evaluated for Professional Qualifications using the resumes of the Lead of each discipline. Additional disciplines will not be evaluated. The government will evaluate all Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, and Cost Engineering/Estimators resumes in section

E for Knowledge of Locality.

Question - 11. Synopsis, Section 3.1 Primary Selection Criteria, d. Knowledge of the locality, states

“Knowledge of local conditions within Missouri and Illinois, specifically regarding: …(2) local construction methods, including geotechnical and seismic considerations (key discipline: civil)… a.

Geotechnical and seismic considerations typically require a structural engineer rather than a civil engineer.

i. Please clarify.

Response: It is intended that structural engineering be a subset of the civil engineering discipline.

ii. Please consider adding a structural engineer to the Key Disciplines in Synopsys Section 3.1 Primary

Selection Criteria, b. Professional Qualifications, list of key disciplines.

Response: The government will evaluate all Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, and Cost

Engineering/Estimators resumes in section E for Knowledge of Locality. A structural engineer is a subset of the civil engineering discipline. A separate Structural Engineer is not required for submission and will not be evaluated.

Question 12. Synopsis, Section 4. Submittal Requirements, paragraph 2 states “…A “project” is defined as work performed at one site or a single installation. An Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) will not be considered a “project”…” a. We have completed multiple Construction Management Services task orders under an IDC that were performed at one site or a single installation for the continued support of one program. These tasks for the one site/single installation do not represent all work performed on the IDC. i.

The example of multiple tasks orders under an IDC to support one site and one program is similar to the

N2W program described in the Synopsis in that MATOCs will be awarded and then multiple tasks will be awarded to support the site/program.

ii. Please confirm that work performed at one site or single installation under multiple task orders will be considered a “project”.

Response: A Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) or Indefinite Deliver Contract (IDC) may not be defined as a “project.” One or more task orders under a MATOC or IDC related to a single, discreet project site may be considered a “project.”

Above questions POSTED TO FBO and SENT to Firms that have expressed interest as of 30

MARCH 2018

New question received

Question 13 The solicitation notes that “for all SF 330 sections, use no smaller than 11 point font.” Please confirm that this restriction does not apply to graphics.

Response - Smaller than 11 point may be used within graphics.

Question 14 The solicitation identifies 7 key disciplines under Professional Qualifications, and does cite that only the lead for that discipline’s resume will be evaluated. Please confirm that it is permissible to identify additional disciplines that could be required to accomplish the work, such as Structural Engineer, and include resumes for the lead of each of those disciplines.

Response: Only the seven (7) disciplines will be evaluated for Professional Qualifications using the resumes of the Lead of each discipline. Additional disciplines will not be evaluated. The government will evaluate all Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, and Cost Engineering/Estimators resumes in section

E for Knowledge of Locality.

Question 15 The solicitation specifies that “Projects (or phases of projects) for which work is not complete or substantially complete will not be considered.” Please further define how you are judging substantially complete. Does a certificate of occupancy establish satisfactory completion per your definition?

Response: "Substantially Complete" is defined as the stage at which the project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents so that the end user can occupy it and use it for its intended purpose. Depending on the specific project, a certificate of occupancy could be used to demonstrate substantially complete.

Question 16 Under the selection criteria for specialized experience and technical competence, the solicitation restricts experience to performing “construction management services on large design-build construction projects,” yet the government desires a demonstration of the best range of experience among project portfolios. Please confirm that it is acceptable to submit CM services on a design-bid-build project and that such a project would be comparably scored.

Response: This question was previously asked and answered. Reference Question 2, posted on March

30, 2018.

Question 17 We understand that CPARS will be used to evaluate past performance, will you use past performance questionnaires (PPQs) such as Form PPQ -0 (9/30/11) to evaluate non-federal past performance? If PPQs are required/requested, please confirm that they can be placed in an appendix and not included in the overall page count.

Response: This question was previously asked and answered. Reference Question 5, posted on March

30, 2018.

Question 18 Will you allow a CCM registration in lieu of a PE or RA?

Response: The Scheduler and Cost Engineer/Estimator are not required to be a Professional Engineer or

Registered Architect.

Question 19 Regarding primary Selection Criteria 3.1.g, “Volume of DoD AE contract awards in the last

12 months,” if the respondent is a Joint Venture registered in SAM but with no DoD contract awards to date, please confirm that the individual JV Partner Firms are not required to submit that DoD award data.

Response: (based on DFARS PGI 236.602-1): Joint Venture firms should provide this information for each JV partner.

Question 20 Please clarify what systems are expected to be included under the “low voltage systems” category as referenced in the solicitation’s Item 2 Project Information.

Response: Low Voltage includes, but is not limited to, low voltage telecommunications, audio/visual, security systems.

Question 21 3. SELECTION CRITERIA c. Past Performance The Contract Performance Assessment

Reports System (CPARS) is the primary source of information on past performance.

Question #3 Response: The firms may submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for the projects in Section F

A. Is a CPAR or PPQ evaluation required for each Section F Project, for the Section F Citation to be deemed responsive?

Response: No, CPARS or PPQ evaluations are not required to be submitted to be responsive.

B. May other forms of evaluation be presented, including correspondence related to performance, awards, reports?

Response: Other forms of evaluations including correspondence related to performance, awards, reports should NOT be included.

Question 22 4. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Page sheets of 11 inches x 17 inches will be counted as a single page.

Will the use of 11X17 paper outside of large charts or graphs be deemed non-responsive?

Response: Only use page sheets of 11 inches x 17 inches with large charts or graphs

Question 23 2. PROJECT INFORMATION: A-E tasks will require an understanding of design/build construction principles on large, multi-level facilities similar to N2W.

The A-E shall possess extensive knowledge in the functional areas of civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, cost engineering, and construction testing and inspections.

NOTE: We are a SBA Approved Joint Venture (JV) formed under the All Small SBA Mentor

Protégé Program, where the large business partner is the Mentor and JV partner and retains most of the experience and personnel.

A. Will the JV be penalized for submitting past performance citations solely from the large business JV partner?

Response: All past performance information will be used to determine the board’s confidence in the A-E firms

B. Will the past performance citation be deemed non-responsive if the JV does not distinguish which partner performed?

Response: Submitted Past Performance information should clearly identify the rated firm(s).

C. Will the JV be penalized for submitting discipline manager resumes solely from the large business JV partner?

Response: The government will be evaluating the key disciplines based on professional qualifications.

D. Will the discipline manager resumes be deemed non-responsive if the JV does not distinguish which partner employed that person?

qualifications. The Lead for each discipline should be clearly identified.

E. Will there be a penalty if the personnel chosen as discipline managers do not have direct experience within the past performance citations, as shown in Section G?

qualifications. Overall and relevant experience will be based on the resumes (Section E).

Question 24 4. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The SF 330 should have a total page limitation of 150 printed pages with Section H limited to twenty (20) pages. Each project in Section F should be limited to two (2) pages;

NOTE: Useable pages for project detail are limited to 32 (Sections H and F combined), leaving the remaining 118 pages to forms (Sections A, B, C, D, G) and resumes (Section E).

QUESTION: Would the proposal be deemed non-responsive if the remaining usable pages for project detail (seven resumes in Section E) utilized approximately 105 pages (15 pages approximately for each resume)?

Response: The aim should not be to maximize the number of pages, but to provide the requested information.

Question 25 Synopsis, Section 1, Contract Information, paragraph 6, states “…all firms must complete their VETS 1442 report…”

a. We believe the form number may be a typographic error. Please confirm that you meant to state that all firms must complete their VETS 4212, Federal Contractor Veterans’

Employment Report.

Response: Yes, the correction form number is VETS-4212.

Question 26 Synopsis, Section 4, Submittal Requirements, paragraph 2, states “…A “project” is defined as work performed at one single, discreet project site…”

a. Does a single, discreet project site, on one contiguous piece of property, that includes multiple facilities (similar to the facilities listed in Synopsis Section 2, Project Information, paragraph 1 a.

through g), qualify for consideration under the subjectN2W CMS synopsis requirements?

Response: See previous response to question about defining a project. Question 12 posted on

March 30, 2018.

Question 27 Synopsis, Section 4, Submittal Requirements, paragraph 2, states “…Projects (or phases of projects) with construction complete before July 2011 will not be considered…”

a. Example. A project includes the construction of a campus consisting of multiple facilities where the government took “Use and Possession” under FAR Section 52.236-11 of large portions of the project before July 2011. All facilities (1) are located on a single project site

(one contiguous piece of property); (2) are managed as a single program similar toN2W; (3) were executed under a single construction contract; and (4) the construction project for the campus was completed after July 2011.

a) Do all facilities included in the project qualify for consideration under the subject N2W CMS synopsis requirements?

b) Does the example project, or a project with similar timelines, qualify for consideration under the subject N2W CMS synopsis requirements?

Question 28 Please confirm the page count limit for SF 330 and that PPQs are excluded.

Response: PPQs are not counted towards the page limit.

Question 29 Will the district allow consultants on the design-build team to perform CPS for items they are not designing?

Response:

At this time, the contracting officer has made no determinations as to the existence of potential

Organizational Conflicts of Interests (OCI) on this procurement. There has been no determination regarding who will be excluded from the award of a future N2W CMS contract, and no determination that would limit the rights of any potential offeror to participate in this A-E synopsis and procurement. At this time, there is no limitation on any vendor's ability to respond to this announcement.

The contracting officer has no intention of issuing advisory opinions on possible OCIs for an unknown number of potential offerors and future teaming arrangements and scenarios in response to this

A-E synopsis for the N2W project. However, the Contracting Officer does have the responsibility to identify and evaluate potential OCIs as early in the acquisition process as possible, and to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate OCIs prior to contract award. This investigative, fact-based process is currently taking place, and will continue through the award of any future N2W related contract.

In accordance with FAR 3.101-1, our goal is to conduct all acquisitions in a manner above reproach, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships. As a reference, general procurement regulations regarding OCIs are outlined in FAR 9.5, DFARS 209.5.

Question 30 Understanding that N2W is a new campus and does not currently exist, does this same type of contract currently exist for the old NGA 2nd Street St. Louis Facility?

Response: No.

a) If so, who is the current awardee(s)? What is the total contract value? How long was/is the award for? What is the total number of full-time and part-time personnel assigned to the contract for each discipline?

Response: N/A

Question 31 What is considered “an adequate number of personnel” for each of the following disciplines? What qualifications are required for each position? If there are no required certifications or qualifications, what criterion are you using to evaluate/score this portion of the response?

a. Mechanical Engineering

b. Electrical Engineering

c. Civil Engineering

d. Scheduling

e. Architecture

f. Cost Estimating

Response: capacity will be evaluated based on the number of personnel in mechanical engineering;

electrical engineering; civil engineering, scheduling; architecture; cost estimating. The education, professional registration, certifications, overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm will be evaluated based on the section E for the lead of each discipline.

Question 32 Understanding that this is task order based contract, is the government looking for the vendor to provide full-time personnel that will work on the NGA Campus in St. Louis, MO to support each task order? If so, what space and Government Furnished Equipment will be provided?

Response: if the scope of work requires the personnel to work full-time at the NGA Campus in St. Louis, the Government furnished equipment will be identified in each task order.

Question 33 What is the projected range for the duration and value of each task order?

Response: The range of task orders will vary greatly. Some individual task orders may be as short as 30-

90 days for items such as design and submittal reviews while others may be for a full 365 days or more for items such as construction inspection services.

Question 34 What is the minimum guaranteed amount that each vendor of the MATOC will receive for the base contract and all options?

Response: A guaranteed minimum value will be established prior to requesting priced proposals from the most highly qualified firms who are requested to submit priced proposals.