W912DW24R0004- HAHD FPF_GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS TO INDUSTRY.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W912DW24R0004
About this file
This document contains questions from the Government soliciting feedback from interested Prime Contractors on a draft Request for Proposal for the Howard A. Hanson Dam Fish Passage Facility project. The Government is seeking non-proprietary responses to questions regarding proposal evaluation factors, the proposal schedule and contract line item numbers, preconstruction services scope of work, and requests for technical drawings and specifications. Key details include a 25% minimum small business commitment goal, oral presentations anticipated to take two to four hours, consideration of economic price adjustments for steel, concrete, aggregate and fly ash, and the importance of an early construction phase to install a cofferdam/bulkhead to meet the 2030 construction completion date. The solicitation number is W912DW24R0004 and responses to the questions are due by January 5, 2024 to the specified Army Corps of Engineers email addresses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS TO INDUSTRY:
The Government is soliciting responses to the following questions regarding the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) from interested PRIME Contractors upon request for the one-on-one session. Responses are due in writing to sarah.m.kivela@usace.army.mil and gregory.a.cook@usace.army.mil by 4:00 PM PST on January 5, 2024.
The Government is seeking nonproprietary answers to this draft RFP questions (below). If questions received contain proprietary information, be sure to inform the Government in your response. The Prime Contractor's answers to the questionnaire will only be made available to the Government. Note that the Government may use the answers provided to develop the final RFP.
EMAIL SUBJECT: Answers to Government Question – Company Name Proposal Evaluation
1. Evaluation
a. Are the technical evaluation factors clear and concise? Is it clear what an Offeror must provide and how the Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal?
b. Is there sufficient information in the Solicitation for the Offeror to provide a complete and robust proposal that aligns with the evaluation factors?
c. Are the factors applicable and relevant to the project's scope and the type of acquisition/delivery method?
d. The Government will enforce the minimum small business commitment goal of 25%. Is this appropriate? If not, why not?
e. Are the requirements and description of the Oral Presentations clear?
f. Is it clear how the Government will use the Oral Presentations to evaluate the proposal?
g. Are the requirements and factors for providing Preliminary Construction Schedule clear?
h. Is the potential for how trade-offs will be made by the Government clear in the draft RFP?
i. Does the Offeror want the Government to consider any recommendations regarding evaluation factors and source selection?
j. Should the past performance recency go back further than ten years?
k. Are there any concerns about the Past Performance Relevancy definitions regarding size?
2. Proposal Schedule/Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and Integrated Design and Construction (IDaC) Clause
a. Is the Proposal Schedule structure clear?
b. Are the CLINs for the contract clear and concise?
c. Is the backup and level of detail requested for the proposal schedule submittal required to support the CLINS clear?
d. Does the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for pricing make sense and is more detail required?
e. Is there a recommendation for the detailed WBS that the Offeror believes would be better?
f. What critical information (e.g., specific plans and/or specifications) can the Government provide in the RFP for the Offeror to develop a reasonable response to the RFP?
g. Is the draft RFP clear on how the construction option's target price, target profit, and ceiling price will work during evaluation and post-award?
h. Is it clear how a potential Offeror will be incentivized?
i. Are there any concerns or risks that the Offeror would like to point out with the requirement to definitize the Option for construction service prior to proceeding with physical construction?
j. Is the price proposal information required clear and concise?
k. The Government is considering Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) for the following commodities: Steel, Concrete, Aggregate, and Fly Ash. How important is EPA to the Offeror and are these the correct commodities to consider?
l. The solicitation, oral presentations, is anticipated to take two to four hours. Is the proposed time reasonable if you are interested in submitting an offer?
3. Preconstruction Services Language
a. Is the Scope of Work for Pre-Construction Services clear and concise?
b. Do you agree that the Key personnel for Pre-Construction Services includes a construction superintendent?
c. Is the Mix Design support in the Pre-construction services scope clear?
4. Technical Drawings, Specifications, etc.
a. Should the Government plan for the contractor to set up an on-site concrete batch plant?
b. Based on the draft RFP information, is it critical to implement an early construction phase for installing a cofferdam/bulkhead to meet the construction completion date of 2030?
c. What technical information is highly desirable in compiling the construction target pricing?
d. Is the Seasonal Reservoir Operations clear in Division 01 14 10 Seasonal Reservoir Conditions – what more is needed for clarity?
e. Is the equipment decontamination and invasive species requirement for environmental controls clear in Attachment Division 01 57 19-A?
f. What advice do you have for Government?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .