ProjNet_Questions_-_BMD_-_20_May_2019.pdf

Ballistic Missile Defense ProjNet Questions & Answers

20 May 2019

1. 7976451

Please consider that a Registered Architect may serve in the role of Program Manager.

Historically, a Registered Architect has been a comparable replacement credential for management roles on similar contracts.

Answer: Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 7 of 19 is revised to read that “The Program Manager (PgM) and Quality Control Manager (QCM), may be a Registered Architect or Registered Professional Engineer in at least one (1) U.S. state or territory”.

2. 7976452

For the role of Electronic System Security Designer (ESDD), will you consider a RCDD or PSP registration to be comparable replacement credential to a Professional Engineer? These credentials are commonly recognized for the ESSD discipline.

Answer: The Government has taken this request into consideration and Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 7 of 19 to read that “Electronic Security System Designer with six (6) years of experience and must demonstrate proof that the individual currently holds one (1) of the three (3) below certifications:

Physical Security Professional (PSP), Certified Protection Professional (CPP), or Registered Communication Distribution Designer (RCDD)”

3. 7976453

In reference to: "2.b. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement. The A- E shall provide the CAS Disclosure Statement required by Public Law 100-679.

Describe the A-E's cost accounting practices as well as any joint ventures or subcontractor cost accounting practices. Accounting system approval is per FAR 16.104(i) and 16.301-3(a)(3). The CAS Disclosure Statement shall be used to determine the cost accounting adequacy." In the case of a Joint Venture -previous USACE IDIQ solicitations have allowed submission of a CAS Disclosure Statement and other financial information from each of the Joint Venture Partners. Please advise if this practice remains acceptable.

Answer: Yes, each Joint Venture Partners is allowed to submit separate CAS Disclosure Statement. Please see the revision on page 4 of 19 of the Synopsis. The A-E firm, Joint Venture, or all members of a joint venture shall provide the CAS Disclosure Statement required by Public Law 100-679.

If a Joint Venture, the Joint Venture shall either submit the CAS Disclosure Statement of the Joint Venture or all members of the Joint Venture shall provide separate CAS Disclosure Statements if the Joint Venture cannot provide its own CAS Disclosure Statement as required.

4. 7976455

Do resumes presented in Section E have a page limit?

Answer: No. There is nothing in the Synopsis that specifically limits the page count for resumes. However, SF 330, Part I shall not exceed 60 pages including no more than ten (10) pages for Section H. Please refer to Page 17 of 19 of the Synopsis, Amendment 01.

5. 7976456

You have clearly indicated the number of resumes for each key role. To demonstrate depth of resources, will you allow additional staff to be presented in D (Organizational Chart), E (Resumes) and G (Key Personnel Matrix)?

Answer: There is nothing in the Synopsis that prevents additional staff to be presented in Section D (Organizational Chart), Section E (Resumes) and Section G (Key Personnel Matrix). However, SF330, Part I shall not exceed 60 pages including no more than ten (10) pages for Section H. Please refer to page 17 to 19 of the Synopsis, Amendment 01.

The Synopsis (7 of 19), Amendment 01 does indicate if the key personnel’s resumes do not indicate competence in LEED Accredited Professional, Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, prediction of Explosive Effects and Protective Construction design, and High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse design, then firms are to identify another discipline whose resume is separately submitted. Those are the only additional resumes the Government will consider.

6. 7976459

Please confirm that the Cover is also excluded from the 60 page count.

Answer: Yes, the cover page or title page (synonymous) is excluded from SF330 Part I page count. Please refer to page 17 of 19 of synopsis, Amendment 01.

7. 7976461

May we submit a Title Page that will also be excluded from 60 page count?

Answer: Yes, the cover page or title page (synonymous) is excluded from SF330 Part I page count. Please refer to page 17 of 19 of the Synopsis, Amendment 01.

8. 7982821 – (Page 7 of 18)

The RFP states the Quality Control Manager must have a PE. Would a Quality Auditor Certification such as CQA and USACE's Certified Construction Quality Manager (CQM) certification be an acceptable substitute for a PE?

Answer: No, a Professional Engineer (PE) is required. Please refer to page 8 of 19 of the Synopsis, Amendment 01.

9. 7982832 – (Page 6 of 18, (b)(2))

Page 6, B.2 states that multiple personnel shall not be submitted for a single key personnel position. We assume that means only 1 resume can be submitted for the 15 key disciplines listed in the RFP.

Would the Government accept resumes for disciplines outside of the key 15 shown in the RFP?

Answer: The Government has taken this request into consideration, however, the Government will not accept resumes for disciplines outside of the key 15 shown in the Synopsis with the except of the following:

The Synopsis (7 of 19) , Amendment 01 does indicate if the key personnel’s resumes do not indicate competence in LEED Accredited Professional, Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, prediction of Explosive Effects and Protective Construction design, and High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse design, then firms are to identify another discipline whose resume is separately submitted. Those are the only additional resumes the Government will consider.

10. 7982841 – (Page 5 of 18, (a)(3))

Page 5 , A3 states that A key project will only be considered recent if the firm demonstrates through documentation that the completed design product has been accepted by the ultimate project owner within the last ten (10) years and led to a construction project which is no less than 50% complete at the time of the release of this Synopsis.

Will the Government accept a signed CPAR as documentation to verify that the design product has been accepted by the ultimate project owner?

Answer: Yes, a copy of a RMS report is acceptable to validate the requirement.

And, if submitting a PPQ, will a written statement within the PPQ stating that design has been completed within the past 10 years and construction is no less than 50% complete suffice as documentation?

Answer: Yes. A copy of the RMS report (or similar construction status reporting system) has also been used to validate the requirement.

11. 7987171 – (Page 4 of 18, (b))

The RFP states that the A-E shall provide the CAS Disclosure Statement required by Public Law 100-679. Describe the A-E's cost accounting practices as well as any joint ventures or subcontractor cost accounting practices. Accounting system approval is per FAR 16.104(i) and 16.301-3(a)(3). The CAS Disclosure Statement shall be used to determine the cost accounting adequacy.

We are assuming that this disclosure statement does not apply against the overall page count and should be included in Part II of the submittal?

Answer: The CAS Disclosure Statement does not apply to the 60 page count limit. Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 17 of 19 is revised to read “The following pages are excluded from the 60 page count: cover letter, cover page (title page), Small Business Participation Proposal, CAS Disclosure Statement, section tabs, abbreviation/acronym page, letters of commitment, the certificate of authorization, and PPQs/PPIRs/CPAR reports.

12. 7987195 – (Page 12 of 18, (f))

Regarding secondary evaluation Criteria F, Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation, the solicitation defines the "small business participation minimum quantitative requirements” as 10% of the total acquisition value. However, there is an apparent conflict with the adjectival ratings described in the criteria, with the minimum "acceptable" standard defined as 15%. Will the Government please clarify that the adjectival ratings table should reflect an acceptable rating at the 10% threshold?

Answer: Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 13 of 19 is revised to read that the minimum “acceptable” standard rating is defined as 10%.

Further, will the Government consider modifying the requirement to reflect "10% of the subcontracted value", as opposed to the percentage being based on the total contract? This small business participation standard would be more in line with a contract intended for use in OCONUS locations where U.S.-based small business standards do not apply.

Answer: No. The SB Minimum Quantitative Requirement remains 10% of the Total Acquisition Value.

If that approach is not allowable, will the Government consider establishing small business participation goals for only the portion of the contract performed within the U.S.?

Answer: Yes, Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 14 of 19 is revised to add “SB participation goals are for services performed within the U.S. and U.S. territories; only foreign OCONUS locations may be excluded.”

13. 7987200

The Government has provided Attachment 0004, Small Business Participation Proposal, with the solicitation. Is this form required in response to secondary evaluation Criteria F? If so, will the Government consider excluding this multi-page form from the 10-page restriction for SF330, Section H?

Answer: Yes, the Attachment 0004 is in response to the secondary evaluation Criteria F.

The Small Business Participation Proposal is excluded from SF 330 Part I page limit. Please see Amendment 01 revision on page 17 of 19 of the Synopsis.

14. 7987506 – (Page 8 of 18, (3))

According to the RFP, the Offeror may submit completed PPQs for key projects that had been previously obtained and submitted under another pervious acquisition.

However, the RFP also states that the PPQ shall be submitted via email only to the Contracting Officer Lashonda Smith at Lashonda.C.Smith@usace.army.mil and Contract Specialist Sharla Andrews at Sharla.R.Andrews@usace.army.mil directly from the client/reference (not the Offeror) prior to the Synopsis closing date. If submitting a previously obtained PPQ, the PPQ will need to be sent from the Offeror versus the client/reference. Is it permissible for the Offeror to provide previously acquired PPQs directly to the Contracting Officers?

Answer: Yes, the Offeror may submit completed PPQs for key projects that have been previously obtained and submitted under a previous acquisition. As stated in the Synopsis, the Offeror must ensure that the PPQ is supplemented with contact information of a customer contact who is aware of the project and can attest to the PPQ responses. Please refer to page 10 of 19 of the Synopsis, Amendment 01.

15. 7990723

In Section 3(b)2, it states that the Quality Control Manager (QCM) must be a registered Professional Engineer in at least one (1) U.S. state or territory. Is a professional that is a Registered Architect in at least one (1) U.S. state or territory acceptable for this position?

Answer: Yes, a Registered Architect is acceptable. Please see Amendment 01 revision on page 8 of 19 of the Synopsis.

16. 7990726

In Section 3(b)2, it states that the Quality Control Manager (QCM) must be a registered Professional Engineer in at least one (1) U.S. state or territory. Is a professional that has certifications from American Society for Quality (ASQ) in lieu of a Professional Engineer registration acceptable for this position?

Answer: No, a professional that has certifications from American Society for Quality (ASQ) in lieu of a Professional Engineer registration is not acceptable for this position. See response to question #7990723. Please see Amendment 01 revision on page 7 of 19 of the Synopsis.

17. 7990728

Regarding Section 3(a)4(2), is a firm's greater depth of involvement relative to the number or technical disciplines involved in the project?

Answer: No, depth of involvement is a measure of the amount of overall design effort that the prime and/or key subcontractors performed as a whole relative to the overall design effort measured for each key project submitted.

18. 7990734

Since the paper parameters do not apply to the SF330 form, are we correct that Sections E and F can have margins less than 1 inch?

Answer: Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 17 of 19 is revised to read “Paper Parameters - Paper parameter and font restrictions do not apply to the SF330 form. Supporting documents paper parameter and font restrictions is as follows:”

Margins: Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter: 0” From Edge: Header, Footer – 0.5” Page Size: Width – 8.5” Page Size: Height – 11”

19. 7992402 – (Page 4 of 18, (3)(a)(3))

Paragraph 3(a)3 indicates that a key project has to lead to a construction project which is no less than 50 complete at the time of the release of this Synopsis. Would a single task order that led to the completion of multiple construction packages and some of those construction projects are at least 50% complete be considered as a key project?

Answer: No, at least 50% of the construction effort of the overall aggregated task order should be completed.

20. 7992708 – (Page 8 of 18, (3)(c))

Based on the sensitive nature of the type of work and facilities in this RFP's scope of work, and the relevant projects that may be included to address this type of work, will a user agency and POC qualify without a PPQ?

Answer: No, a redacted PPQ referring to the specific key project with ratings and a Government POC email and phone number is acceptable.

Several Intelligence Agency clients do not perform such evaluations related to sensitive procurements. Would these projects be admissible for consideration in Section F in the absence of a CPAR or PPQ?

Answer: No. Please see Amendment 01 of the Synopsis on page 10 of 19 is amended to read “For procurements that are sensitive and above, a redacted PPQ referring to the specific key project with ratings and a current Government POC email and phone number is acceptable”

21. 7992867 – (Page 4 of 18, (2)(c))

In the RFP it states "Each A-E Prime and each member of a joint venture partner firm shall also demonstrate employee secret security clearances as well as ability to store and process classified material IAW Executive Order (EO) No. 13526."

Must all key personnel have a Secret or higher security clearance at time of submission? Or is it sufficient to show the quantity of key personnel and total personnel that have a Secret or higher clearance at time of submission?

Answer: Yes, all key personnel must have a Secret or higher security clearance at the time of submission. It is not sufficient to show the quantity of key personnel and total personnel that have a Secret or higher clearance at time of submission.