Q_and_A_-_MATOC13_1_17_13.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

SOLICITATION No: W912J6-13-R-0002

PROJECT: MATOC 2013 IDIQ

Questions are on a non-attribution basis

Date: 16 Jan 2013

Q1: Exhibit D, question 2b & 3a. Can a key employee hold more than one key personnel position (i.e.

double – hat)

A1: Yes they can unless specific project at task order level specifies otherwise.

Q2: Exhibit F. Please confirm that an electronic copy is only required for Binder #2, Volumes 2 and 3.

If no and electronic copy is required for all binders, can one CD with 2 separate PDF files (one for binder 1 and one for binder 2) be submitted? Which binder would you like the CD to be in?

A2: An electronic copy is required for both binder #1 and binder #2. We would like a CD copy included with each binder. You are not required to provide an electronic copy of Exhibit E.

Q3: We are trying to determine whether to submit our proposal in the SB or 8(a) pool. Our company is close to graduating from the 8(a) program. If we submit our proposal in the 8(a) pool and then graduate from the 8(a) program prior to the first option period, will the option periods be exercised?

A3: Yes option periods will still be exercised and the social economic status will remain within the contract even after graduation as long as the contract is ongoing.

Q4: On Page 22, Section 1.4.4.1 it notes to include a bonding letter ... "at the minimum, the highest level requested in areas of consideration. Please confirm if you select one of the Option B Escalating

Scale options, that the bond letter minimum is for the basic option period. If no, which option year is the minimum bonding amount.

A4: Your bonding capacity needs to cover your highest level of consideration. If you select the escalating scale option at a lower threshold, your bonding needs to be able to cover that amount. The escalating scale dollar level of the contract will be determined before exercising the option. If you are found responsible at the next option period to move up to the next threshold your bonding, at the time, will need to cover that new threshold amount.

Q5: I just got off the phone with the U.S./Canada Joint Certification Office, Defense Logistics

Information Services (DLIS), Federal Center, 74 Washington Avenue North, Battle Creek, MI 49017-

3084, toll free (800) 352-3572 <tel:%28800%29%20352-3572> . I was told that their are only two personnel working in the office and now that it is mandated that all contractors have to be certified their office has been bombarded with applications and the time of acceptance has moved from 5 days to 55 days. Can your office verify this? and if so how will EDWOSB's that have not been certified be able to obtain the specs and drawing for the prototype project by 05 Feb?

tel:%28800%29%20352-3572

A5: We were able to verify that DLIS has been bombarded with applicants and the time of acceptance will take significantly longer. Even though the government handed out a CD with the plans and specs you will still need to register. The government reserves the right to use the site on future projects and failure to register may result in not being considered on projects.

Q6: on page 26 of 151 (2.2.5. Other Optional Past Performance Considerations: ) states that the offeror is allowed (5) submissions for optional past performance however Exhibit F Proposal Content Aid

"Offerors lacking relevant Past Performance experience may submit three (3) references for each

Predecessor Company, Subcontractor or Key Personnel on an Exhibit C, or resume for key personnel".

Can you clarify the number of submissions allowed if the offeror is lacking in self performed past performance?

A6: If you do not have any past performance you can submit 3of a predecessor company. The government will also consider additional letter references, certificates etc. is if you do not have the direct past performance.

Q7: On page 25 of 151 (2.2.2.2.) "References for subcontractors from the proposing offeror are not acceptable." and page 26 of 151 (2.2.4.) "Offerors lacking relevant Past Performance experience may submit information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement if such information is relevant to this acquisition". Can you clarify if the Offeror can submit its Team Partners/ Key

Subcontractors past performance (Reference) if the offeror is lacking, as the two clauses seem to contradict each other?

A7: Page 25 (2.2.2.2) refers to subcontractors providing references and completing an Exhibit B

“Subcontractor Information and Consent Form” on primes that they are direct subs for. Subcontractors, being used as a reference to a prime, is not acceptable. Page 26 (2.2.4) Refers to primes using subcontractors past performance when they are lacking past performance on their own. This is acceptable.

Q8: I apologize for the inconvenience, but we had a minor question on the Exhibit B form (the

Subcontractor Consent Form). As highlighted on the attachment it states “… issued by the insert

USPFO P&C name for multiple…..” Thus I just wanted to clarify what the USPFO P&C name is or if we could simply just insert “….issued by the USPFO for multiple….”. I also attached this inquiry on the

Exhibit G form as instructed on the solicitation. Thank you very much for your assistance on this matter.

Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information from us or have any questions or concerns.

A8: USPFO P&C is an acronym for United States Property and Fiscal Office Hawaii, Purchasing and

Contracting Division. You can simply insert USPFO.

Q9: In review of the RFP noticed that we need to select “Dollar Value of Projects” to be used in the evaluation process. We are considering the $200-$5M or the $2M-$5M. Would you consider $200k -

$5M instead? Not sure we want to prepare proposals for very small task orders and don’t want to be penalized if we do not submit cost proposals on some of these.

A9: When selecting the dollar value of projects you are welcome to select more than one category.

Q10: Paragraph one states projects may be ongoing, if complete to 70%, however, the following paragraph (marked with ** halfway down the page) states that the proposal must discuss relevant task order(s) complete to 90%. Please clarify whether projects are to be 70% or 90% complete.

A10: 70% an amendment to the solicitation will be issued to clarify the confusion.

Q11: Section 00110, paragraph 2.1.8.1 states, "All Joint Ventures are advised to avoid a potential conflict of interest Joint Venture (JV) partners WILL NOT be eligible for individual MATOC awards in additional to an award to the JV entity." As it is understood that there will be two pools of selected

MATOC awardees (small business and 8(a)), does the referenced statement also preclude a JV partner from submitting as an individual for one pool while also submitting as a JV entity for another pool?

A11: You would have to choose one or the other. If you choose to go in alone, you can have your JV partner listed as a subcontractor. A JV partner submitting as an individual for one pool cannot also submit as a JV entity for another pool.

Q12: Section 00110, paragraph 2.2.2.3 states that multiple subcontractors may be named for the same discipline but are limited to a maximum of three subcontractors per discipline. Please clarify if for each task order, each offeror will then be limited to subcontract work to only those subcontractors included in its own RFP submittal package.

A12: They will not be limited but the government would start really to question your rationale if performance is bad and the subs listed are different then the sub contractors used.

Q13: Section 00110, paragraph 2.2.2.1 states to provide the names of subcontractors for Horizontal disciplines. Please clarify what is intended for Horizontal disciplines.

A13: For example horizontal work includes but is not limited to site work, paving (asphalt & concrete) landscaping

Q14: Can an Offeror be included and listed as a major subcontractor in another Offeror's RFP submittal package?

A14: Yes

Q15: FedBizOpps.gov shows the response date for this solicitation as December 20 th

, 2012 2:00 PM

Hawaii, and therefore, the posting has been archived, as of January 4 th

, due to FedBizOpps.gov policy.

Can the solicitation response date listed on the SF1442 of February 5 th

, 2013, 2:00 PM be confirmed please?

A15: This hiccup has been corrected. Solicitation response date is still February 5 th

, 2013, 2:00 PM.

Q16: Section 2.3 Binder 2-Volume 3, Technical Information of the RFP states “This Volume is limited to 20 pages excluding table of contents, tabs resumes and the Prototypical Schedule. Additional requirements for the technical proposal are found in Exhibit D.” However, Exhibit D states “Each question should be covered in sufficient detail to clearly address all required information. Answer questions in order presented. You are NOT limited to the space provided; use as much space as necessary to provide answers.” These items appear to be in conflict of each other, with the RFP stating

20 page limit, and Exhibit D stating no limitation, please clarify which is correct in regards to page limitations for Volume III.

A16: The form only shows one fillable area. The intent is to still limit volume III to 20 pages exclusive of required attachments such as resumes, schedule, org chart etc.

Q17: Table of contents shows an exhibit E-1 self performed work Form. Form does not appear to be in our bid package.

A17: Researching will provide response

Q18: Section 89000 Louvers And Vents, paragraph 2.03:A:3 calls out for Louver material to be galvanized steel. The notes on drawing Elevation Sheet A201 calls out the louver to be aluminum.

Please clarify.

A18: Pending response from A&E

Q19: AF Form 66 - Bldg 3406 Pumphouse.xls - we were not able to locate this file through the

FedBizOpps website. Please advise if this file shall be included in the solicitation documents.

A19: The AF 66 was provided on CD and will be incorporated by amendment to the solicitation on the

FedBizOpps website.

Q20: IFB Drawings.pdf - Upon brief initial review, these drawings differ from the files downloaded from the FedBizOpps website. These drawings are called "ISSUED FOR BID DECEMBER 14, 2012," contains the Architect's stamp on the title page and each sheet is marked 12/14/12 ISSUED FOR BID in the revision block. The drawing from the FedBizOpps website are called "ISSUED FOR

CONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 12, 2012," is not stamped and contains no revisions in the revision block. Please clarify what set of drawings are to be used for this solicitation.

A20: Please use the current drawings dated 12/14/12. These were the same ones provided at the pre-proposal conference.

Q21: Pump House Specs.pdf - Upon brief initial review, these specifications differ from the files downloaded from the FedBizOpps website. These specifications are dated December 2012 and stamped

12-14-12, marked "Issue for Bid SPECIFICATIONS" and contains 105 pages. The specifications from the FedBizOpps website are dated October 2012, stamped 10-15-12, marked "Final SPECIFICATIONS" and contains 104 pages. Differences within the sections are also noted. For example, the file from the

CD includes paragraph 1.04.D.15 in Section 074113 while the file from FedBizOpps website does not.

Please clarify which specifications shall be used for this solicitation.

A21: Please use the Specifications and drawings dated December 2012 and stamped 12-14-12. Those were the same drawings that were distributed on CD at the pre-proposal conference. The solicitation will also be amended to incorporate the current drawings.

Q22: The specifications and drawings issued at the Pre-Proposal Conference on January 8, 2013 in disc form have been modified from the drawings and specifications issued in fbo.gov. (i.e. Sheet A-501 has been modified by an additions of details 6/501. 8/501,98/501, and 10/501. There are paragraphs in the specification that have been altered.)

A22: The specs dated 12-14-12 are the ones to use. An amendment will be issued to clarify the confusion.

Q23: We are submitting a proposal as a prime contractor. We also frequently work as a subcontractor and have been asked by other primes to submit Exhibit B - Subcontractor Information & Consent. Is it acceptable for us to be part of another Prime Offeror's submission as a subcontractor when we are also submitting a proposal as a Prime?

A23: Yes it is acceptable to be a subcontractor for a general and still be your own prime.

Q24: We are asked to provide a SAM code, however, we are registered on SAM but are unfamiliar with a SAM Code. The site identifies us by CAGE Code and DUNS. Please clarify what is meant by the

SAM Code.

A24: All offerors must register in SAM. SAM has replaced CCR. Even if your company was carried over from CCR to SAM, you still must validate and update your information. SAM Code refers to cage code and SAM account number refers to DUNS.

Q25: Per section 00110, paragraph 2.1.4 – It states to provide an introductory page to include SAM

Code, …(etc) We are registered in SAM, but there is no such thing as a SAM Code. Please advise.

A25: All offerors must register in SAM. SAM has replaced CCR. Even if your company was carried

Q26: per section 00110, paragraph 2.1.7.3 – It also state to provide an introductory letter that contains points of contact with names……. Provide SAM account number…..(etc) Again we are registered in

SAM, but cannot locate an account number. Please advise

A26: All offerors must register in SAM. SAM has replaced CCR. Even if your company was carried

Q27: Page 26 of 151: Paragraph 2.2.5 states that other optional past performance considerations (5) can be submitted. Please confirm if this is in addition to the first 6 past performance projects being submitted as part of Paragraph 2.2.1 on page 24 of 151.

A27: Only 6 exhibit A’s can be completed. Exhibit A part 2 gives examples you can discuss in addition to those exhibits but your only allowed six.

Q28: Is there any preference as to the line spacing, indent and format? For this technical proposal?

A28: No preference other then what is stated in section 00110 para 1.6.3 on page 23.

Q29: Please confirm that the Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit C2) is only three (3) pages. The instructions on the EXHIBIT C PACKAGE INFORMATION AND FORMS of the RFP, under

Respondent Info Rating Sheets state, "(Exhibit C2)(the next 4 pages) Offeror should put name in space indicated and ensure it is on every page for identification purposes." However, the Questionnaire form provided in the RFP as Exhibit C2 is only three pages.

A29: Correct, the form itself is only 3 pages. However there are title pages that are also part of

EXHIBIT C2.

Q30: The pre-proposal slides indicate to send in original and 3 copies of Volume 1. Page 22 1.4.1 states to send an original and one copy. Please confirm the number of copies required for volume 1.

A30: Original and 1 copy. Solicitation is correct.

Q31: For 1.4.4 can the pre-award information for FAR 9.105-1 be placed in a sealed envelope and included in the Volume 1 Original Binder?

A31: Yes, that is the intent

Q32: Exhibit C past performance questionnaire: states for Government contracts, send questionnaire to contracting officer for technical representative. Would the end users of the Government facility be considered as a viable contact?

A32: The government prefers the questionnaire be sent to the contracting officer. End users are encouraged to give the Contracting Officer their input.

Q12: ANSWER REVISED, Substitutions will be allowed pending the approval of the contracting officer

IAW section 00800 SC#09

Q33: Where is the Contractor supposed to indicate if they are submitting a proposal for the

8(a) category, small business category, or both? If we are bidding on both categories, can we submit just one proposal?

A33: Only one proposal is needed. In your introductory letter, everyone submits as a small business and states their socio-economic categories. The government will go through the validation process and make a determination based on the claimed categories. All those categories that are verified will be granted to the contractor at time of award. Categories will be further set aside at the task order level.

Q34: Which order do we follow? The order of the checklist and the submission requirements in section

00110 (pages 23-27) vary slightly.

A34: Follow the submission requirements in section 00110. The checklist is to be used for a guide.

Q35: Section 00110, para 2.1.4 & para 2.1.7.3 (introductory letter) appear to be duplicates. They do ask for slightly different information. Which one should we follow?

A35: Follow the requirements and create an introductory page as stated in section 00110 para 2.1.4.

Q36: Section 00110, para 1.4.4 asks that the Contractor provide documentation of financial resources in a sealed enveloped which appears to be separate from Binder 1 (Vol 1) and Binder 2 (Vol 2 & 3).

Section 00110, para 2.1.7.4 also makes mention of the sealed envelope of documentation of adequate financial resources. However, this paragraph is listed under the requirements of Binder 1 (Vol 1).

Please advise which one we are to follow.

A36: Please provide financial resources in a sealed envelope as part of binder one as referenced in section 00110, para 2.1.7.4.

Q37: Section 00110, para 2.2.3 states that CCASS evaluations may be submitted in lieu of the Exhibit C

Performance Evaluation Questionnaires. Can contractor's use other past performance questionnaires that have been completed for other solicitations or in other formats other than CCASS and the Exhibit C format?

A37: No, we would prefer CCASS or other Government assessment forms. If these are not available, Exhibit C performance Evaluation questionnaires must be used. Other questionnaires are unacceptable.

Q38: Section 00110, para 2.1.4 & 2.1.7.3 refer to a SAM code / SAM account number. In SAM, I haven't been able to find either that is associated with the company profile. It seems all references made are linked to the DUNS or CAGE codes. Please advise.

A38: All offerors must register in SAM. SAM has replaced CCR. Even if your company was carried

Q39: Section 00100, para 1.3.2 states that Dunhill Professional Staffing “must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offers’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to submission of proposals. Each offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal.”

Can this requirement be disregarded with the contractor’s knowledge that Dunhill Professional Staffing may be privy to the proposals while serving as advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board but that all proposal information will remain proprietary and protected from unauthorized use.

Additionally, no agreement form has been included in the solicitation. And the solicitation does not state in which section the agreement should be included in nor is it listed on the checklist.

A39: The government will have its own agreement with the Dunhill staffing employees. The agreement this paragraph refers to is between the offeror and Dunhill. If an executed agreement is not provided it does not exclude an offeror from further consideration. Offerors who fail to execute agreements do solely at their own risk.

Q40: The solicitation states that the government intends to award two (2) pools of contracts: 8(a) set aside and small business (SB) set aside. It is then stated that the contracting officer may set-aside task orders for HUBZone, SDVOSB and WOSB with the SB pool. Must you be in one of the three socio-economic categories in order to quality for the SB pool? In other words, within the SB pool, is the intent to always solicit task orders to one of the socio-economic programs (HUBZone, SDVOSB or WOSB) provided that there 2 or more qualified contractors in each category? Or will some task orders be solicited to the entire pool where HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB, and just SB all compete?

A40: The government reserves the right to solicit the entire SB pool, or break it down by social economic category. The decision will be made at the task order level where complexity of the requirement, dollar threshold, contractor capabilities and social economic goals will all be considered.