RFI_0001.pdf

Question #

RFP Reference (page/para. #)

Question

Page 14, para. 2.5.2.1 Para. 2.5.2.1 states that Volume 2 Part 1 is comprised of 4 Subfactors. However, only 3 subfactors are identified. Please confirm that there are only 3 subfactors. (Also note that “Evaluation Factors for Award” only identify 3 subfactors).

ANSWER: This is correct, there are only the 3 subfactors listed. The mention of ‘4’ is a clerical mistake.

Page 14, para. 2.5.2.1.1 Paragraph references an Exhibit A. Please note that Exhibit A was not included in the original RFP documents. Please provide Exhibit A.

ANSWER: Exhibit A has been provided, via Amendment No. 0003.

Page 14, para. 2.5.2.2 Paragraph references an Exhibit B. Please note that Exhibit B was not included in the original RFP documents. Please provide Exhibit B.

ANSWER: Exhibit B has been provided, via Amendment No. 0003.

Page 15, para. 2.5.3.3 Page 15, para 2.5.3.6 Paragraph 2.5.3.3 states that projects that are 70% complete will be eligible for evaluation and meet criteria may be submitted on Exhibit A. However, para. 2.5.3.6 states that “performance must have been completed during the past five (5) years.” Please clarify if 70% completion meets Government’s requirements for recency of a project.

ANSWER: Projects with 70% completions will be eligible for evaluation, paragraph 2.5.3.6 also states “The period begins five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date and includes current performance.” This means, projects that have not been completed, but are at least 70% complete, may be used.

Page 15, para. 2.5.3.3 and Page 16, para. 2.5.3.11 Assuming projects that are more than 70% complete are eligible to be submitted, will an “Interim CPARS/CCASS” rating be accepted in lieu of an Exhibit C PPQ?

ANSWER: Offerors must have clients submit Exhibit C to have this be considered. If the project is one that is at least 70% complete, then the client should respond based on that 70%. If the offeror decides to submit CPARS/CCASS in lieu of Exhibit C, then an interim rating can be used for the 70% completed work.

Page 16, para. 2.5.3.11 Paragraph states that PPQ’s are to be submitted directly to the contracting office by the client/customer. However, we have recently received several PPQ’s that have been completed by the customer, and at the direction of the government were sent to us to be included in the proposal package. These PPQ’s are the same form (USACE/NAVFAC PPQ) that is included as Exhibit C. If we decide to use a project where we have already received a completed PPQ for a relevant project, how does the contracting officer desire us to submit it?

ANSWER: The language in paragraph 2.5.3.11 and Exhibit C instructs contractor’s previous clients to submit Exhibit C directly to the government, and that offerors must not review this information.

“2.5.3.11. Past Performance References – REQUIRED – A “Final” Performance Evaluation (Construction) (also referred to as CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out reference package for the project. OR Offerors shall prepare and submit to prior client(s) of all the projects listed on your Exhibit A submission a Reference Package (Exhibit C) (Detailed instructions are included in Exhibit C Package). This includes correspondence explaining the requirement to obtain an independent evaluation of prior contract performance, and the Past Performance Questionnaire for use in evaluating Past Performance. Inform references that completed Performance Questionnaire should be returned to the Contracting Officer via email at steven.a.stocking3.mil@mail.mil and timothy.d.frasier.mil@mail.mil to arrive not later than the closing date for receipt of proposals. Offeror must not review the Past Performance Questionnaire prior to submission. They are to be submitted by the client/evaluator directly to the Contracting Officer. Offeror's should follow‐up and encourage references to get the questionnaires to the Contracting Officer in a timely manner.”

Page 14, para 2.5.2.2 What is page limitation for Subfactor 1 narrative (excluding resumes) ANSWER: 5 Pages

Page 15, para 2.5.2.5 What is page limitation for Subfactor 3 narrative ANSWER: 5 Pages

9 page 4: Under item No 0001 the wrong project # of MBMV962010 Repair Paved Roads Base Wide is stated. It should be MBMV162472 Alteration and Reconfiguration of B6922 for Cyber Operations.

ANSWER: This has been corrected with Amendment 0003.

10 page 6: Item No 5 eCMRA. The verbiage states, "they shall provide a price for this manpower reporting via line item 2." Should this not be line item 5 since it is line item 5?

ANSWER: This has been corrected with Amendment 0003.

11 page 7: under delivery information item 002 has a POP from 26 Jan 2018 to 30 Jan 2018. Should this not match the other line items.

ANSWER: This has been corrected with Amendment 0003, all line items now read a period of performance end date of 23 September 2019.

12 Can ControlNET, LLC be added as an approved Control System contractor for this project? ControlNET is proposing to install a non‐proprietary Tridium hardware and software platform with non‐proprietary BACnet field level controllers. See the attached 1 page flyer and company booklet. More company information and references are available upon request.

ANSWER: Please refer the Brand Name Justification and as posted with Amendment 0003

13 We use the FBO announcements to inform contracting officers of the compliance regarding US AbilityOne Commission Procurement List (PL) Notice of Addition #20150054 (9 Feb 2016). We are asking contracting offices for consideration to add FAR 52.208‐9 for door hardware in your current and future acquisition planning as the PL now applies to construction and renovation “flow down” situations. The architect’s specification is the difference. Prior to 2016, AbilityOne Procurement List items were traditional; brooms, pens, office items. In February 2016, the Commission approved the addition of Architectural Specified Products used in construction. Traditional items ARE NOT specified by an architect for construction purposes. Architecturally Specified Products ARE called out as an “ingredient” in construction and renovation products. PL #20150054 of 9 Feb 2016 added 90 door hardware products. National Industries for the Blind (NIB) assigned its associate agency, VisionCorps, to produce SKILCRAFT Door Hardware.

ANSWER: We are unable to answer this question at this time, however, we are researching this and discussing it with policy. An answer to this question is forthcoming.

14 We mentioned the bid date being on a Monday and following a holiday week, is not ideal and would affect subcontractor pricing (some subs / suppliers may not even bid it due to this). Can you check into bumping the date back?

ANSWER: No, the proposal due date is 4.5 days beyond the holiday. This is an ample amount of time to develop proposals.

15 We have done a few similar projects on base and this is the first to require the technical proposal (Volume 2) in addition to the bid. It is a substantial amount of additional time and effort to produce this documentation when I would assume we may be considered as pre‐qualified to contract this project based on past performance?

ANSWER: The solicitation requires the submission of this information. It is required. Past performance is an evaluation factor for this solicitation, failure to submit the appropriate documentation may result in disqualification.

16 If this is absolutely required could we use you as a client reference (to complete Exhibit C)?

ANSWER: Previous projects at Battle Creek ANGB may be used in submission of Past Performance, however, Maj. Nathan Finfrock may not be used as a reference, since he is a SSEB Member. This would result in an apparent conflict of interest.

17 General Requirements specification section 011000 / 1.45 Minimum Qualification for Contractor's Key Personnel includes a Quality Control manager and Safety Representative. Again, this appears to be a new requirement on this project which has not been required on our previous projects on base. Is this necessary and will you require these separate people on site? Our superintendents are very well qualified, and trained in quality control and safety. It is much more efficient to have these roles through a single person on site. If not, that would increase the project cost substantially.

ANSWER: The solicitation requires this component. It is required.