B08-W912PF23R0005 RFIs as of AM_20230320.pdf

W912PF23R0005

VMC Construction MATOC

RFI Responses

No. Date Received RFI Question RFI Response Date Posted Action Results in Amendment

1 3‐Mar‐23

Page 44 of 55 of the solicitation lists the required SOA categories, is it mandatory to hold all listed SOA categories, both primary and secondary, to be admitted to the selection? Or is it only necessary to possess the primary category and possibly some of the secondary ones?

See M.3.4.2.2 at pg. 53. Subfactor Two, SOA Certifications, shall be an evaluation of the offeror’s proposal submitted, providing proof of the Primary SOA qualification level as stated at L.4.2.2.1: OG 1:

Edifici civili e industraili “Civil and Industrial Buildings Construction” Classification II (or higher). The Primary SOA qualification certificate shall result in an Offeror being assigned a “Green‐Acceptable” rating. SOA certificates provided for any of the Minor Category SOAs identified at L.4.2.2.1 may result in an offeror being assigned proposal strengths, with subfactor rating assignment reflecting said strengths, as appropriate. An offeror who fails to provide the Primary SOA qualification certificate shall be assigned a deficiency, and thus, “Red‐Unacceptable” at the subfactor level, regardless of any Minor Category SOA certificate submissions. 13‐Mar‐23 No

2 14‐Mar‐23

Attachment 1, Specification Section 01 33 10.05 20, para 1.5.5 Contractor's Responsibilities on page 113 of 180 mentions "Designate a lead licensed architect or engineer to be in responsible charge to coordinate the design effort of the entire project. This lead architect or engineer must coordinate all design segments of the project to assure consistency of design between design disciplines." Please advise if the Offeror can assign this responsibility to the DoR or DQCM? The Offeror can assign this responsibility to the DOR. It cannot be the DQCM. 15‐Mar‐23 No

3 14‐Mar‐23

Solicitation Section L.4.2.1.3 on page 43 of 55 mentions "…. a résumé for the Project Manager(s) (PM), Site Superintendents (SS), Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO). The resumes shall include relevant experience and/or certifications to demonstrate his/her ability to successfully oversee projects under the MATOC. PM resumes are excluded from page count limitations specified above." As we understand, the intent of the PMP is to demonstrate an Offeror's capability to manage and execute multiple TO awards simultaneously.

Further, the organization chart provides a visual representation of our MATOC Italy frame contract organization and TO management/execution approach, showing lines of reporting/communication from management through to the project site teams. Because the org chart is used to illustrate more of a "high level approach" to manage and execute multiple TOs concurrently, Offerors request the Government omit the requirement to provide resumes with our proposal submission. Upon TO award, Offerors will provide resumes for appointed Project Manager(s), Site Superintendent (and alternate), QCM (and alternate), and SSHO (and alternate) This request is denied. This portion of the requirement at L.4.2.1.3 remains unchanged. 15‐Mar‐23 No

4 14‐Mar‐23

Solicitation Section L.4.2.1.3 on page 43 of 55 mentions "…. a résumé for the Project Manager(s) (PM), Site Superintendents (SS), Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO). The resumes shall include relevant experience and/or certifications to demonstrate his/her ability to successfully oversee projects under the MATOC. PM resumes are excluded from page count limitations specified above." We request that SS, QCM, and SSHO resumes are also excluded from the page count (including any necessary personnel certificates (i.e. CQCM Course Certificate).

Confirmed. All resumes and personnel certificates are excluded from page limitations. This will be confirmed via pending Amendment 0001. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

5 14‐Mar‐23

Solicitation Section L.4.1.1, page 42 of 55 states " The offeror shall provide a written narrative describing their technical approach for both projects to include an integrated Gantt chart (excluded from page limitations) outlining all Definable Features of Work (DFOW) showing a logical sequence of events and complete construction for the full duration of the projects."

Request the Government provide Offerors with the anticipated award date/NTP that Offerors should use to develop the Gantt Charts for both sample projects. Offerors shall develop their own notional dates for award/NTP. 15‐Mar‐23 No

6 14‐Mar‐23 Offerors request the Government provide Offerors with anticipated periods of performance for sample projects.

This request is denied. Offerors shall propose the period of performance/completion for these sample projects. 15‐Mar‐23 No

7 14‐Mar‐23

In several instances throughout the General SOW and SOWs for the sample projects, FC 1‐300‐ 09N is referenced. Request the Government confirm that design procedures will follow FC 1‐300‐ 09N. Confirmed. Design procedures will follow FC 1‐300‐09N. 15‐Mar‐23 No

8 14‐Mar‐23

L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance ‐ MATOC Task Order Requirements 4. Minimum contract value of € 250,000 Maximum of € 750,000. We kindly request an increase of maximum contract value for past performance projects to €1,250,000. Under the current 414th CSB RCO MATOC Italy, there have been several projects awarded with a value greater than €750,000. Showing projects above the €750K threshold allows Offerors to better demonstrate their performance range in multiple construction categories as identified on solicitation page 45 of 55 for the RCO Vicenza.

This request is denied. The value range for recent/relevant contracts as solicited shall remain unchanged, to align with the majority of requirements subject to the pending MATOC award. 15‐Mar‐23 No

RFI Responses

9 14‐Mar‐23

L.2.3.1 Binding "Each proposal volume shall be separately bound in a three‐ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open" In Italian A4 size the standard binders are two‐ring or four‐ring binders, please confirm we can also use these ensuring loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open.

This request is acceptable. L.2.3.1 shall be amended to add that two‐ring or four‐ring binding is acceptable. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

10 14‐Mar‐23 L.3.2 Hand‐carried proposal delivery. Please clarify the proposal due date if the package is hand delivery is required to be coordinated in advance.

See L.3.2: "The date for delivery shall be coordinated at least one business day in advance, with no hand delivery occuring on the proposal due date." To clarify, offerors who want to hand deliver, shall coordinate with the POC at least one‐day ahead of the requested delivery. FOR EXAMPLE, if an offeror wants to deliver the proposal package on 13 Apr, that coordination must be done between the offeror and POC on 12 Apr (i.e., one business day ahead). Further, the RFP states no hand delivery is authorized on the proposal due date, 18 Apr 2023. Therefore, the last day hand delivery will be accepted is 17 Apr 2023, which MUST be coordinated by 14 Apr 2023. 15‐Mar‐23 No

11 14‐Mar‐23

L.5 Contract documentation. Please confirm that Chamber of Commerce certification (in addition to JV agreement, SOA certifications, and other required Italian Certifications) are excluded from the page limitation of 25 pages.

SOA certifications are subject to L.4.2.2 and Volume I page limitations. Chamber of Commerce certificates are subject to the page limitations of Volume III. 15‐Mar‐23 No

12 14‐Mar‐23

Offerors request the Government provide a site visit for the two sample projects? This will enable Offerors to better understand the ramifications of the SOW and provide a compliant technical proposal.

The sample projects are sample projects only. No site visit is required. If the sample project SOW(s) includes unclear information for proposal preparation, please submit those questions through the RFI process. 15‐Mar‐23 No

13 14‐Mar‐23 Please advise where (i.e. Volume I or Volume II) Offerors should include Letters of Commitment from key subcontractors? Request Letters of Commitment be excluded from the page count.

L.4.2.1.3 shall be amended to clarify that agreements or Letters of Committment with Design firms/Designers and any other key personnel (including key subcontractors) be provided. Consistent with RFI4 response above, Amendment 0001 will clarify the required agreements and/or letters are excluded from the page count. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

14 14‐Mar‐23

Request the Government clarify if anticipated TOs solicited under this contract will support only D‐B/D‐B‐B construction activities at the Vicenza Military Community or other US DoD installations in Italy? Requirements will be issued to support the area in and around the VMC. 15‐Mar‐23 No

15 14‐Mar‐23 Can Offerors use a font size of 10pt for tables and charts included in the proposal on A4‐sized sheets? 10pt font size for tables, charts, graphs, etc. is acceptable whether fold‐out sheet or A4‐sized sheet. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

16 14‐Mar‐23 Can Offerors use Arial Narrow font for information provided in Tables? This request is denied. Times New Roman font shall be utilized, as instructed. 15‐Mar‐23 No

17 14‐Mar‐23 For the sample projects, will the Government provide Offerors with an area for a field office/site layout? If so, please specify the location.

The Government will provide area(s) for field office/site layout AFTER submission of the Design Safety Plan (DSC). Parking and roads will be limited. However, as these are sample projects, an offeror may simply note this coordination/acknowledgement of the need for agreement of the location. No actual location is to be provided for the sample projects. 15‐Mar‐23 No

18 14‐Mar‐23 L.4.3 Are projects not yet completed considered acceptable as past performance? Which is the % of contract completion required?

Contracts submitted for evaluation must be 100% completed contracts. L.4.3.1 shall be clarified to state such via pending Amendment 0001. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

19 14‐Mar‐23 L.4.3 Is the Offeror allowed to submit as past performance one or more projects performed by another firm such as a committed subcontractor?

See #6 of L.4.3.1. Submitted past performance must be of the offeror's performance as the prime contractor. 15‐Mar‐23 No

20 14‐Mar‐23

L.4.3 We have successfully completed projects with a dollar value in the range of $10 million and above. As performance on these contracts is more complex and challenging, we request that the Government consider changing the contract value criteria under Factor Three Past Performance from: “Minimum contract value of € 250,000.00 Maximum of € 750,000.00” to:

“Minimum contract value of € 250,000.00.” This request is denied. See response to RFI8 above. 15‐Mar‐23 No

21 14‐Mar‐23 L.4.3 Please confirm that projects performed by the Offeror outside of Italy will NOT be considered relevant under Factor Three Past Performance. Confirmed, see item #5 of L.4.3.1 15‐Mar‐23 No

22 14‐Mar‐23

L.4.3 The RFP states that a relevant contract is “ Recent is defined as contract performance within the last three (3) years, starting from the solicitation close date.”

Will the Government accept contracts that are otherwise relevant; substantially completed (85% complete or above) but not 100% completed, as relevant contracts under Factor Three Past Performance? See response to RFI18 above. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

23 14‐Mar‐23

L.4.3 Under Factor Three Past Performance, “recent” is defined as contract performance within the last three (3) years, starting from the solicitation close date.”

We kindly request the Government to extend this period to include past performance within the last five (5) years. This request is acceptable. This will be confirmed via pending Amendment 0001. 15‐Mar‐23 A0001

24 14‐Mar‐23

L.4.3 Can the Offeror provide a CPAR or a standard Form Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for NAVFAC and USACE (Form PPQ‐0, 9/30/11) in lieu of the Attachment 4 Past Performance Survey under Factor Three Past Performance? This request is denied. Past Performance Survey must be submitted. See item #9 of L.4.3.1 15‐Mar‐23 No

25 14‐Mar‐23 Will the Government consider scheduling a site visit pertaining to the seed projects under the RFP Technical Section? See response to RFI12 above. 15‐Mar‐23 No

26 14‐Mar‐23

L.5.4 This section states that the offeror shall provide an Anti‐Mafia self‐certification, using Attachment 5. Please clarify if the offeror shall include an Anti‐Mafia Self‐Certification from each subcontractor listed in the proposal.

Anti‐Mafia certification applies to the Prime Contractor (Offeror) only. Verification of subcontractors is the responsibility of the Prime contractor. 15‐Mar‐23 No

RFI Responses

27 14‐Mar‐23

Attach 3 – SOW B108 part 3 This section states “…provide complete Testing and Balancing (TAB) of all air and water distribution systems and HVAC equipment.”

To properly estimate the TAB costs, please clarify if the TAB must be performed only on newly installed equipment or on the entire building including existing equipment.

TAB must be performed on the entire building including existing equipment. Section D30 refers to the system in its entirety (new and existing). 15‐Mar‐23 No

28 14‐Mar‐23

Attach 3 – SOW B108 part 3 This section states “…provide complete Testing and Balancing (TAB) of all air and water distribution systems and HVAC equipment.”

Please clarify, in the event that the TAB needs to be performed on the existing equipment, how to manage potential deficiencies discovered. Any potential deficiency found shall be reported to the Government. 15‐Mar‐23 No

29 20‐Mar‐23

Offerer writes to request modifications to section L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance. In section L.4.3.1.4. ‐ MATOC Task Order Requirements, there is a Minimum contract value of € 250,000 and a Maximum of €750,000. We kindly request an increase of maximum contract value for past performance projects to € 900,000. This adjustment would stay within the parameters of similar past Matoc Task Order Requirements.

The Government rescinds it's prior responses to this same question, and will increase the maximum contract value to €1M, in the pending Amendment 0001 (at L.4.3.1). 20‐Mar‐23 A0001

30 20‐Mar‐23

Offerer writes to request clarification to section L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance. In section L.4.3.1.4. ‐ MATOC Task Order Requirements, there is a Minimum contract value of € 250,000 and a Maximum of €750,000. We kindly ask for clarification if this can refer to the Awarded contract amount instead of a final contracted amount. We have had previous projects that were awarded within the specified amount of €750,000, but with modifications the final contract amount was higher.

Amendment 0001 will clarify the contract value / range "at time of award." Therefore, modifications to the contract (in addressing L.4.3.1 #8) could exceed the "at time of award" value range of €250,000 to €1,000,000, noted as a pending amendment with the RFI29 response above. 20‐Mar‐23 A0001

31 20‐Mar‐23

Offerer writes to request clarification to section L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance.

Relevance is defined as the same or similar magnitude, work scope and complexity to the requirements of the MATOC task orders anticipated from this contract. Please clarify if a relevant project can include projects which have multiple projects within the same Contract number, for example a VARIOUS PROJECTS contract under a previous MATOC contract that meets the other requirements under L.4.3.1.

A task order under a prior/existing MATOC constitutes an individual contract as the construction requirement applies at that requirement/contract level. If a prior contract included "various projects" requirements, the offeror shall ensure their proposal/contract cited meets the requirements at L.4.3.1. 20‐Mar‐23 No