B08-W912PF23R0005 RFIs FINAL_20230405.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

RFI Responses

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

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

RFI Responses

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

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

32 20‐Mar‐23

The solicitation (page 44 of 55) reads “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”. Can you please clarify if requirements at page 45 (3 to 5) are compulsory or only necessary to define higher relevance/confidence? For instance, project performed in Germany will be considered relevant but less than the ones performed in Italy (Item 5 page 45)? Or, projects with amount higher than 750k but still relevant according to page 44 will be relevant but less than projects in the range (Item 4 page 45)?

1. Only necessary to define relevance/confidence

2. Projects performed outside of Italy will be considered less relevant than ones performed within Italy.

3. Projects performed outside of the stated magnitude will be considered less relevant than ones performed within the stated magnitude.

24‐Mar‐23 No

33 20‐Mar‐23

Additionally, among items of page 45, vertical construction in the range between 250k and 750k euros. Vertical construction is generally connected to higher amounts. In fact none of our past projects in this range include vertical construction. Could you please consider to extend the range to a higher maximum amount? I think this shouldn’t affect bidders who don’t have vertical construction but guarantee the Government that vertical construction is in the skills/capabilities of some bidders. See response to RFI29 above. 24‐Mar‐23 A0001

RFI Responses

34 21‐Mar‐23

Ref. L4.3.1 Factor Three Past Performance Question: Should Offeror submit CPARS Evaluation (if available) in addition to the submission of Past Performance Survey? Thank you.

Amendment 0002 will change #9 as follows: "9. CPARS Report AND/OR the customer completed, by POC at #1 above, Past Performance Survey at Attachment 4 (CPARS Reports and surveys are excluded from the page limitations)." In short, a minimum of one of the two (CPARS or survey) shall be submitted, but both may also be submitted. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

35 21‐Mar‐23

Ref. L4.4. Price Question: We kindly request to provide offerors a standard form in excel of the price schedule for the two sample projects. Thank you

No Excel form will be provided. Moreover, there is NO price schedule provided for the two sample projects required in Section L. See L.4.4 for Price Factor submission requirements. 24‐Mar‐23 No

36 21‐Mar‐23

Ref. L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance Point 6. Offeror performance as the prime contractor;

Question: Please indicate if Past Performance submitted by the Offeror performed through a JV where the Offeror had the majority of the shares is accepted. If yes, please indicate how it will be evaluated and the necessary documentation (i.e. JV Agreement etc). Thank you

Amendment 0002 will change L.4.3.1 #6 "6. Offeror performance as the prime contractor (if past performance was a Joint Venture (JV), Offeror shall detail the magnitude, complexity and scope of work performed by its own entity AND its stake/share in the JV. Additionally, the Offeror must provide a copy of the JV Agreement reflecting said share. This Agreement is excluded from the page limitations) 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

37 21‐Mar‐23

Ref. Factor Four ‐ Contract Documentation Question: Should offeror include SAM Registration Status, DFARS FARS report within Volume III

– Factor Four ‐ Contract Documentation? If yes, are they excluded from the 25 page limit count? Thank you.

No. SAM Registration Status and the online Reps & Certs are not required in Volume III. SAM registration status and online Reps & Certs are verified by the Contracting Officer as part of an offeror's Responsibility Determination. 24‐Mar‐23 No

38 21‐Mar‐23

Ref. Factor Four ‐ Contract Documentation Question: Must offeror submit copy of valid Casellari Giudiziari, Carichi Pendenti, Stato Famiglia for Antimafia Compliance within Volume III – Factor Four ‐ Contract Documentation? If yes, are they excluded from the 25 page limit count? Thank you

No. The self‐certification at Attachment 5 is required, along with any recent "White List" addition via a screen print of the site specified at L.5.4.1. No judicial records, pending charges, or family status certifications are required. 24‐Mar‐23 No

39 22‐Mar‐23 Pre‐Proposal Conference RFI: L.4.4 ‐ request the Government clarify the Price proposal is Euro or USD. Amendment 0002 will clarify the Price proposals shall be submitted in Euro, €. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

40 22‐Mar‐23

Pre‐Proposal Conference RFI: L.2.1 and L.5 ‐ request the Government clarify the page limitations at L.2.1 and the requirements at L.5, as the meeting the requirements at L.5 and its subparts will exceed the 25 pg. page limitation at L.2.1.

Amendment 0002 will clarify the documents at L.5.1.1, in their entirety, to include all Amendments, are not subject to the page limitations at L.2.1. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

41 22‐Mar‐23 Pre‐Proposal Conference RFI: L.4.3.1 #9. Request the Government accept CPARS data/report in lieu of Past Performance Survey at Attachment 4. Accepted. See response to RFI34 above. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

42 22‐Mar‐23

As explained during the meeting offeror writes to request modifications to section L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance. In section L.4.3.1.9., there is the requirement to include the customer completed Past Performance Survey for each project submitted. We kindly ask for a modification to this section with the following requirement, as similar to other MATOC RFPs:

For each project, Offerors shall include a completed Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) record, if available. If a CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Survey Form, provided as Attachment 4. Accepted. See response to RFI34 above. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

43 22‐Mar‐23

For Offerors choosing to hand deliver proposals, we request the Government indicate how proposals should be packaged, sealed, and addressed (i.e. All proposal Volumes in one box?

Proposal Volumes separated in separate boxes? Should all boxes be sealed?).

Proposals shall be packaged/sealed/addressed in the same manner ‐‐ whether they are delivered via carrier (L.3.1) or hand‐delivered (L.3.2). The number of boxes is the offeror's reasonable discretion (e.g., one large box, one box per Volume, etc.) ‐‐ the Government will not dictate such. 24‐Mar‐23 No

44 22‐Mar‐23

Reference is made to Amend 001 page 03 of 06: L.1.5 Proposal Validity: The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation, within Volume III, that the proposal is valid through 30 October 2023. Question:

It is our understanding that SECTION A refers to General Solicitation Information A.1 through A.5 page 03 of 55; It is unclear if Offerors should insert a Section A within VOLUME III ‐ Price & Contract Documents of its proposal documentation or SECTION A is intended as the SF1442 Box 17 . Could the Government provide clarity to this requirement?

L.1.5 to be amended (pending A0002) to clarify/reference the SF1442 Box 17 for the offeror's action to address/input the proposal validity acceptance period. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

45 22‐Mar‐23 Reference is made to L.4.1.2 Factor One ‐ Technical ‐ Gantt Chart; Question: Should the Schedule be submitted in Primavera P6?

Schedule requirements are addressed within the Statement of Work and developed in Primavera P6 and submitted in .pdf. Pending A0002 to clarify submission format at L.4.1.2. 24‐Mar‐23 Pending

RFI Responses

46 22‐Mar‐23

Reference is made to Section L ‐ L.5. Contract Documentation ‐ L.5.1 ''SF1442, Executed Clauses & Provisions, Reprs & Certs; L.5.1.1 Submission of this information supports the Government’s preparation of the contract document and supporting file. Offerors shall include a signed copy of the solicitation (SF1442 Request for proposal) and completed copies of Sections A through K.

Offerors are required to complete all blocks requiring offeror information/response. Signature by the offeror constitutes a proposal, which the Government may accept. The “original” copy should be clearly marked and placed in the appropriate Original Volume III, per Section L instructions herein.'' Question: Section A through K goes from page 3 to 38 of the Solicitation; In our experience it is usually requested to submit only a completed SECTION K ''Representations, Certifications and Other Statement of Offerors'', along with a completed SF1442, Acknowledgement of Amendments and any additional Documentation explicitly required.

Could the Government provide clarity to this requirement, if Offerors should include a copy of all Sections (A through K).

L.5.1.1 will remain unchanged for submission of Sections A‐K. The response to RFI40 above advises Offerors pending A0002 will remove these pages (and others, as specified) from the page limitiations specified for Volume III. 24‐Mar‐23 No

47 23‐Mar‐23

Under L.4.3 Factor Three: Past Performance, item L.4.3.1.4., the section specifies: “the minimum contract value of €250,000 maximum €1,000,000, at the time of contract award.”

According to RFI#30, it is stated that “the contract value/range at the time of award.” However, modifications to the contract (in addressing L.4.3.1 #8) could exceed the “at the time of award” value range of €250,000 to €1,000,000.” Several of our projects have a final value where the project value at the time award is not within the range however the final values are within the range of €250,000 to €1,000,000. We kindly ask for clarification if this requirement refers to either of the contract values, and ask that you consider as acceptable that either the initial contract value or the final value be within the €250,000 to €1,000,000 range.

The €250,000 to €1,000,000 magnitude in meeting the relevancy definition of this solicitation is "at time of award." A past performance contract cited outside these figures at time of award, may be considered less relevant, again, IAW the relevancy definition of the solicitation. 24‐Mar‐23 No

48 24‐Mar‐23 Ref.is made to B08‐RFP ATTACHMENT 4 ‐ Past Performance Survey; Please clarify what is intended as Program Identification / Title at page 3, PART I A. Contract Identitifaction. Thank you If the Contract is associated with a certain program or project, specify it here. 24‐Mar‐23 No

49 24‐Mar‐23 Ref.is made to B08‐RFP ATTACHMENT 4 ‐ Past Performance Survey; We kindly request to provide the enclosure as WORD DOCUMENT or editable pdf. Thank you This request is denied. Attachment 4 will remain unchanged, as solicited. 24‐Mar‐23 No

50 24‐Mar‐23 Ref.is made to L.4.3. Factor Three Past Performance; Should offerors create their own Experience Project Information Sheet for each submitted project?

The Government requirements are specified at L.4.3 and its subparts. Should offerors propose additional information beyond the Government's requirements (within the page limitations), that is the offeror's discretion. 24‐Mar‐23 No

51 24‐Mar‐23

Attachment 4‐Performance Assessment Questionnaire vs. CPARS Evaluation. This was a topic of discussion during the pre‐proposal conference. As discussed during the conference, Offerors often have difficulties locating the Offeror's representative/POC (due to relocation/PCS) for past performance projects exceeding upwards of two years. Historically, we have found that the new POC replacing the former Offeror representative/POC will not complete a past performance evaluation for projects they were not directly responsible for/involved in. To alleviate any misunderstanding and ensure past performance information is provided for all past performance projects showcased in Volume II Past Performance , we respectfully request the Government allow Offerors to use final CPARS evaluations in lieu of a Attachment 4‐ Performance Assessment Questionnaire. Accepted. See response to RFI34 above. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

52 27‐Mar‐23

We kindly ask for clarification regarding section L.4.4.1 (page 45/55): the hourly direct labor rate of the Quality Assurance is requested. Do you confirm this key figure? As section L.4.2.1.3 (page 43/55) mentions the figure QCM “Quality control manager” and not QA “Quality Assurance”. L.4.4.1 will be clarified to specify the labor rate is requested for the Quality Control Manager. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

53 27‐Mar‐23 We are kindly asking for specifics regarding section L.4.2.1.3: is one resume for each key person sufficient or do you need to provide more than one for each figure? The requirement is for a (singular) resume for each individual/position identified at L.4.2.1.3. 5‐Apr‐23 No

54 27‐Mar‐23

Section L.3.2 states: “The date for delivery shall be coordinated at least one business day in advance, with no hand delivery occurring on the proposal due date” According to our interpretation, for those firms considering hand‐delivery of the proposal, the above requirement would shorten the submission deadline by one day. We respectfully request that you consider an electronic submission of the proposal instead of a hard copy proposal package to allow sufficient time to provide RCO with an appropriate response to this solicitation. This request is denied. Electronic submission will not be accepted. 5‐Apr‐23 No

55 27‐Mar‐23

Does the roof need to be accessible for inspections/maintenance at EF etc. if yes, shall concrete curbs/plates (1x foot²) be in place to allow secure access/walking (roof protected) on the roof PLUS safety hooks along the perimeter wall to ensure safety regulations are met? No, the roof does not need to be accessible for maintenance after construction completion. 5‐Apr‐23 No

RFI Responses

56 27‐Mar‐23 There is no information about lightning protection on the roof connected to the flashings or EF etc. – do we need to install a system? No, installation of lightning protection system is not needed. 5‐Apr‐23 No

57 27‐Mar‐23 Does a roof leakage test IAW ASTM D5957‐98 need to be considered? No, leakage test IAW ASTM D5957‐98 does not need to be considered. 5‐Apr‐23 No

58 27‐Mar‐23

P.9 ‐ 4.0 Building requirements states: “ the building shall be finished with colors similar to”…… Does the building need to be recoated or only touch‐up works provided as described under P.11 B20 Exterior enclosure? […be finished in colors similar to the existing ones….]

Complete recoating is not required. The building need only touch‐up works as described under B20 Exterior Enclosure. 5‐Apr‐23 No

59 27‐Mar‐23

P.13 ‐ C30 states: “Work on the interior finishes are NA to the project, however any alliteration”…… Is touch‐up coating expected or complete wall recoating, including removal of furniture, etc.? Complete wall recoating is not required. Only touch‐up works are expected. 5‐Apr‐23 No

60 27‐Mar‐23

P.28 Photo No.4/P.36 D.9 – the picture shows the open skylight and its water infiltration. Is there another detail besides P.36 D.9 showing the installation of fans/ skylights? We are wondering if there should be vertical insulation installed to meet energy‐saving regulations – No insulation is shown in the detailed drawing. All available detail drawings have been included in the SOW. 5‐Apr‐23 No

61 27‐Mar‐23 P.32 Photo No..9 – is there an expansion joint in place or shall we consider installing an expansion joint + caulking along the perimeter wall (interior beam/wall) as part of the scope? I would defer to the DORs to investigate and provide the best solution on this topic. 5‐Apr‐23 No

62 27‐Mar‐23

With the observance of Good Friday in Italy, many firms and subcontractors will be on break.

We respectfully request that you consider granting a one‐week extension of the due date to allow sufficient time to provide RCO with an appropriate response to this solicitation.

Accepted. The Contracting Officer finds it is reasonable to issue a short extension, and will extend the solicitation close date/proposal response time & date to 15:00 CET, 21 Apr 2023 in pending A0002.

Please take note that the RFI submission deadline is not extended and remains unchanged. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

63 28‐Mar‐23

Is there any specific direction for header and footer format (intending text font, size, etc.)? We propose usage of text font and size per Amend 0001, L.2.2.2. Additionally, should header and footer be excluded or included from page margins specified within L.2.2.2?

Header and Footer shall not differ from established font and size requirements. L.2.2.2 will clarify header/footer inputs may be excluded from page margins, but may only contain titles or references and page numbers. No substantive proposal content shall be included in header/footer sections. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

64 28‐Mar‐23 We were unable to find any specific direction for line spacing within the page format. Do you have any? Line spacing is at the discretion of the offeror. 5‐Apr‐23 No

65 28‐Mar‐23

Ref. L.4.4.1., General Labourer. By googling "General Labourer" it looks like there is a precise billet in US defined by this category, but Italian labour market might not reflect this 100%. Per the employee/worker classification based on "CCNL Edilizia Artigianato", art. 77, Part III, there are seven different enrollment grades for workers, based on different duties and skills level.

Should we price the lowest? Price General Labor category to the basic level and skill. 5‐Apr‐23 No

66 28‐Mar‐23

Clarification for Price Validity. Ref. Section L, para. L.1.5: "Proposal should be valid through 30 October 2023". Ref. SF 1442, block 13, point D: "Offers providing less than 180 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected".

Please check and resolve any discrepancy between the above references for us to properly fill SF1442 block 17. Clarification to be provided in A0002. See response to RFI44 above. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

67 28‐Mar‐23

Clarification for proposal delivery instructions. Ref. Section L, para. L.3.2: "Delivery may be completed between 09:00-11:00 AM or 13:00-15:00 PM Central European Time and coordinated with the primary POC". We have found that no authorized carrier can ensure the delivery at a specific time, but only on a certain day. Please let us know if hand-carried delivery may be received and accepted at any time within the day before due date.

L.3.2 is strictly related to hand delivery (and the noted timeframes associated with hand delivery). There is no time window for carrier delivery. 5‐Apr‐23 No

68 29‐Mar‐23

Due to the Easter Holidays and unavailability of personnel (i.e. Contract POCs completing and submitting Attachment #4‐ Past Performance Survey Questionnaires to the Government and inhouse/Key Subcontractors availability over the holiday period to support the development of the Factor 1‐Technical Approach), Offerors respectfully request the Government to extend the proposal due date from Tuesday, 18 April 2023 to Tuesday, 25 April 2023.

Paritally accepted. See response to RFI62 above. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

69 30‐Mar‐23 This email is to kindly request the possibility to receive the Pre Proposal Conference Slides / List of Attendees.

The Pre‐Proposal Conference charts shall be posted to the solicitation at sam.gov by 7 Apr 2023. A list of firms attending the Conference will be posted as well; no individual attendees shall be named. 5‐Apr‐23 No

70 30‐Mar‐23 We kindly ask you to specify what is meant by “unburdened hourly direct labor rate”.

"Unburdened" is the hourly rate being paid to the specified labor category/individual. It does NOT include any G&A, overhead or fee/profit. 5‐Apr‐23 No

71 30‐Mar‐23

Bid Validity. Page 1 of the RFP states that offers need to be valid for 240 calendar days after the date offers are due. RFP B08, Paragraph L.1.5 indicates proposals must be valid through 10/30/2023, which equals 195 days. Please clarify what the proposal validity should be.

Clarification to be provided in A0002. See response to RFI44 above. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

RFI Responses

72 30‐Mar‐23

RFP B08‐W912PF23R0005, Section H.7.1.1 indicates “Warranty for any roof work is ten (10) years from the date of final acceptance.” RFP document B08‐RFP+ATTACHMENT+2+‐ +SOW+Project+E8‐41139‐1J+Replace+Roof+on+Building+249.pdf, Part 3, Chapter 6.0 Engineering System Requirements (ESR), B3040 Roof Warranty indicates “Provide a manufacturer no‐dollar‐limit 20‐year water tightness warranty for the total roof system, including flashings.” RFP document B08‐RFP+ATTACHMENT+1+‐+MATOC+SOW_20230127.pdf, Part 2, Specification 01 33 10.05 20 Design Submittal Procedures typically includes the Order of Precedence. However, the version included in this RFP does not specify an Order of Precedence.

Please clarify the expected roofing warranty duration (10 years or 20 years). The requirement for roofing warranty is 10 years, as specified at H.7.1.1 is correct. The SOW will be corrected/amended to specify 10 years. Order of Precendence is defined at FAR 52.215‐8. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

73 3‐Apr‐23 Ref.is made to Volume I Factor Two Mission Capability Sub Factor One Project Management Plan; Please clarify if resume of DQCM should be submitted. No. 5‐Apr‐23 No

74 3‐Apr‐23 We kindly request the possibility to receive the Pre Proposal Conference Slides / List of Attendees. Accepted. See response to RFI69. 5‐Apr‐23 No

75 3‐Apr‐23

As of today, answers to PPIs are pending as well as the issuance of Amendment 02 and the Posting of the PreProposal Conference Slides; We kindly request an extension of the proposal due date from 18 April 2023 to 28 April 2023 taking into account Italian Easter Holidays and Liberation Day: 25 April 2023. Thank you See response to RFI62 above. 5‐Apr‐23 Pending

76 4‐Apr‐23 we kindly ask you specification regard section L.4.3.1 #9, completed past performance survey must be included in VOLUME II (in paper)? Or is it only necessary to be sent by customer POC to your attention by e‐mail?

Offerors may include the POC‐completed surveys in their proposal package to ensure the requirement is met (in lieu of relying on POC submission alone). These surveys are excluded from page limitations, as stated at L.4.3.1 #9. 5‐Apr‐23 No

77 4‐Apr‐23 we kindly ask you specification regard “B08‐RFP ATTACHMENT 3 ‐ SOW Project E8‐44024‐2J Repairs in Mechanical Room Building 108”: Can fittings between new PPE pipes and existing iron pipes be flanged?

Yes, fittings can be flanged.

5‐Apr‐23 No

78 4‐Apr‐23 we kindly ask you specification regard “B08‐RFP ATTACHMENT 3 ‐ SOW Project E8‐44024‐2J Repairs in Mechanical Room Building 108”: Should external hot and cold water distribution pipes be insulated with armaflex and then insulated with aluminum?

Please refer to Part 3 SOW, paragraph D20 Plumbing: “Apply the insulation on exterior pipes and valves, it shall be performed mineral wool material for the steam lines, applications ranging from 20ºF (‐29ºC) to 1200ºF (649ºC), covered with aluminum jacket as per norm UNI EN 485, minimum thickness of 40mm;

Apply the insulation on exterior pipes and valves, it shall be performed EPDM material for hot and chilled water lines, applications ranging from 20ºF (‐29ºC) to 1200ºF (649ºC), covered with aluminum jacket as per norm UNI EN 485, minimum thickness of 40mm.” 5‐Apr‐23 No

79 4‐Apr‐23 we kindly ask you specification regard “B08‐RFP ATTACHMENT 3 ‐ SOW Project E8‐44024‐2J Repairs in Mechanical Room Building 108”: Should the external galvanized metal air duct be lined with rock wool mat and subsequently protected with 8/10 aluminum?

DOR would specify during the design process recommended insulation. Please also refer to Part 3 SOW, paragraph D3010 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: “On the roof, the contractor shall provide and replace the existing external ductworks (supply and return ventilation), with a new ones, from the machines to the roof opening where start the internal ductworks. They shall be insulated stainless steel ductworks.

Provide double wall, preinsulated ductworks.” 5‐Apr‐23 No