B08.03 20R0006 Questions and Answers_10Jul20.docx

Questions and Answers License for Cost Data W9132T20R0006

1. Can you confirm that all rights in the cost dataset, as a commercial item, will be governed by the Contractor’s commercial license terms and that DFARS Clause 252.227-7015 will only apply to any other technical data that may accompany the cost dataset.

A – Section L of the solicitation requires an offeror to submit a proposed license for the building component unit replacement cost dataset, which is intended to cover the terms of the Government’s use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, and disclose of the commercial item dataset within the BUILDERTM SMS application. DFARS Clause No. 252.227-7015 provides the Government specific license rights in technical data pertaining to commercial items or processes. Please reference DFARS Clause No. 252.227-7015 as it relates to the rights to technical data provided that pertain to commercial items. To the extent a contractor deems necessary, DFARS Clause No. 252.227-7037 permits the contractor to mark and assert limitations on the use of technical data. DFARS Clause No. 252.227-7015 will govern the rights to all accompanying technical data that pertains to the commercial item dataset that may be obtained by the Government.

1. SF33 Block 12 implies a 60-day proposal validity after submission on 20 July 2020. Page 43, Submittal of Offers requires minimum proposal validity until 30 Sept 2020. Should Block 12 of the SF33 be amended to reflect 70 days?

A –Block 12 authorizes the offerors to insert a period of time for acceptance of the offer. Per the cited paragraph in Section L, offerors are requested to submit proposals that are valid for a minimum period through 30 Sep 2020. This period of time for validity of the offer should be indicated on Block 12 of the SF33 by offerors. An offeror may designate a longer period of time for acceptance of the offer at its discretion.

1. Page 8, paragraph 2, provides the following requirement. “Within thirty (30) days after award, the Contractor shall provide the cost dataset in electronic form for the government to import directly in the BUILDER software…”. The short timeframe will exclude firms with commercially available cost data that can be cross walked to meet CERL’s requirements. Will the government consider extending this period to 90 days, at least for the base year?

A – This requirement is for the acquisition of a commercial item that meets the definition contained within FAR Section 2.101. The thirty-day delivery time satisfies the Government’s needs and sets a reasonable time period to permit preparation of an existing commercial cost dataset for import into the BUILDERTM SMS application. There is significant information available to offerors regarding the BUILDERTM SMS application, and a pre-solicitation notice was published 4 May 2020 on beta.SAM.gov, providing a link to the BUILDERTM component catalog and identifying the Government’s original intent regarding this solicitation. Therefore, the Government believes a thirty-day delivery period after award is a reasonable requirement that satisfies the Government’s needs. Therefore, no changes are anticipated to this section.

1. The evaluation criteria on pages 50 and 51, Section M, Item 1, “Coverage of BUILDER Component Catalog”, places firms that have not already developed a BUILDER crosswalk for a substantial portion of their cost data at a disadvantage in the evaluation process. The Past Performance criteria, Item 2, on page 51 favors long established cost data vendors over newer firms, effectively eliminating firms that can potentially offer innovative approaches and lower pricing for cost data.

3. Will the government consider changing the Section M, Item 1, “Coverage of BUILDER Component Catalog” evaluation criteria to “demonstrate the ability to provide complete and comprehensive replacement unit costs for each item in the BUILDER component catalog” and

A – It is not understood to the Government how the proposed language will substantively alter the evaluation criteria. The cited evaluation criterion in Section M states that “Offers will be evaluated based on how well the cost dataset provides complete and comprehensive replacement unit costs for each item in the BUILDERTM component catalog.” Reference the response to Question 3 regarding the pre-solicitation notice of the Government’s intent and the availability of information. The Government believes that this availability along with reasonable delivery requirements have provided potential offerors adequate time to ensure they can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Therefore, no changes are anticipated to this section.

3. changing the Item 2, Past Performance, criteria to consider references rather than the extent of product adoption.

A - No changes are anticipated to this section. The Government has determined that it is in its best interest to maintain the past performance evaluation criteria as written.

3. Will the government revise its evaluation criteria to also provide consideration for innovative approaches applied in creating component cost data that is more responsive to market conditions and the unique costs for government projects?

A – Per Section M, Criteria #3, the Government will consider the methodology for how component replacement unit costs were developed, including whether “rates for labor, materials, and equipment based on surveys and/or cost data from actual vendors, suppliers, builders, contractors, and construction projects and follow industry and statistical standards.” Reference also the response to Questions 14, and 15. However, the current cost estimation calculation features in the BUILDERTM SMS application must be able to support any innovative approaches that are proposed. Offering solutions that cannot be supported within the BUILDERTM SMS application provides no value to the Government for purposes of this requirement. Therefore, no changes are anticipated on this basis.

1. Pages 3 through 6 requires pricing to be based on square footages of the building portfolio. The area of the portfolio is not deemed a viable metric for level of effort and therefore pricing. Will the government revise the RFP to base pricing on a more realistic metric such as the number of catalog components in scope?

A – The option line items reference FAR Clause No. 52.204-22. Pursuant to FAR Clause No. 52.204-22, offerors are invited to propose alternative line items for which proposals are requested in this solicitation to ensure that the resulting contract is economically and administratively advantageous to the Government and the offeror. Therefore, offerors may provide an alternate structure in accordance with your standard business practices. No revisions to this section are anticipated.

1. Page 8, Requirements section, first bullet, provides access to the BUILDER component catalog. Based on review of the data, some components are not adequately defined in the Attribute-Subtype1 and Attribute-Subtype2 columns. Such attributes use General, Other or Unknown in the attribute name.

5. Will the government share past work to help vendors better understand assumptions made in developing the current catalog?

A – The Government does not anticipate sharing past work. This is a new requirement and no incumbent exists. However, for clarification, these three Subtype definitions are applied to component catalog data when the specific characteristics of the component are not identified during an inspection and a representative cost is applied based on the general class of component. For this situation, there are entries in the BUILDERTM SMS application catalog to accommodate these instances:

General - the most typical (if applicable) or median cost of any detailed assemblies (having the detailed attributes) for that particular component class.

Other - the average cost of detailed component assemblies that may be part of the particular component class but are not specifically identified in the catalog.

Unknown - the average cost of any applicable detailed component assemblies that may be part of the particular component class, whether they are specifically identified in the catalog or not.

5. If so, how soon will this information be made available for the vendor?

A – See response to Question 6a above.

5. Will the time for sharing such information and collaborating with the government be considered in the timeline for completion?

A – No changes anticipated with information provided in Question 6a above.

1. Was there a Sources Sought Notice associated with this Solicitation ?

A – A Sources Sought Notice was not published regarding this requirement. However, a pre-solicitation notice was published 4 May 2020 on beta.SAM.gov.

1. Would it be advantageous to the government to seek out innovative market solutions that leverage enhanced technology and processes to provide more accurate and enhanced asset management solutions than merely a generic dataset provides?

A – Reference our response to Questions 4.c, 14, and 15.

1. Is there an Incumbent or proposed existing solution that this solicitation is attempting to model ? If so, can you provide the name of the incumbent ?

A - No, this is a new requirement and therefore, there is no incumbent.

1. The government has selected a Nominal Order of Magnitude “Square Foot” basis for this procurement. While this might be an established practice of SAS for Enterprise Sales, Is the Government aware that Stand alone Cost Data is a “Product” where both cost and value are better captured as a fixed or per unit (License) cost ?

A – Reference the response to Question 5. Line Item 0001 of the solicitation requests a firm fixed price for the original dataset for the components in the current BUILDERTM component catalog and license for a period of 1 year. The basic premise of the options is that the Government anticipates that the size of the Government portfolio subject to this license to increase throughout the option years of the contract, up to a maximum of approximately 2200 MSF in size in Option Year 4. The Government desires option terms that will permit license coverage of this anticipated increased portfolio at an economical rate. Because the Government cannot predict with certainty the portfolio size during each option year, the Government seeks pre-negotiated pricing for these options to permit accurate cost comparison for the full life-cycle of the license, and to permit exercise of options without further negotiation. However, pursuant to FAR Clause No. 52.204-22, offerors are invited to propose alternative line items for which proposals are requested in this solicitation to ensure that the resulting contract is economically and administratively advantageous to the Government and the offeror. A per unit license cost is not advantageous to the Government because use of the underlying cost data is not directly related or measured on a per user basis within the BUILDERTM SMS application.

1. Why did the government choose a square foot basis for this solicitation?

A – Reference the response to Question 10. Since this license is intended to permit cost data is to be incorporated for use within the BUILDERTM SMS application to manage the sustainment of the DoD’s building portfolio, the Government determined that the most reliable and measurable value of the scope of this portfolio is the square footage of the building assets.

1. Is the Government aware that a Square Foot basis is not the current industry standard for selling construction cost data?

A – The Government is aware that this is not the traditional basis for licensing a product. Reference the response to Questions 10 and 11. However, a per-user model does not meet the requirements for the Government, as most BUILDERTM users do not work directly with the cost data, but the cost data is used as reference data for underlying analysis.

1. On P 17, XX 12 indicates a price evaluation preference for a HUBZone Small Business Concern, and item 16 indicates a requirement for utilization of Small Business Concerns. How will these be considered and weighed in evaluation of responses?

A – All proposals received will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation to determine the best value to the Government. If a proposal is received from a HUBZone small business, FAR Clause No. 52.219–4 will be utilized in determining the evaluated price for that entity. In accordance with FAR 52.219-8, all small businesses that are capable of meeting the Government requirements are encouraged to submit a proposal and will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

1. Cost data based on Davis-Bacon Act wage rates is more aligned with Federal construction estimation and these rates are a standard requirement for regional projects. Will CERL consider the alignment of cost data wage rates with Davis-Bacon in its evaluation of proposals?

A – It is appropriate for the proposal to identify any factors that have been incorporated into the replacement unit cost. CERL will consider the incorporation of factors that affect these costs and result in a more realistic cost estimates as a whole across the DoD portfolio. Reference Section L and Section M, Criteria #3, Methodology. Pursuant to Section M, Criteria #3, the Government will evaluate whether rates for labor, materials, and equipment are based on surveys and/or cost data from actual vendors, suppliers, builders, contractors, and construction projects and follow industry and statistical standards. The Government does not require any one labor rate schedule (such as Davis-Bacon) be referenced to develop component replacement unit costs.

1. Cost data based on locally researched prices provides more defensible data than data based on national average costs. Will CERL provide consideration for innovative approaches applied in creating the data in its evaluation of proposals?

A – Reference response to Questions 4.c, and 14. The current cost estimation calculation features in the BUILDERTM SMS application must be able to support any approaches that are proposed. The BUILDERTM SMS application does not currently permit importation of geographical-based pricing for component replacement unit costs. Offering solutions that cannot be supported within the BUILDERTM SMS application provides no value to the Government for purposes of this requirement.

1. How interested is the government in providing the most accurate estimates and asset valuation?

Should accuracy be a factor in evaluating the best option?

A – Reference response to Questions 4.c, 14, and 15. Per Section M, Criteria #3, the Government will consider the methodology for how component replacement unit costs were developed, including whether “rates for labor, materials, and equipment based on surveys and/or cost data from actual vendors, suppliers, builders, contractors, and construction projects and follow industry and statistical standards.”

1. What frequency is required for refresh and provision of the provided data? Will CERL provide consideration for locally researched prices that are more responsive to changes in the market?

A – In accordance with the second bullet in the Requirements section on Page 8 of the solicitation, the minimum frequency for refreshing the data is annually. Reference the response to Questions 14, 15 and 16 above regarding consideration for locally researched prices.