proposal questions and answers MATOC.pdf

1. Please clarify whether we need to submit information at this time regarding the potential architects/engineers we would use in the event of a design/build project, or if we only need to submit this if/when there actually is a design/build out for solicitation.

A. Design Build MATOC RFP’s are addressed in Section 00800, paragraph SC8. No information on Architect Engineer’s is required at this time with the MATOC Proposal.

2. Our bonding company has asked if we are required to submit a bid on each Task Order in our area if we are awarded a contract? They have a concern that since we are a small company, the timing of the task order may be an issue due to other projects that are just getting started.

A. You are expected but not required to submit on each offered task order. However, too many “no bids” could put your contract at risk of cancellation in accordance with Section 00800, paragraph SC4.4.

3. At the Pre-Proposal Conference, it was stated that the company name should only appear on letterhead in the Offeror’s cover letter, and should not appear anywhere else in the Offeror’s proposal. It was also stated that if the company name appeared elsewhere in the proposal, the proposal would be rejected.

We are unable to find requirements or instructions directing that exclusion concerning use of the company name elsewhere in the proposal, particularly in responding to Exhibits, such as answering the questions in Exhibit D. As the RFP supersedes any information conveyed verbally at a Pre-Proposal Conference, please provide the RFP reference that gives the specific instructions that the Company name should only appear in the cover letter and not anywhere else in the proposal. If instruction is lacking in the RFP, please amend the RFP to clearly state the exact requirement concerning limitations on use of company name in the proposal so that we may submit a proposal that is formatted exactly as required. Alternatively, if an

Amendment is not forthcoming, please confirm that the RFP does not have that requirement and that company names can appear throughout the proposal, including in

Exhibit D.

A. Section 00100, paragraph 1.6.3 states that “Written proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper…” and this restriction only applies to Volume 3.

4. Regarding the self-performance requirement referenced in Paragraph 2.3.5 on p. 21 of the solicitation:

(a) It is stated at the pre-proposal conference that the Government intends to allow the 15% self-performance requirement to be met with project management functions, in contrast to the language of Paragraph 2.3.5 as it currently appears. Please confirm that this is correct and that Paragraph 2.3.5 will be amended accordingly.

A. The 15% Self Performance can include project management functions; however, the

15% can’t be entirely project management.

(b) There are several evaluation factors, such as Items 1D and 2C of Exhibit D, that align with the original requirement to self-perform 15% of the trades work with the offeror’s own forces. Will these requirements remain as originally written, given the anticipated change to Paragraph 2.3.5 to allow the self-performance requirement to be fulfilled with project management functions?

A. They will remain as originally written.

(c) Will the Government evaluate more favorably offerors who intend to self-perform a portion of the trades work with their own forces?

A. The Government will evaluate according to criteria set forth in the RFP.

5. What is the anticipated division of work among the locations identified in Item 1 on p. 5 of the solicitation; that is, what percentage of work is expected to occur within each region?

A. The Government can’t estimate nor guarantee a set amount of work for any of the

Geographical Areas.

6. Does the Government anticipate a fiscal year-end surge of volume to occur under this contract, or is it expected that the annual volume of work will be well distributed throughout the year?

A. There have been fiscal year-end surges in the past; however that does not guarantee there will be in the future.

7. It was the impression of our personnel in attendance at the Pre-Proposal

Conference that offerors are not to use company letterhead in their proposal response, except where specifically indicated; in addition, our attendees reported that, in order to ensure unbiased evaluation of all offerors, proposals were to be submitted in such a form that the offeror could not be directly identified – instead, proposals were to be assigned numbers and evaluated “blind” to the offerors’ identities. As none of these requirements appear in the Solicitation or accompanying documents, please clarify how offerors should implement these measures in order to be assured consideration. For example:

A. May offerors place their names and/or logos in headers or footers along with the required sequential page numbers in each volume?

B. When providing required information in narrative form, is the offeror to use terms such as “this offeror,” “this contractor,” in place of our company name?

C. To which section or sections of the proposal do these restrictions apply?

A. Section 00100, paragraph 1.6.3 states that “Written proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper…” and this restriction only applies to Volume 3.

How can I obtain specs for the pre-engineering building system?

8. How can I obtain specs for the pre-engineering building system?

A. The specification section 133419, Metal Building Systems, is available with the solicitation package on www.fbo.gov.

9. Please identify the manufacturer of the existing Pre-Engineered Building (PEB), as this could be important to potential warranty availability.

A. VARCO-PRUDEN BUILDINGS INC.

10. Regarding the design for the Prototypical Project, current code says that a new building cannot be located within 20 ft of an existing structure without addressing the structural integrity of the existing building. If the addition is built per drawings it would add an additional snow load to the existing structure and could cause structural failure of existing building. Can the engineering firm responsible for the Prototypical Project confirm whether or not the roof area of the existing PEB which is directly adjacent to the proposed addition (Figure 1, below) is structurally sound for the additional snow load which would accumulate in the intersecting area?

If not, does the Government have a preferred solution to this Building Code issue?

Figure 1 – Reference Drawing A-201, North Elevation

A. DRAWING S-101 HAS WORK FOR LOW ROOF FRAMING WHICH IS INTENDED TO ALLEVIATE

ADDITIONAL SNOW LOAD.