Addendum_01_MSAR_W91364-18-R-8000.pdf

ADDENDUM 01 TO

W91364-18-R-8000 FOR Modular Small Arms Range

AT 180TH FIGHTER WING

Responses to: Butt Construction, received 5 December 2017:

MSAR questions set # 1

1: Paragraph 1.02.B of Section 01 11 00 has a reference to the Ohio National Guard MATOC contract. Is this project a MATOC task order or is it open to other bidders that are not on the MATOC contract?

Answer: Delete "MATOC contract" and change to read "...Guard Section 1 of this solicitation shall apply to this SOO."

2: Will the design-builder be required to obtain a local building permit? If so, please indicate which permitting authority has jurisdiction over the project.

Answer: The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any State Environmental permits for this project.

3: Will we be required to pay sales tax on material incorporated into the project or will the government provide a sales tax exemption form to the contractor?

Answer: The contractor can obtain a tax exempt certificate from the Contracting Officer for this project.

4: Paragraph 1.16.C.4.a of Section 01 11 00 says “Pavements shall be permitted to be open-cut as long as approval has been received by the COR in writing 30 calendar days prior to commencement of work”. Note 13 on Drawing C-301 indicates we are to bore under the existing road to install a new electrical service. The new water line, gas line and communications ductbank all appear to be located below existing pavement. Does the new electric service, located below the road, need to be bored as indicated on Drawing C-301 or can it be open-cut as indicated in Section 01 11 00.

Answer: The road is required for delivery trucks for our Logistics unit. If the contractor can maintain at least on lane of the drive open for deliveries boring is not required.

5: Paragraph 1.17.J of Section 01 11 00 briefly mentions a “modular range simulation system”.

This is the only mention of a simulation system that we can find in the RFP documents. Is a simulation system required for the range? If so, please provide the government’s requirements for the simulation system.

Answer: Section 1.17.V of the SOO for the simulation system was removed. There is NO Optional Bid Item.

6: Paragraph 1.03.A.1 of Section 01 11 00 discusses a Preliminary Design Review. For the purpose of incorporating this into our project schedule, is this meant to be an initial design review meeting in which the contractor and the government review the project requirements and the contractor’s initial approach to meeting those requirements?

Answer: Yes.

7: Paragraph 1.03.A.2 of Section 01 11 00 discusses the Critical Design Review. For the purposes of incorporating this into our project schedule, how long will the government take to perform the Critical Design Review after we submit our design? Is there a formal on-site meeting held after the government’s review?

Answer: This review should take 7 calendar days by the government. A meeting may be required depending on the extent of any design review comments.

Responses to: Bristol Companies, received 7 December 2017:

MSAR questions set # 2

1: SF 1442

The duration of this project has decreased from 270 calendar days per Solicitation Number W91364-17-R-0002 to 180 calendar days. However, the scope of the project has not significantly changed. We respectively request that you consider changing the duration to the original 270 calendar days. This amount of project duration reduction will result in a fast-track project situation where manpower and equipment will need to be increased, material expediting, and OT will be required, which will result in an overall cost increase.

Answer: This is not traditional construction, since a commercially designed/pre-engineered range system is to be used, the Lead time to completion to be 180-days should be sufficient. If justification is presented otherwise, a possible Amendment to the 1442 may be allowed.

2: The updated drawings are not stamped and do not provide a complete design package. We feel that the revised contract duration does not include adequate time for design, design review meetings, design revisions and permitting. Does this project still include a design component?

Answer: This is a SOO (statement of objectives) and would not have a "Complete Design Package" and is delegated to the Prime contractor and Range manufacturer.

3: 2.5.2. Volume 2, Part 1, Offeror Technical Capability Proposal, paragraph 2.5.2

The referenced section states that ‘experience cut sheets’ are limited to 2 pages each and are not part of the page count. Exhibit A, Part 1 forms are to be included in Sub-factor 1 to demonstrate project experience. Is there a page limit applicable to the individual Exhibit A, Part 1, Performance Relevancy Questionnaires?

Answer: ‘experience cut sheets’ are limited to 2 pages refers to resume’s, Exhibit A, Part 1 states as much space needed to provide description of work performed and must also answer the Four questions.

4: Exhibit C, Performance Evaluation (Construction)

Many of our clients will not fill out additional performance evaluations if they have completed one recently. Is it acceptable to submit previously completed PPQs in the standard USACE/NAVFAC format in lieu of the evaluation provided under Exhibit C?

Answer: USACE/NAVFAC formats are acceptable, Generally PPQs are not provided to the Prime directly. And should come directly to 180th FW.

NOTE: the Date on Exhibit C! Should be 31 Dec 2017, (not 13 Dec)

5: Formal Communication, Offeror Explanations paragraph 3.3

Per Formal Communication, Offeror Explanations paragraph 3.3, the RFI deadline is 5 working days prior to the proposal due date with the government providing responses up to 2 working days prior to the due date. As many offerors will be shipping their proposals, this does not provide sufficient time to modify pricing and submission as applicable. Please consider modifying the RFI deadline and/or response timeline in order to help us prepare a quality and comprehensive proposal.

Answer: This is standard timelines, and the reason we ask NOT to wait to send RFI’s in, any last minute RFI’s should be minor in nature.

6: PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 2.3.5.3 and 2.3.5.4

Per Past/Present Performance Evaluation 2.3.5.3 and 2.3.5.4 the Government will consider USGBC LEED® certification achievements on past/present performance. As this project will not be LEED certified and relevant project types (ranges, etc.) do not involve LEED criteria we ask that this consideration be removed.

Answer: NO, intent is to maximize your opportunity to provide Past/Present performance.

7: SOO Rev2b Permitting Requirements paragraph 2.3

SOO Permitting Requirements paragraph 2.3 states “permits will be paid by the Government using construction funds.” Does this mean that all permitting costs need to be included in our price proposal or will the Government pay for it from a different funding source?

Answer: The contractor shall include cost of required permits in their price proposal.

8: SOO Rev2b Permitting Requirements paragraph 2.3

SOO Rev2b Permitting Requirements paragraph 2.3 states “EXCEPTION: Contractor shall be responsible for developing, submitting, and paying all costs associated with storm water permitting (i.e., Notice of Intent (NOI)).” Please confirm our bid is to include all storm water permitting fees/costs.

Answer: The contractor shall include cost of required permits in their price proposal.

9: NEW SECONDARY CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES AND DOUBLE-WALLED TANKS

New Secondary Containment Structures and Double-Walled Tanks states in paragraph 12.1 “Designer will provide secondary containment for all permanently-installed containers or tanks of petroleum products 55 gallons or larger” and 12.4 states that if a government generator is provided we are to provide a “a concrete containment dike.” Is a government generator being provided, what size, how much fuel needs to be stored? More guidance is needed, please advise.

Answer: The government is not providing a generator for this facility.

10: SOO- Staffing

The SOO does not state required staff on site during construction please clarify.

Answer: The contractor shall determine the required staffing to perform and supervise the work.

11: 2.5.2.2. Sub-factor 1 Experience and Capability

2.5.2.2. Sub-factor 1 Experience and Capability states we are to provide experience of key construction personnel including, but not limited to, Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Assurance Manager (on site), and Site Safety Manager. For a project of this size and scope that seems excessive and costly. Would the government consider allowing the Superintendent to also act as Site Safety Manager in order to create a cost savings?

Answer: Based on the Magnitude this is appropriate, but we may allow QA and Site Safety to combine.

12: Statement of Objectives (SOO), 1.02, D.

Statement of Objectives (SOO), 1.02, D. states Offeror’s price is to be valid for 90 calendar days while the SF 1442 lists a minimum of 120 calendar days. Which is correct?

Answer: the SF 1442, sec 13.D takes precedence and is correct at 120 Days

13: SOO Section 1.03 A.

Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section 1.03 A. Review page 01 11 00-1. To enable adequate time for contractors to design, fabricate and construct the required solution, would the Government indicate its anticipated review time for each of the two (2) Design Reviews:

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR)?

Answer: This review should take 7 calendar days by the government. A meeting may be required depending on the extent of any design review comments.

14: SOO Section 1.04 SOO Technical Documents page 01 11 00-1

Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section 1.04 SOO Technical Documents page 01 11 00-1. Is there a requirement for the design documents to be reviewed and stamped by a Professional Engineer? If so, will this require that the PE be licensed in the state of Ohio?

Answer: The final design documents after the critical design review shall be stamped and sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio.

15: Paragraph 2.5.2.1.1

Paragraph 2.5.2.1.1 states that Exhibit A will be used in the evaluation for Volume 2, Part 1, Sub-factor 1. However, paragraph 2.5.3.1 states that Exhibit A is required in Volume 2, Part 2.

Please confirm which part of the proposal we are supposed to include the completed Exhibit A forms.

Answer: Delete Comment in 2.5.2.1.1 on Exhibit A.

Correct statement in 2.5.3.1-Exhibit A part 1 and 2 would be included in Volume 2, Part 2, along with your Exhibit B- sub-contractor consent & Exhibit’s C-PPQ.

NOTE:

Please do not wait until the last minute to ask technical questions. Give us enough time to adequately answer your questions, and allow the group of offerors time to view the responses.