Additional RFI Questions - 5 May 2020.pdf

Set 1

1. Per the Fort Lee JOC Solicitation Q and A - April 29.pdf, “the Senior Site Manager needs to show experience managing $50M per year in various stages of construction.”

Can you please reconsider this requirement? This Solicitation is a Small Business Set- Aside under NAICS 236220. Per the SBA, the size standard for small business under NAICS 236220 is $36.5 million. “A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the most part, size standards are the average annual receipts or the average employment of a firm.” Conceivably, a Senior Site Manager coming from a small business shouldn’t have $50M in experience per year, or they would not be a small business. Can you please reduce this requirement to $20M that is in line with the advertised JOC value?

ANSWER: We will not reduce this requirement.

Set 2

1. RFI response, page 25: “The offeror can submit the performance of the task orders that was awarded within the last 5 years but not the overall IDIQ contract if it was awarded past the five years.”

Typically, past experience is evaluated based on completion date rather than award date. Please confirm task orders on IDIQ contracts that were COMPLETED in the past

5 years from date of solicitation will be considered relevant.

For example, a task order that was awarded in September of 2014 but not completed until July of 2015 or awarded in late 2014 but completed in mid-2016. In these cases, most of the construction work would have been performed in 2015. Basing “recency” on the award date rather than completion date would exclude otherwise relevant experience examples which meet the requirement of work performance in the past 5 years. Additionally, for IDIQs awarded in 2014, specifically, the vast majority (if not all) task orders would have been performed or completed in 2015 within the 5-year window.

Basing “recency” on an award date, rather than completion date would exclude highly relevant IDIQ contracts from being considered relevant – including the previous Fort

Lee Job Order Contract, which was awarded in September 2014, and is arguably the most relevant past experience demonstrable. Confirm that task orders and IDIQ contracts completed in the past 5 years will be considered relevant or consider allowing contracts “awarded” within the past 6 years to be considered relevant, as most of the work would have likely been completed in the past 5 years.

ANSWER: The Government is correcting the previous answer. The offeror can submit the performance of the task orders that was Completed within the last 5 years.

2. RFI response, page 25: “The offeror can submit the performance of the task orders that was awarded within the last 5 years but not the overall IDIQ contract if it was awarded past the five years.”

Would the government consider an IDIQ contract relevant if it was awarded in 2014, but

ALL task orders were awarded in the past 5 years (after March 26, 2015, when the solicitation was posted)?

ANSWER: As stated in the solicitation, the offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than

5 years for the submitted data.

3. RFI response, page 25: “The offeror can submit the performance of the task orders that was awarded within the last 5 years but not the overall IDIQ contract if it was awarded past the five years.”

If IDIQs that were *awarded* more than 5 years ago are not considered “relevant” but individual task orders awarded in the past 5 years are, and the offeror submits multiple task orders under the same IDIQ contract that were overseen by the same government contracting management/construction personnel, may the evaluator complete ONE

PPQ to provide a reference for multiple task orders. This will alleviate the burden on our clients to provide a reference.

ANSWER: Yes.

4. RFI Response: “Offerors can place their offeror guarantee in Volume I – General Tab

F”

Does this mean that in addition to a letter from the surety showing the minimum bond capacity of $20 million aggregate, a formal Offer Guarantee (SF24) is also required? If so, what is the value of the bid bond requirement?

ANSWER: Yes, an Offer Guarantee is required. The solicitation has been amended to add FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, which states that “The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3 million, whichever is less.”

5. RFI Response: Consider projects similar in size between $2K and $7.5M, RFI.

Answer: Yes

This question is incomplete. Please confirm that stand-alone contracts and task orders between $2K and $7.5M will be considered relevant, as these are the values of anticipated JOC task orders called out in the RFP.

ANSWER: Yes they will be considered relevant.

6. With Regard to QC and Safety Plans required in Volume II, there are conflicting RFI Responses:

RFI Response: #65, pg 10 of 11 - Offeror to provide full QC and Safety Plans even if they exceed limitation of 30 pages.

RFI Response, pg 3 pf 25: Answer: Offerors shall provide a detailed summary of these plans.

RFI Response, pg 15 of 25: Answer: Offerors shall provide a detailed summary of these plans.

RFI Response, pg 23 of 25: Answer: Offerors shall provide a detailed summary of these plans.

Please confirm that ONLY summaries of the QC and Safety plans are required with proposal submission, and that full plans will be required post-award.

ANSWER: The Government is confirming that only summaries of the QC and Safety

Plans are required with proposal submissions and the full plans will be required post-award.

7. Two days will be given to offerors to ask any clarification questions to the RFI responses only.

Since RFI clarifications may significantly impact proposal preparation (specifically those related to relevancy and QC/Safety Plans), please consider issuing an extension of at least 5 business days to ensure contractors are able to incorporate all revisions into our proposals.

ANSWER: The proposal due date is still due on May 8, 2020 at 2:00PM EST.

Set 3

1. According to Section L, Paragraph 3.(3) resumes are excluded from the page limits. Would the Government reconsider allowing Letters of Commitment for key personnel to be excluded from the page limitations since they pair with the resumes?

ANSWER: No.

2. We have several charts and tables that are vital to demonstrating our capability and capacity to operate the Fort Lee JOC that would be unreadable in any format other than 11x17. Please confirm that 11x17 pages are still allowed in the proposal.

ANSWER: Proposals are now being provided via email so if 11x17 is still needed then that should be a part of their proposal submission.

Set 4

1. In reference to question 41 page 6 of the provided document titled “Draft+Solicitation+W91QF5-19-R0008+Questions+and+Answers“ Would the Government please confirm that a Payment and Performance Bond will be submitted with every Task Order/Delivery Order awarded in this JOC?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the provided document titled “Draft+Solicitation+W91QF5-19- R0008+Questions+and+Answers” the provided answer to question 65 states “Offeror to provide full QC and Safety Plans even if they exceed limitations of 30 pages” which differs from the answer provided for questions 2 and 3 on page 3 of the provided document titled “Fort+Lee+JOC+Solicitation+Q+and+A_April+29” which states that “Offerors shall provide a detailed summary of these plans” Would the Government please clarify whether a copy of the Offerors full QC and Safety plans are to be provided regardless of page limit and that the full copy of referenced plans therefore will not be counted in the page limit of Volume II.

ANSWER: The Government is confirming that only summaries of the QC and Safety Plans are required with proposal submissions and the full plans will be required post-award.

3. Question 68 of the provided document titled “Draft+Solicitation+W91QF5-19- R0008+Questions+and+Answers” is answered by stating that a Superintendent must be present on every worksite” while question 71 of the same document titled “Draft+Solicitation+W91QF5-19-R0008+Questions+and+Answers” is answered stating that “the Government recognizes that the offeror will be assigned multiple projects to per different Superintendent.” Please confirm if a dedicated Superintendent on each jobsite 100% of the time is being required by the Government.

ANSWER: A Superintendent can be dedicated to one or more projects simultaneously.

4. In the provided document titled “Fort+Lee+JOC+Solicitation+Q+and+A_April+29” page 3 Question 1, the Government does not confirm in its answer whether a Bid Bond is required for this Solicitation. Please confirm if the Government is requiring a Bid Bond for this this Solicitation.

ANSWER: Yes, an Offer Guarantee is required. The solicitation has been amended to add FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, which states that “The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3 million, whichever is less.”

Set 5

1. Does the answer on page 13 of 25, #47 “no they will not”, mean “no the Government will not clarify “engineering services”, or “no, the contractor will not be allowed to use engineering design line items and engineering services are included in his coefficient”?

ANSWER: That will depends on what type and complexity of engineering services are to be provided.

2. Shall offerors assume that the RS Means & Estimating Tool cost is for reference only and should not include it in calculations per the Attachment 4 Price Schedule? Also please clarify in one answer, 13 copies are referenced but in other answer and RFP, 9 copies are to be provided to the Government.

ANSWER: The RS Means 7 Estimating Tool cost is for reference only and is not included in the calculations. Please see the Revised Attachment 4 – Pricing Schedule that was provided with Amendment 3. Offerors shall provide 9 copies.

3. Please clarify RFI response Question 10 of Fort Lee JOC Solicitation Questions:

Set 3 – 10%-15% Design-Build percentage response was given on a few other RFIs, shall offerors assume that the remaining task orders are Design-Bid-Build with full plans and specs?

ANSWER: No.

4. RFI Responses regarding the Senior Site Manager and the Senior Site/Project

Manager are still unclear and have conflicting requirements.

Paragraph 1.6.8.4.1 Senior Site Manager (PE) indicates that the Senior Site Manager must be a PE with a minimum of 10 years' experience on no less than 50 projects per year totaling $50M.

Paragraph 1.6.11.3.2.1. Senior Site Manager/Project Manager makes no mention of a PE and indicates that Senior Project Manager shall have a Bachelor’s degree in Construction Management, Engineering or Architecture, a minimum of 5 years of experience managing 30 projects per year totaling $20M. Further, Paragraph 1.6.11.3.2.1 states "The Senior Project Manager shall fall right under the Senior Site Manager and be responsible for overseeing a ‘pool’ of potential project managers". The logical deduction is that while the Senior Site Manager may also serve as the Project Manager, the Senior Project Manager may be a separate individual with 5 years of experience managing 30 projects per year totaling $20M.

Please confirm that the Senior Project Manager may be separate from the Senior Site Manager (PE) as described in Paragraph 1.6.11.3.2.1, and that only the Senior Site Manager must have a PE.

ANSWER: The Senior Project Manager and the Senior Site Manager (PE) can be one the same person.