WOOKIEMACC 2025_RFP RFIs_FINAL.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

SPACE LAUNCH DELTA 30

24 January 202527 November 2024

FROM: 30 CONS/PKA

1515 Iceland Ave

Bldg. 8500, Rm 150

Vandenberg SFB, CA 93437-5212

SUBJECT: Request for Information (RFI) – Draft Solicitation FA4610-24-R-0012, Western-

Range Operational Ordering Contract for Infrastructure Enhancement (WOOKIE)

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) at Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-5212

Government responses to RFI questions received in response to Draft Solicitation FA4610-24-R-

0012, Western-Range Operational Ordering Contract for Infrastructure Enhancement

(WOOKIE) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) at Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA 93437-5212 are shown in RED below.

1. Can lines 51 & 52 of the self-scoring worksheet have Ventura County added?

No, Santa Barbara County was selected as it is the primary location for where work will be performed on the WOOKIE MACC. While other counties may have similar regulations, the ability to demonstrate compliance with Santa Barbara County’s regulations is preferred as the vast majority of projects will be completed within the county.

2. Can you please add a line in the self-score worksheet for points to be added if the offeror has a primary office within Ventura and Santa Barbara counties since this solicitation is for these 2 areas?

The locations of the offeror’s primary offices have no impact to any of the scoring criteria, instead the scoring is primarily focused on experience with certain categories of work, the locations the work was completed and the complexity of the work.

3. If an offeror is active in the 8(a) program at the time the proposal is submitted, and loses the 8(a) status prior to award, will they still be eligible for an award?

Yes, if an offeror is active in the 8(a) program at the time of the initial proposal due date it should be eligible for award. For example, if proposals are initially due 5 January

2025, but the due date is extended until 28 February 2025, an offeror whose 8(a) status expires on 6 January 2025, should still be eligible as they were in the 8(a) program as of the initial 5 January 2025 proposal due date. However, the ultimate decision authority on whether an offeror is eligible would be made by the Small Business Administration.

4. Block 13A on SF1442 states proposals are potentially due in March of 2025, is there any chance that they will be due sooner than that?

March 2025 is an estimated date and is subject to change either to an earlier or later date depending on how long it takes the final RFP to complete internal reviews.

5. When does the Government tentatively plan on contracts to be awarded after proposals are due?

The Government tentatively plans to award contracts in July 2025, but the date is subject to change either to an earlier or later date depending on how long each of its internal processes take.

6. Do you need thirty (30) projects to maximize scoring for I. Relevant Experience Projects section on the Self-Scoring Worksheet?

Contractors shall submit a maximum of thirty (30) projects for the I. Relevant Experience

Projects section on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. However, contractors may submit less than thirty (30) projects and still maximize their scoring. Contractors may utilize the same project to satisfy multiple project categories if said project satisfies multiple project category definitions as defined in ATT 04_Volume II_Project Category Definitions. For example, a project for General Facility Renovation could have the potential to be included in the Asbestos Abatement, Hazardous Material, and/or Lead-Based Paint

Abatement (In California) category, and the Special Interest Project (Environmental, Cultural, etc.) (California or Federal Standards) category.

7. Section III Experience in Complex Projects on the Self-Scoring Worksheet is worth

15,000 total points. In order to achieve the maximum point value all thirty (30) projects would need to hit five different categories. Is this true? Or are we misunderstanding?

Section III is capped at 15,000 total points. It is possible for contractors to achieve the maximum point value for this section without having thirty (30) projects with five (5) or more tasks. A contractor would be required to submit a minimum of fifteen (15) projects with five (5) or more tasks and fifteen (15) projects with four (4) tasks to achieve the maximum score, The Government recognizes the confusion on the scoring. Under the current language a project with four (4) tasks would not only get 100 points, but would get 300 points for having three (3) tasks, see break down below:

Description Quantity

Points for Meeting

Five (5) or more tasks

(200 pts/project)

Points for Meeting

Four (4) tasks (100 pts/project)

Points for Meeting

Three (3) tasks

(300 pts/project)

Total

Points

Projects with five

(5) or more tasks 15 3,000 1,500 4,500

9,000

Projects with four

(4) tasks 15 0 1,500 4,500

6,000

Total 15,000

The Government will look at the wording to more clearly indicate point values for projects with four (4) tasks and with five (5) or more tasks. Under the revised language the scoring is projected to show up on the updated scoring worksheet as:

III. Experience in Complex Projects:

With 5 or more tasks 600 15 9,000

With 4 tasks 400 15 6,000

With 3 tasks 300 0 0

SUBTOTAL SCORE FOR SECTION L PARAGRAPH L-2

SUBPARAGRAPH 2.2.1.9 ONLY (Category will be capped at 15,000 points):

15,000 15,000

8. The scoring for Sections II and Section III of the Self-Scoring Worksheet seems off. You would essentially need to have 30 projects that hit EACH area in each category to maximize the points, which doesn't make sense. For example, for category 2, a military project in the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District would get points in all

4 categories. It seems like the scoring would unfairly "reward" local projects and make it impossible for offerors who, for example, have other military projects in California (but not Santa Barbara) to compete. How many offerors would have that volume of projects specifically in Santa Barbara County? The only military base in SB county is Vandenberg

Space Force Base (VSFB), that limits the pool to only a few who have been at VSFB.

The Government recognizes that it may be difficult to demonstrate projects within Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution District Control; hence, the higher point allocation (300 points/project) for projects within CONUS/HI/AK US Military Bases. The difficulty in achieving the maximum points is intended to help the Government better differentiate between contractors. The intent is to establish the ideal standards for the maximum possible point allocation to contractors who are able to provide experiences that exactly represent the types of efforts that are expected under the WOOKIE MACC. The

Government acknowledges that most offerors will likely be unable to meet the maximum standards within any scored category.

9. For Section III on the Self-Scoring Worksheet, a project that hits five (5) categories would get points for 3 tasks, 4 tasks, and 5 tasks. Again, this makes it very difficult for offerors who only meet 3 task areas on their projects to compete. It doesn't seem like you should be able to "double up" on the points here.

The Government recognizes that it may be difficult to demonstrate projects with five (5) or more tasks. The difficulty in achieving the maximum points is intended to help the

Government better differentiate between contractors. The Government will look at the wording to more clearly indicate point values for projects with four (4) tasks and with five (5) or more tasks to avoid the appearance of “doubling up” on points.

10. The weighting for Section III on the Self-Scoring Worksheet seems off (i.e. a project with

4 tasks only gets 100 points, but a project with 3 tasks gets 300 points?)

The Government recognizes the confusion on the scoring, under the current language a project with four (4) tasks would not only get 100 points but would get 300 points for having three (3) tasks. The Government will look at the wording to more clearly indicate point values for projects with four (4) tasks and with five (5) or more tasks. The

Government recognizes that it may be difficult to demonstrate projects with five (5) or more tasks. If it were easy for all contractors to achieve maximum points on all categories, the Government would be unable to differentiate between the ability of contractors. While it may be difficult to demonstrate experience with projects with four

(4), (5) or more tasks they are included on the scoring worksheet as a means of assessing contractors experience and as a way for contractors with experience performing more complex projects with many tasks to set themselves apart.

11. 80 pages are allotted for Volume 2, this doesn’t seem sufficient to provide a cover sheet and supporting documentation for 30 projects.

The language will be revised to state supporting project documentation shall be no more than two (2) pages per Relevant Experience Project for a maximum of 30 projects, or maximum 60 pages total. This allows for 20 pages for staffing substantiating documentation for three (3) roles, substantiating documentation for bonding capacity, and substantiating documentation for the California General Contractor’s license. The

Government finds the page limit to be sufficient.

12. Are there period of performance requirements for the projects (i.e. last seven (7) years, etc.), or contract value requirements?

Not including a time limit on projects was an oversight by the Government. The final proposal will use a time limit such as “must have had construction completed projects within the past five (5) years from the date of solicitation or must be more than 50% constructed by the proposal due date.” There is no minimum contract value requirement.

13. Can the proposal due date in response to this solicitation be 25 February 2024 or earlier?

March 2025 is the current estimated proposal due date and is subject to change either to an earlier or later date depending on how long it takes the final RFP to complete internal reviews.

14. Could you please confirm or clarify once released whether 8(a) contractors can use the past performance of key personnel to meet the qualifications in any section of

Attachment 05, Self-Scoring Worksheet, if supporting documentation is provided?

Projects not completed by the prime contractor/joint venture partners cannot be used for contractors to meet the relevant experience requirements. However, past performance of key personnel may be submitted in Section IV: Staffing.

15. The RFP states we are to provide substantiating documentation to support our claimed staffing meets the qualification requirements in the WOOKIE MACC Statement of Work paragraph 17.1. Does the government want us to include resumes for each proposed staff member, to include design team members?

Offerors shall provide support for the staff listed on Section IV: Staffing on Attachment 05, Self-Scoring Worksheet. Resumes are one method to provide support, but other alternatives that demonstrate the personnel meet the qualification requirements in Statement of Work could be utilized. Support shall be provided for Project Managers, Superintendents, and

Quality Control Managers.

16. Reference SECTION H (Page 16 of 68) 1. ON-RAMPING, Method 2: a. This paragraph indicates that an off-ramped contractor is eligible to re-compete during the on-ramp process of a new TBD IDIQ Awardee. Please confirm.

The Government will review and revise this section to clarify that contractors being off-ramped will not be eligible to recompete for on-ramping except in limited circumstances.

17. 2.2.1, Section I. Relevant Experience Projects. The Draft RFP does not specify if projects must be performed by the Offeror.

Projects not completed by the prime contractor/joint venture partners cannot be used for contractors to meet the relevant experience requirements. Additional language will be added to Section L – Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, Section

2.2.1.6.

18. 2.2.1, Section I. Relevant Experience Projects. It is not stated if projects can be submitted for multiple categories. If projects involved multiple scopes of work, will they be considered in more than one category, as long as both categories meet the definition in Attachment 04? For example, General Facility Renovation and Asbestos Abatement? If yes, please clarify if there is a way to avoid duplicating pages in this scenario by referencing the same Attachment 6 form and substantiating evidence instead of providing it in each category.

Contractors shall submit a maximum of thirty (30) projects for the I. Relevant Experience

Projects section on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. However, contractors may submit less than thirty (30) projects and still maximize their scoring. Contractors may utilize the same project to satisfy multiple project categories if said project satisfies multiple project category definitions as defined in ATT 04_Volume II_Project Category Definitions. For example, a project for General Facility Renovation could have the potential to be included in the Asbestos Abatement, Hazardous Material, and/or Lead-Based Paint

Abatement (In California) category, and the Special Interest Project (Environmental, Cultural, etc.) (California or Federal Standards) category.

Contractors shall provide support for each project they are seeking credit under each of the ten (10) individual Project Category Definitions. The contractor may copy, paste, and edit (if necessary) if the contractor is utilizing one project to satisfy multiple project categories.

19. The Draft RFP (Section L Paragraph L-2 Subparagraph 2.2.1.8) states that projects "with the

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District" will receive 100 points. Can you please clarify if this means the offeror must have obtained a permit or filed documentation with the

Air Pollution Control District, or if simply complying with their requirements is sufficient to earn these points? What documentation will be sufficient to substantiate this?

The definition of what projects would qualify under this section will be updated to clarify

“Projects with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District are defined as projects which require compliance with permits issued by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District for Asbestos Remediation, or Emission Source installation, modification, or removal.” Offerors would need to ensure they provide documentation to support their claim their projects meet this definition.

20. We noticed that the draft RFP does not specify the recency or percent completion of projects that are submitted.

Not including a time limit on projects was an oversight by the Government. The final proposal will use a time limit such as “must have had construction completed projects within the past five (5) years from the date of solicitation or must be more than 50% constructed by the proposal due date.”

21. Section H, On-Ramping, paragraph 1 says a maximum of three (3) contracts will be awarded.

This conflicts with the SF1442 Box 10, Section L-1 paragraph 1.0.2, and Section M-1 paragraph 2.0, which all say up to five (5) contracts will be awarded. Please clarify the number of contracts that will be awarded.

The language is correct as written. SF1442 Box 10, Section L-1 paragraph 1.0.2, and Section

M-1 paragraph 2.0 discuss the award in response to the solicitation. The award will be made to up to five (5) IDIQ contracts using firm-fixed price (FFP) task orders.

Section H is independent of SF1442 Box 10, Section L-1 paragraph 1.0.2, and Section M-1 paragraph 2.0. Section H discusses the methods the Government will follow if on-ramping is necessary. Contractors may be off-ramped if they fail to perform satisfactorily, fail to comply with the WOOKIE MACC requirements, or for other reasons determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Section H allows for contractors to be on-ramped to replace any off-ramped contractors.

22. Section L-2, paragraph 1.6.4 says "type face shall not be less than 12 font." Attachment 06 uses Times New Roman 11 pt font, which is clearly legible. Please specify that this form does not need to be changed.

The language in Section L-2, paragraph 1.6.4, will be updated to state “type face shall not be less than 11 point font.”

23. 2.1.3 Chapter 2 - Section K. There are no check boxes next to "Paragraph D applies." Since

252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Reps and Certs is also included, please confirm this means Offerors are to fill out Alternate A instead of 52.204-8(b).

This was an oversight by the Government. Provision 52.204-8 will be revised to incorporate the language of DFARS 252.204-7007, Alternate A. DFARS 252.204-7007, Alternate A will be removed.

24. 2.1.4 Chapter 3 - Joint Venture Agreements. Does anything need to be submitted in the proposal for this section? It appears that anything that would be submitted here for a JV can be included in Chapter 4 or Chapter 1.

For Volume I – Executed Contract Documentation & Price Proposal, contractors shall submit documentation for each chapter within the designated chapter. Contractors who are not Joint

Venture Agreements may provide a single page notating the Chapter 3 is not applicable

25. 2.1.6 Chapter 5 - Contractor's License. Offerors are including this in Volume II as substantiating documentation for 2.2.1.12. Please clarify that this is also required in Volume

I.

A Contractor’s License, if maintained by the contractor, should be submitted in each volume to substantiate their proposal.

26. 2.1.7 Chapter 6 - Bonding Capacity. Offerors are including this in Volume II as substantiating documentation for 2.2.1.11. Please clarify that this is also required in Volume

I.

Substantiating documentation for Section L-2, 2.1.7 Chapter 6 – Bonding Capacity and

Section L-2, 2.2.2.11 shall be provided in each section as written.

27. 2.2.1.11 - On the self-scoring worksheet, the orange dropdown box (Column E, Rows 66-68) contains different numbers than what is listed in Column C. These are $25M, $25-$50M, and over $50M.

The inconsistency between Column E and Column C, Rows 66 – 68, was an oversight by the

Government. The orange dropdown box Column E, Rows 66 – 68, will be corrected to align with the line items listed in Column C, Rows 66 – 68.

28. Volume II has a maximum page count of 80 pages excluding the score sheet and glossary.

Please confirm that the cover sheet and table of contents will not be counted in the page count.

The language will be revised to state supporting project documentation shall be no more than two (2) pages per Relevant Experience Project for a maximum of 30 projects, or maximum

60 pages total. This allows for 20 pages for staffing substantiating documentation for three

(3) roles, substantiating documentation for bonding capacity, and substantiating documentation for the California General Contractor’s license. The Government finds the page limit to be sufficient.

29. Section L-2, Paragraph 1.6.5. "The header of each page shall include the company name, solicitation number, and page number." Does this mean Offerors are to add this header to all pages of substantiating documentation?

Yes, Offerors shall add this header to all pages of substantiating documentation.

30. In the Self-Scoring Worksheet, Section IV. Staffing, the word "incumbent" appears to be a mistake. This does not match the language in Section L. Please review and consider changing to "Number of qualified Project Managers," etc.

The language on the Self-Scoring Worksheet will be revised to remove the word

“incumbent.”

31. 2.2.1.10 In Section IV: Staffing of the Self-Scoring Worksheet, offerors shall enter the number of qualified Project Managers, Superintendents, and Quality Control Managers currently on staff. Offerors shall provide substantiating documentation to support their claimed staffing meets the qualification requirements in the WOOKIE MACC Statement of

Work paragraph 17.1." Please clarify what kind of substantiating documentation will support this. Assuming an Offeror has the Staffing to achieve the maximum points, we estimate a full page per person in documentation (resume/certifications). This would be 3 pages for Project

Managers, 5 pages for Superintendents, and 5 pages for QCMs, for a total of 13 pages. Based on the total page count provided, we need more specifics on what should be included, or an increased page count.

Offerors shall provide support for the staff listed on Section IV: Staffing on Attachment 05, Self-Scoring Worksheet. Resumes are one method to provide support, but other alternatives that demonstrate the personnel meet the qualification requirements in Statement of Work could be utilized. Support shall be provided for Project Managers, Superintendents, and

Quality Control Managers.

32. Please clarify the desired organization of Volume II. Should the substantiating documents go after Attachment 06 its entirety? 1-ATT 06 Pages 1-30 2-All Substantiating Documents for all projects or should the documentation go after each Project that it references? 1-ATT 06

Project 1 - Erosion Stabilization 2-Substaniating Documents for Project 1 3-ATT 06 Project 2

- Erosion Stabilization 4-Substantiating Documents for Project 2 And so on.

The Government does not have strict requirements regarding the organization of documentation in Volume II. However, the documents should be organized in a logical, consistent manner.

33. We noticed the draft RFP includes both clauses 252.204-7019: Notice of NIST SP 800-171

DoD Assessment Requirements and 252.204-7020: NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment

Requirements.

Please clarify the following:

• Are clauses 252.204-7019 and 252.204-7020 intended to be included in the final Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 8(a) WOOKIE MACC at Vandenberg SFB and the surrounding remote locations?

• What is the rationale for including these clauses in the draft RFP, given that similar requirements have not been imposed in previous contracts at this installation?

• If these clauses are to be included, what specific steps must we take to comply with the

NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment requirements?

• Are there any resources or support available to assist contractors in meeting these new requirements?

The clauses 252.204-7019 and 252.204-7020 are intended to be included in the final RFP for the 8(a) WOOKIE MACC at Vandenberg SFB and the surrounding remote locations. Both clauses are required by Department of Defense regulation, DFARS 204.7304, to be included in this requirement. The purpose of these clauses is to safeguard covered defense information that resides in or transits through covered contractor information systems by applying specified security requirements. It also requires reporting of cyber incidents. Contractors shall comply with the specific steps laid out within DFARS 252.204-7019 and DFARS

252.204-7020. Contractors are to conduct a self-assessment of NIST SP 800-171 and report their self-assessment scores to the DoD via the Supplier Performance Risk System. Further information and details of the steps to take can be found within the clauses.