SAMDaily.us | PRESOL | Y | Florida Construction MATOC

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 23, 2024 SAM #8123
SOLICITATION NOTICE

Y -- Florida Construction MATOC

Notice Date: 2/21/2024 5:11:44 AM
Notice Type: Solicitation
NAICS: 236220 — Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Contracting Office: W7M2 USPFO ACTIVITY FL ARNG ST AUGUSTINE FL 32085-1008 USA
ZIP Code: 32085-1008
Solicitation Number: W911YN-24-R-0002
Response Due: 2/22/2024 8:00:00 AM
Archive Date: 03/08/2024
Point of Contact: Matt Michael, Phone: 9048230552, Darrin Weaver, Phone: 9048230567
E-Mail Address: matthew.j.michael2.civ@army.mil, darrin.j.weaver.mil@army.mil
(matthew.j.michael2.civ@army.mil, darrin.j.weaver.mil@army.mil)
Small Business Set-Aside: SBA Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)
Description: MATOC � Small Business Set-aside NAICS Code: 236220 - Commercial and Institutional Building Construction The Florida National Guard issues a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) for maintenance, repair, and construction primarily at Air National Guard Base in Jacksonville, FL, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center in Starke, FL, MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, FL. Typical work includes, but may not be limited to: interior and exterior renovations; heating and air conditioning; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) controls; plumbing; fire suppression; interior and exterior electrical and lighting; fire and intrusion alarms; communications; limited utility work; site work; landscaping; fencing; masonry; roofing; concrete; asphalt paving; storm drainage; limited environmental remediation; construction of new facilities; design-build and other related work. All work will be in accordance with individual task order requirements, specifications and drawings provided with each project or master specifications. It should be noted that the majority of task orders under these contracts will be for sustainment, repair and maintenance (SRM) projects under $5 million. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the solicitation is 236220 with a small business size standard of $45,000,000. This is a total small business set-aside. The government intends to award individual MATOC contracts to all qualified offerors. All responsible firms may submit an offer. These contracts will consist of a five calendar year ordering period. Task Orders will generally range from $2,000 to $5,000,000. The total of individual task orders placed against the total MATOC program shall not exceed $45,000,000. A Pre-proposal conference and site visit is scheduled for Thursday, 8 February 2024. Details for registering for the conference are available in the solicitation (attached). Interested contractors are encouraged to attend and should register in accordance with the requirements in the solicitation prior to attending for clearance to the facility.� The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with the Source Selection Procedures described in FAR 15.3, DFARS 215.3, and AFARS 5115.3. Evaluation factors include Corporate Experience, Past Performance and Bonding Capacity. The Government intends to award contracts without conducting discussions. Interested offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). To register go to www.sam.gov. Instructions for registering are on the web page (there is no fee for registration). This solicitation is not an invitation for bids and there will not be a formal public bid opening. All inquiries must be in writing, preferably via email to the persons specified in the solicitation. All answers will be provided in writing via posting to the web. If you have any questions concerning this procurement you are encouraged to email your questions to darrin.j.weaver.mil@army.mil. Your attention is directed to FAR clause 52.219-14(e)(3) (DEVIATION 2021-O0008), LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING, which states �By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees in performance of the contract for General construction, it will not pay more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor�s 85 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded�. In accordance with FAR 36.211(b), the following information is provided: 1. The National Guard has no agency-specific policies or procedures applicable to definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts other than those described at FAR 43.204,�DFARS 243.204 and AFARS 5143.204. 2. Data for the prior 3 fiscal years regarding the time required to definitize equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts for the National Guard is currently not available, but will be compiled and provided in future announcements. DISCLAIMER: The official plans and specifications are located on the official Government webpage and the Government is not liable for information furnished by any other source. Amendments, if/when issued will be posted to Contract Opportunities for electronic downloading. This will normally be the only method of distributing amendments prior to closing; therefore, it is the offeror�s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. Websites are occasionally inaccessible for various reasons. The Government is not responsible for any loss of Internet connectivity or for an offeror�s inability to access the documents posted on the referenced web pages. The Government will not issue paper copies. 1st Q&A Set as of 31JAN2024: Q1. Due to the specific requirements outlined in Paragraph 3.1.1.4, would the government consider extending the past performance requirement past five years to allow the offeror to showcase relevant experience? A1. No, the Government requires recent past performance within 5 years of the close of the solicitation to be considered relevant. Q2. With the requirements outlined in paragraph 3.1.1.2, would the government consider a project relevant if the offeror managed the majority of the subcontractors, interfaced with the client, managed the overall project schedule, and was responsible for the majority of the budget? A2. Not if the offeror was only a subcontractor on the project. Offeror must be the prime on all project submissions. Q3. Would the government consider including projects that are more than 50% complete for part of the past performance requirement? A3. This topic was discussed during the planning phase. The Government CE ultimately decided only 100% completed projects would be submittable. Q4. Regarding Solicitation Evaluation Factors (3.1.1.1.1 � 3.1.1.1.4) Will the government accept project descriptions that are not located in the state of Florida if we are able to show that they meet the same design criteria as projects located in Florida?� A4. No, the solicitation requirements are purposefully targeted to small business firms that have specific corporate experience in Florida. Q5. While looking through the solicitation document, it details the proposal submission will be through the PIEE system, however, It doesn�t seem to be listed currently? A5. See solicitation amendment W911YN-24-R-0002-0001 which removes submission requirements to PIEE. Q6. The company has not been awarded prime contracts with the Department of Defense (DoD). Our personnel have experience with other firms that are relevant and within the past five years. Would these projects be considered eligible for evaluation and consideration? A6. No, the vendor submitting the proposal must have been the prime contractor on a DoD award per Section 00120, para 3.1.1.1, and 3.1.1.1.5. Having employees or subcontractors who formerly worked on DoD contracts will not satisfy the requirement. 2nd Q&A Set as of 01FEB2024: Q1.�� Under 3.1.1.1.5. it states: At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall have been performed on a Department of Defense (DoD) contract issued by any DoD component. If an offeror has current DOD experience but not in Florida, will it be considered? If not, will this past performance requirement be considered a neutral evaluation factor for an offeror, or will the project not be rated? A1. There is no requirement for the DoD contract to be performed in Florida. Q2.�� Under 3.1.1.5.5. Will the USP&FO of Florida clarify what it means by this statement as it is written in the RFP? If no DoD project was included, a separate submission counting against one (1) of the maximum seven (7) projects is required. A2. At least one DoD project is required. A separate project submission to satisfy 3.1.1.1.5 is only required if the projects submitted to satisfy 3.1.1.1.1 � 3.1.1.1.4 were not DoD projects. Any project submitted to satisfy 3.1.1.1.1 � 3.1.1.1.4 that happens to be a DoD project, may concurrently satisfy 3.1.1.1.5. Q3.�� Under 3.1.1.5. Relevancy: If the Offeror is a Florida legal entity headquartered in Florida and has adequate past performance throughout the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast U.S., and Puerto Rico- will the USP&FO for Florida reconsider removing the project relevancy requirements for submitted past performance to be located only within Florida? This RFP requirement is too restrictive and will limit competition, which is essential for the RFP. There are many successful Florida companies that work outside of Florida where these projects meet many of the relevancy requirements and can showcase the work that the USP&FO can expect from an Offeror. A3. There are only three project submissions that are required to be located in Florida to be considered relevant as depicted in 3.1.1.5.1 � 3.1.1.5.3. The Government does not consider this requirement to be unduly restrictive. Q4.�� The RFP states in 3.1.1.5. Relevancy: The value of at least one (1) project submitted in this category shall have an award value of no less than $250,000.00 and no more than $5,000,000.00. Will the USP&FO of Florida remove the $5M Threshold? � A4. No, task orders issued under this MATOC shall not exceed $5M. With regards to 3.1.1.5.1 through 3.1.1.5.3, the Government will only evaluate submitted projects within a similar size and scope to future task orders issued under this MATOC . Q5. If a submitted past performance project was initially awarded between $250K-$5M and approved client-directed change orders pushed the total contract value over $5M, will the USP&FO of Florida consider those projects as meeting the relevancy requirements? A5. �Award value� is the contract amount at time of award. Change order increases through to project completion represents the Total Contract Value. Per 3.1.1.5.1, the value limitations are subject to the award value, not the Total Contract Value. Q6.�� Under 3.1.1.3. Offerors shall complete the EXHIBIT � 3 Performance Relevancy Questionnaire (PPQ). Will the USP&FO of Florida allow previously submitted PPQs for other agency DoD proposals, which is the same format provided in this RFP, to be submitted as part of the proposal? A6. Assuming you meant Exhibit 1 � Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), yes, provided the PPQ is associated with a project completed within the time limitation of 5-years. The Government reserves the right to contact the POCs on any PPQ to verify the information on the form. Q7.�� Under 3.1.1.5.7. RFP states: For recognized contractor teaming arrangements, offerors shall submit a minimum of one (1) relevant project for each team member. Do we need to include a teaming agreement, and if so, what section will it need to be included in? A7. Same requirement applies as a Joint Venture. See section 00120, paragraph 3.1.1.2. A formal teaming agreement is required to be submitted and included in Volume 1. See Section 00110, paragraph 3.1.1.4 and 4.1.4. Q8.�� In 3.2.4. The RFP states: The offeror may also provide performance recognition documents such as awards, letters of appreciation, or award fee determinations received for any of the submitted projects within three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. What volume and section does this need to be included in? A8. Include in Volume 2 as part of Past Performance. Q9.�� Will the USP&FO of Florida consider moving the proposal due date to March 4, 2024? The Pre-Proposal conference is not scheduled until 8 February, giving Offerors 14 days to put a final proposal together. Also, questions are due 5 days on February 15, 2024, which is 5 days before the proposal due date of February 22, 2024. Will the USP& FO have all Q & As finished and posted to sam.gov to support the current due date of February 22, 2024? A9. Responses to Q & As are being provided quickly and posted to SAM. At this time, the Government does not see a requirement to extend proposal due date. The slides that will be presented at the conference are available for preview on SAM.gov. Questions regarding the information within the RFP or slide deck can be asked/submitted before the conference, during the conference and up to the deadline for Q & A. Responses will continue to be posted to SAM in a timely manner. 3rd Q&A Set as of 01FEB2024_1600: Q1. Please confirm that there is no dollar value requirement for the project described in the RFP Page 17 of 80, Section 3. Evaluations Factors: 3.1.1.1.5. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall have been performed on a Department of Defense (DoD) contract issued by any DoD component. A1. Confirmed, there is no dollar value requirement for 3.1.1.1.5. Q2. Amendment 1:� Since we do not know how large our proposal will be until closer to the due date of the proposal, how soon/late can we request a DoD Safe Link? A2. DoD SAFE links can be requested as late as two hours prior to the closing date and time, but the Government highly recommends submitting requests as early as practicable if email (or multiple email) submission is not feasible. Q3. Section 3.2.3 states that completed PPQ forms should be emailed directly to the Government. How should these be referenced within our technical proposal? Should we have a place holder (i.e. ""see PPQ from ?__"") for the Government to insert the PPQ received directly from our clients? A3. The Government will ensure all PPQ forms are included with their corresponding proposals for evaluation. Ensure PPQs are submitted by project clients per Section 00120, paragraph 3.2.3. Offerors may request receipt confirmation of PPQs from the Government POCs. Q4. A question was asked concerning whether a past PPQ could be used for Volume 2, Factor 2. Your answer is as follows, �A6. Assuming you meant Exhibit 1 � Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), yes, provided the PPQ is associated with a project completed within the time limitation of 5 years. The Government reserves the right to contact the POCs on any PPQ to verify the information on the form.� Please clarify the instructions for submitting PPQs in the proposal. The RFP states that PPQs should be sent to Darrin Weaver and Matthew Michael. Does this include PPQs that have been completed previously? Please update the instructions so we can comply with the RFP. A5. Where new PPQs are required, follow the instructions of Section 00120, paragraph 3.2.3. For past PPQs submitted on a previous Government solicitation, the offeror may submit directly to the Government POCs. Any references on the PPQ to the former solicitation, the PPQ was initially submitted for, will be disregarded in the evaluation. Evaluators will ensure the PPQ corresponds with the project submitted. NOTE: The original question stated the previous PPQ was the same format as Exhibit 1. Other than the cover page and submission note on the bottom of page 2, the remainder of the form must be the same version to be acceptable. If you have any doubts, the best suggestion is to have the project client complete Exhibit 1. 4th Q&A Set as of 05FEB2024: Q1. Per the corporate experience instructions under reference 3.1.1.3, exhibit 3 performance relevancy questionnaires are required to demonstrate the necessary experience for each project. Please clarify the 5-page maximum for each project in section 3.1.2. If exhibit 3 does not count against the page limit, please clarify if we need to provide an additional narrative for each project in addition to exhibit 3. A1. Exhibit 3 is not intended to be the sole requirement for each project�s Factor 1, Corporate Experience. The Government does not want to limit what information the offeror desires to provide in the Corporate Experience narrative. Exhibit 3 provides an outline of the minimum information the Government requires per project for Volume 2, Factor 1, Corporate Experience. Use the completed Exhibit 3 as a checklist when developing the Corporate Experience narrative to ensure the narrative covers all the Exhibit 3 elements. If the completed Exhibit 3 is less than 5-pages, the information can be copied into the Corporate Experience narrative with additional room to expand on the project information, if desired. If the completed Exhibit 3 is over 5-pages (authorized since Exhibit 3 has no page limitation), the information will need to be condensed in the Corporate Experience narrative. Redundant information between the Exhibit 3 and Corporate Experience narrative is not only acceptable, but also required since the Corporate Experience narrative must address all elements of the Exhibit 3. Even if the Corporate Experience narrative is nearly identical to the Exhibit 3 questionnaire, include both in the proposal. Begin each project submission with the Exhibit 3 followed by the corresponding Corporate Experience narrative. Only the narrative will be counted against the 5-page limitation per project. Q2. The instructions state that project information should be provided in Exhibit 3. We are unsure about the additional page limits and whether further information beyond Exhibit 3 is required to demonstrate acceptable ratings. There are no additional instructions. Can we receive an acceptable rating for only providing exhibit 3 forms? A2. Providing further information beyond Exhibit 3 in the Corporate Experience narrative is at the offeror�s discretion. An acceptable rating can be achieved by providing only the information in each completed Exhibit 3 questionnaire within each corresponding Corporate Experience narrative, provided the combined project submissions satisfy each relevancy criteria in 3.1.1.5.1 through 3.1.1.5.5. Provide both the completed Exhibit 3 and Corporate Experience narrative for each project. Again, begin each project submission with the Exhibit 3 followed by the corresponding Corporate Experience narrative. Only the narrative will be counted against the 5-page limitation per project. Q3. Please confirm that there is no dollar value requirement for the project described in the RFP, Section 3. Evaluations Factors: 3.1.1.1.4. At least one (1) of the submitted projects shall have been completed in an occupied facility and include a phasing plan which provided for certain areas, floors or building sections to be completed and occupied as construction progressed. A3. Confirmed, there is no dollar value requirement for the phasing plan project. 5th Q&A Set as of 06FEB2024: Q1. As a licensed State of Florida roofing contractor for over 30 years, we have performed many roofing projects totaling tens of thousands of dollars.� However, we have not performed a singular roofing project valued at $100,000+.� Therefore, we respectfully request that the minimum value for an acceptable roofing project for consideration as part of the past performance evaluation be reduced to $50,000. A1. The minimum threshold in Section 00120, paragraph 3.1.1.5.2 of $100,000.00 will not be amended. Q2. What would be the number for the MATOC Pool Members award? A2. Award numbers will not be known until closer to award date. Any form requesting the award number for the FL MATOC, just insert �TBD�. 6th Q&A Set MATOC Pre-Proposal as of 08FEB2024: See attached list of 38 responses.� Also sign in Sheet is attached. Final Q&A Set as of 16FEB2024: Q1.�In reference to Section 3.1.1.1.2 of the solicitation document, which mandates the inclusion of a past performance roofing project to fulfill the bid criteria, could a project previously completed by a company that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the prime contractor be considered compliant with the bid requirements? This subsidiary was an independent entity at the time the project was executed but was subsequently acquired and integrated into the current prime contractor's operations. A1. The offeror must be the prime on all projects with the exception of a JV or teaming partnership where the prime contractor on project submissions can be either entity. The Government will not consider projects from an acquired entity or affiliate outside of these exceptions. Q2. Are projects previously completed by a wholly owned subsidiary eligible to satisfy the past performance requirements? A2. No, per A1 above. Q3. Could the past performance requirements for specialized trades such as roofing, HVAC, renovation, and operations within an occupied facility be deemed satisfactory if these were components of a broader project? If this approach is acceptable, should the submission focus solely on the detailed descriptions, pricing, and data related to the specified trades (roofing and HVAC), or is it required to encompass the entire scope of the example project? A3. See 3.1.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.1.3. The intent is for the offeror to provide detailed information proving the minimum dollar thresholds are satisfied if submitting a general project. Focus on the details required to satisfy the requirement. Q4.� Please provide direction as to how proposal submissions should be formatted.� Should Volume 1: Pro Forma Documents and Volume 2: Technical Proposal be submitted as two separate PDF Documents?� Should Volume 2: Technical Proposal be broken into the three separate Factors � therefore submitting a total of four separate PDF Documents? A4. No preference. Offerors may submit all volumes in one PDF or multiple. Q5.� With respect to page numbering mentioned in 3.3.4, should each Volume/Factor be numbered separately, or should the numbering format be consecutive in the order shown in Section 3. Proposal Content (even if the Volumes/Factors are submitted as separate PDF documents)? A5. When submitting multiple PDFs, page numbering can be made to only apply to the individual document and need not be a continuation of the previous Volume�s numbering. The intent is to make it easy for evaluators to reference and ensure page limitations are not exceeded where applicable. Q6.� Should the minimum of five projects included in Factor 1: Corporate Experience be submitted as five separate PDF documents? A6. No preference. Q7.� Should a TAB/divider be included between Exhibit 3: Past Performance and the corresponding Corporate Experience Narrative that follows? A7. Yes, use a tab/divider for ease of reference between Exhibit 3 and Corporate Experience Narrative.
Web Link: SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/8023ad1d069c402597632fb49eef5621/view)
Place of Performance: Address: FL, USA; Country: USA
Record: SN06972101-F 20240223/240221230047 (samdaily.us)
Source: SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

Y -- Florida Construction MATOC