Guam – The following questions and answers were posed today by NAVFAC Marianas and answered by NAVFAC Pacific with referance to the postponment of the $3-billion MACC contract for Guam.
Q1. Why was the Mamizu MACC proposal date suspended indefinitely? Online procurement documents don’t provide any explanation.
A1. Amendment 0017 stated: “This amendment postpones the proposal due date indefinitely. A new due date will be issued in a future amendment.” The phrasing “postpones indefinitely” is typically used by Contracting Officers when a future closing date is yet unknown and cannot be specified at the
time the amendment is issued. The second sentence–which addresses a future amendment that will identify the new due date–dispels any notion that the solicitation is delayed in perpetuity. If the second sentence was not there, then the potential offerors could expect a delay of lengthy duration.
To clarify for those unfamiliar with our amendment phrasing, NAVFAC Pacific issued a Notice that stated: “Recent developments require the Contracting Officer to incorporate multiple changes to the solicitation. The last published closing date or submission of proposals was set for May 16, 2011.
Due to the short amount of time (one week) before offerors would need to submit their proposals, the Contracting Officer issued amendment 0017.
As noted in amendment 0017, a new due date (for submission of proposals) will be issued in a future amendment. We hope to issue the next amendment
in less than 60 days. However, since there are multiple changes to incorporate, which are subject to approvals at various levels of the Government, we are uncertain how quickly the new closing date will be announced.”
Q2. Is there a problem with funding from Japan? Is it related to the triple-disaster?
A2. No. The funds for the two seed projects have been transferred and are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.
Q3. How serious of a delay is this?
A3. Refer to A1.
Q4. Do contractors need more time to finish their proposals?
A4. Refer to A1.