Amendment 0001 incl. Conformed RFP (SF1442) 1305M423RNAAJ0004 & Pre-Proposal Agenda.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NUMBER

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

1 188

1305M423RNAAJ00040001 FEB 02, 2023 NA-AJ5730-21-00393

CSAD

CORPORATE SRVCS ACQUISITION DV

1325 EAST WEST HWY

SSMC2, RM. 11323

SILVER SPRING MD 20910

See Block 6

1305M423RNAAJ0004

JAN 06, 2023

See Schedule

1305M423RNAAJ0004

Pier Romeo Recapitalization North Charleston, SC

Amendment 0001

The purpose of this Amendment is to accomplish the following:

(1) Include the Agenda for the Pre-Proposal Conference Scheduled for February 9, 2023

(2) Include FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee (Sept 1996) into Section

L.9.2.7.8.1 of the solicitation

(3) Remove the following language from Section C "Self-Leveling

Mooring Line System - The Government is interested in the potential of including a system that would provide self-leveling of the mooring lines. If a non-floating pier design is the selected design."

(4) Include “Pier Romeo As-Builts All” in Section J.6 of the solicitation.

(5) Change the last day to submit Questions regarding this solicitation from February 17, 2023 to February 24, 2023.

(6) Change the Proposal Response date from March 2, 2023 to March 16, 2023 (See conformed SF1442 attached).

(7) Change the Oral Presentation schedule from “the week of Monday, March 20, 2023 - Friday, March 24, 2023” to “the week of Monday, April 3, 2023 - Friday, April 7, 2023.”

(8) Revise the request for projects performed in the last ten (10) years; changing it to “the last fifteen (15) years where applicable (See conformed SF1442 attached).

(9) Include the conformed copy of the solicitation as of Amendment 0001.

(10) Provide the Offeror’s Questions and Government’s Responses received as of January 31, 2023

Offeror's Question: It appears that from the Draft Solicitation, Offer and Award to the Current Solicitation, Offer and Award, the Dredging Scope of Work has been removed. Please confirm that there is not any dredging in the Solicitation.

Government's Response: Confirmed, the dredging is not part of the scope of work for this contract.

Offeror's Question: When does the Government anticipate the Dredging Scope of Work occurring in relation to this project? Would it occur before, during or after this project?

Government's Response: Currently, the Government anticipates that dredging work would occur after the new pier has been constructed and all marine major work is completed by the awardee.

Offeror's Question: Reference Drawings C115 and C-113. On C-115 the Station of the 40' Return Wall is 1+06. On Drawing C-113 Key Note 16 States 606 LF of Seawall and Key Note States 40 LF of Seawall. Please confirm that what is shown on C-115 is correct and the Total Length of the wall is 606 LF.

Government's Response: The total approximate length of the Seawall includes both key notes 16 and 17 as shown on C-113, for total length of approximately 646 LF.

Offeror's Question: Please provide any available As-Built Drawings of the Existing Pier from 1947, 1987 or any other year that As-Builts were made.

Government's Response: The As-Built drawings available to the Government was uploaded to Section J.6 via Amendment 0001.

Offeror's Question: Page 149, L.9.2.4.2.1.3, Will Primavera P6 Scheduling Software be acceptable in lieu of Microsoft Project Scheduling Software?

Government's Response: At this time Primavera P6 is not acceptable, NOAA currently uses Microsoft Project for scheduling, and specifically requires the schedule to be provided to the Government in Microsoft Project.

Offeror's Question: The current RFP due date of March 2, 2023 does not allow enough time to develop the Pier Romeo Recapitalization design and to provide construction pricing. Please consider extending the RFP deadline to at least April 21, 2023.

Government's Response: The Government has elected to extend the Solicitation Response date from March 2, 2023 to March 16, 2023. This change has also impacted the Questions submittal period and Oral Presentation period. Kindly review Amendment 0001 for the detailed changes.

Offeror's Question: Page 147, L.9.2.3.2.1, We hold the requested information to be confidential. Request this requirement be struck from the RFP. If required, please describe specifically how the requested information will be used to evaluate Subfactor 2; and confirm that such proposal information will not be releasable under FOIA request; and extend the page limit to 2 pages.

Government's Response: Please refer to Section M.3.5.2.1 for the evaluation of this Sub-Factor. The Offeror's table submitted is not limited to an 8.5" X11" format and may be uploaded on a larger single sheet. In the event your documents are requested during an official FOIA inquiry we will be certain to redact information not applicable to the request or that which may be determined confidential.

Offeror's Question: Page 150, L.9.2.4.3.6, The Oral Presentation Instructions state that the Attendees should be limited to the Prime Offeror Only, however it also requires that the Design Manager attend.

The requirements for the DBT Design Manager as stated on page 43, Section C, Paragraph 1.i, specifically the PE licensure in South Carolina, are more appropriate to the design partner's staffing than the prime. If it is the Owner's requirement that the proposed DBT Design Manager must be employed directly by the Prime Contractor, it is unnecessary and overly restrictive to require licensure specifically in the state of South Carolina. However, it is reasonable that the design partner's Design Manager be licensed in the state of South Carolina. Please revise the language in L.9.2.4.3.6 to clarify that the DBT Design Manager expected at the Oral Presentation may be from the Design Partner.

Government's Response: The Design Manager cited in Section L.9.2.4.3.6 entitled Offeror Participants may be the Design Manager of the AE Firm (Subcontractor to the Prime).

Offeror's Question: Page 150, L.9.2.4.3.6, The attendees required are the Design Manager and the Construction Project Manager. Please confirm the Construction Project Manager is the same as the Design Build Team (DBT) Project Manager referred to in the Key Personnel Section (Pg. 148, L.9.2.3.2.3, as well as in Section C.5, Page 42).

Government's Response: The DBT Project Manager can be the same person as the Construction Project Manager, assuming the individual meet the requirements outlined in the Solicitation.

Offeror's Question: Please confirm the projects requested in the Relevant EHS/QC Program section (Pg. 147, L.9.2.2.2), the projects required in the Project Experience section (Pg 148/149, L.9.2.4.1.2, 3, 4) do not have to be the same projects.

Government's Response: Confirmed, the projects do not have to be the same.

Offeror's Question: Please confirm if within the (up to) five projects required in Project Examples Past Performance (Pg. 151, L.9.2.5.1) , the bidder must include the same projects as provided in Project Examples (Pg. 148/149, L.9.2.4.1.2, 3, 4).

Government's Response: The Government does not have a requirement for the projects to be the same.

Offeror's Question: "Per SF 1442 - Section 13. Additional Solicitation Requirements, checkbox b, an offer guarantee is required. Please provide the amount of the bid/offer guarantee for this project."

Government's Response: Please reference Amendment 0001, which includes FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the specific amounts required in Section L of the Solicitation.

Offeror's Question: Page 150, Section L.9.2.4.3.6 states: The Offeror's participants in the oral presentations shall include the anticipated Design Manager and Construction Project Manager. No more than three (3) total Offeror participants shall attend the oral presentation. Attendees are limited to Prime Offeror only. The only exception to this would be if a team is proposing as a Joint Venture (JV). Please confirm whether the Government will be allowing more participants or if the total number will remain at three (Design Manager, Construction Project Manager, and one other participant).

Government's Response: At this time, the Government will limit the attendees to "no more than three (3) total" as outlined in Section L.9.2.4.3.6. As mentioned in a previous response, the Design Manager cited in Section L.9.2.4.3.6 entitled Offeror Participants may be the Design Manager of the AE Firm (Subcontractor to the Prime).

Offeror's Question: Page 148, Section L.9.2.3.2.3 states: Resumes shall demonstrate the requirements in Section C, 5.0 “DBT Responsibility” has been fully satisfied, include name, educational background, present employer, present position or title, total years of experience and years of experience with the Offeror, training, types of experience by years, and any additional pertinent information in sufficient detail to substantiate qualifications and facilitate evaluation of qualifications and technical competence. Please further define what is required for types of experience by years.

Government's Response: Provide past experience that is relevant to this design build project, such design build experience, design experience and qualification, construction experience and qualification, etc. The Offeror shall provide the number of years the individual performed in the identified relevant field/task.

Offeror's Question: Page 145, Section L.9.1.2 states: The proposal shall consist of two volumes - (1) Business/Price/Offeror Information Volume, and (2) Technical/Management Volume. Conversely, page 146, Section L.9.2 states: The proposal shall be prepared in the following volumes: VOLUME ONE: CORPORATE / TECHNICAL INFORMATION, VOLUME TWO:

BUSINESS/PRICE/OFFEROR INFORMATION. Please confirm the titles to be used for Volume One and Volume Two.

Government's Response: Please reference Amendment 0001, which revises Section L.9.1.2 to reflect: "L.9.1.2 The proposal shall consist of two volumes - (1) Corporate/Technical Information Volume, and (2) Business/Price/Offeror Information Volume. These volumes shall be submitted separately, and clearly marked: "Corporate/Technical Information Volume"� and "Business/Price/Offeror Information Volume".

The Offeror shall make no reference to price in the Corporate/Technical Information Volume. No alternate proposal will be accepted. The Offeror’s proposal and any subsequent negotiated changes thereto shall be binding upon the offeror."

Offeror's Question: Page 33, Section C.5.3.B.xi states: The schedule for the project shall be provided to the COR in PDF and Microsoft Project (.mpp) formats. Page 44, Section C.1.1.1.K. states: The DBT shall submit progress schedules as part of the monthly progress report

Amendment 0001 using Microsoft Project (or a Government approved alternate program).

Page 77, Section F.8.1 states: Project Execution Schedules shall be submitted to the COR for acceptance in Critical Path Method (CPM) using either P6 or Microsoft Project. Page 149, Sections L.9.2.4.2.1.1 to 3 state: Understanding of Project Schedule, Page limit: One (1), Format: Critical Path Method (CPM) format, Provide a project schedule in color, (using Microsoft Project) inclusive of applicable design and construction activities. Please confirm the preferred scheduling method (P6 or Microsoft Project) to be used throughout the written submittals and oral presentation.

Government's Response: All schedules are to be provided in Microsoft Project Format.

Offeror's Question: Page 154, Section L.11. Please provide the names of which firms pose a conflict of interest and are prohibited from participating on a Design Build Team for this procurement.

Government's Response: In accordance with Sections H.52 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, H.53 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and L.11 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST the Government is requesting any Offerors with questions relating to Conflict to Interest (COI) email the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer directly with the specific name (and if possible Unique Entity ID (UEI)) of the firm which an inquiry needs to be accomplished as it relates to the potential for a COI.

Offeror's Question: Pages 43-46, Section C.1.1.1.L. Regarding minimum qualification (iii. or C.) listed for all seven Key Personnel; please further define 'Experience working for the General Contractor.' Does this mean working for the same General Contractor proposing on this project, working for any past General Contractor, working for the owner, or other?

Government's Response: Section C requirement for "Experience working for the General Contractor on federal, state, or municipal design-build construction projects." applies to either past or present General Contractors.

Offeror's Question: Page 64 DBSOW Part I Section C Paragraph H1050, 5th Bullet. The statement indicates that the owner is interested in a self-leveling mooring line system if a non-floating pier design is selected. Since it appears clear that a non-floating pier will not be considered, can the call for self-leveling mooring lines be eliminated?

Government's Response: Self leveling mooring lines will not be required. The following language has been removed from Section C "Self-Leveling Mooring Line System - The Government is interested in the potential of including a system that would provide self-leveling of the mooring lines. If a non-floating pier design is the selected design."

Offeror's Question: Page 67 DBSOW Part I Section C Paragraph H6030.

After review of the Reports regarding hazardous materials, Lead Based Paint and Asbestos exist within the existing Electrical Building at the end of the Pier. Will the Government have these Hazardous Materials and any others that exist on the Project Site removed prior to the Contractor mobilizing to the site?

Government's Response: No, it will be the responsibility of the contractor to remove and dispose of these materials IAW Federal and State laws.

Offeror's Question: Page 79 DBSOW Part I Section F Paragraph F.12.a.

Request the base period of performance be extended by 180 days to 1001 days to account for design and construction of the floating pier and other features of work.

Government's Response: At this time the Government does not anticipate the need to extend the contract's period of performance.

Offeror's Question: L.9.2.4.2.1.3 states to "provide a project schedule in color (using Microsoft Project)". Our team uses Primavera P6 to develop detailed project schedules. Is it acceptable to submit a schedule using Primera P6 in lieu of Microsoft Project?

Government's Response: At this time Primavera P6 is not acceptable, NOAA currently uses Microsoft Project for scheduling, and specifically requires the schedule to be provided to the Government in Microsoft Project.

Offeror's Question: Please provide the Concept Design Drawings located in the 15% concept bridging documents in Autocad format

Government's Response: Autocad files are not available and will not be provided for this requirement.

Offeror's Question: Section 4.0 of the RFP lists 15 documents included in the 15% Concept/Bridging Documents Package. However, 21 documents appear to be included in the actual transmitted document folder and it is not clear which file correspond to the list in Section 4.0 of the RFP. Can NOAA please provide clarification to the provided 15% Concept/Bridging documents with respect to the provided bridging document files?

Government's Response: All files contained in Section J.6 of the solicitation are included in the hyperlink provided. Files specifically identified in Section C.4.0 are also included in Section J.6. Specifically, items "i" through "xii" outlined in Section C 4.0 are included verbatim in Section J.6. Item "xiii" entitled "FLETC Site Access Forms" is included in Section J.7; item "xiv" entitled "Hazardous Materials Report 2021" is listed under Section J.6 as "N.

Summary Report of Hazardous Materials and Historical Information (2022)" and "P. Supplemental Report to the Hazardous Materials Survey Sampling Report (2021)" and item "xv" entitled "Cultural Resources Report 2021" is listed under Section J.6 as "S. Cultural Resources Report (2021) & State Historic Preservation Office Letter (2022)".

Offeror's Question: We believe the time provided in the RFP to submit a proposal does not provide adequate time for the contractor to put together a design and accurate estimate for the work proposed in the RFP. We request an extension of a minimum of 60 days from the original date provided in the RFP to allow us sufficient time to respond to the RFP with an accurate price and design which meets the RFP requirements. Please confirm an additional 60 days will be allowed for submittal of the proposals.

Government's Response: The Government has elected to extend the Solicitation Response date from March 2, 2023 to March 16, 2023. This change has also impacted the Questions submittal period and Oral Presentation period. Kindly review Amendment 0001 for the detailed changes.

Offeror's Question: Is there a scoring criteria for the proposals or will the project be awarded to the lowest cost technically acceptable proposal?

Government's Response: Offerors shall refer to Sections M.2 CAR 1352.215-74 BEST VALUE EVALUATION and M.5 BASIS OF AWARD/SELECTION CRITERIA to view the complete narrative of the evaluation criteria.

Offeror's Question: Page 14, Section C.1.1: Regarding demolition, removal and disposal of the existing pier and all associated piles, can the demolition materials from the existing pier be disposed at one of the offshore artificial reef locations?

Government's Response: Disposal is the responsibility of the contractor, and it is their responsibility to ensure the material is disposed at the proper facility and are responsible for associated costs and permitting for the disposal.

Offeror's Question: Page 149, Section L.9.2.4.2; Please clarify if the schedule shall be limited to one page only or if I can be multiple pages. If one page only, would the Government consider changing the maximum page size to a larger size to allow more details to be shown in the schedule?

Government's Response: Section L.9.2.4.2.1.2 Format: Critical Path Method (CPM) format, is a 1 page limit, a maximum 11 x 17 size is acceptable for this submittal. Section L.9.2.4.2.1.4 Schedule Narrative is a two (2) Page limit: page size is a maximum of 8.5" x 11"

Offeror's Question: Page 14, Section C.1.2 states: This scope also requires the preparation of a standalone set of construction documents (drawings, specifications, and proposal documents) for the curb and gutter sitework, as well as the final paving and striping of the upgraded site. NOAA will use these construction documents to solicit a separate construction-only contract. Page 16, Section C.2.1. CLIN 0001

1) b) (5) states: Prepare Sitework Package (i) The final parking lot curbs & gutters, final concrete sidewalks, final asphalt paving, and final parking lot and roadway striping construction will be solicited and performed as a separate construction contract. The DBT shall prepare and provide a separate set of plans, specifications, and proposal documents to NOAA for this work in order to allow NOAA to solicit and support this specific scope of work. Page 19, Section C.3.2.4 states: Paved Parking with a minimum of 214 parking spots (striped), to include four (4) van accessible spots, four (4) non-van accessible handicap spots and four (4/Ea.) Class 2 electrical vehicle charging station spots. Islands, curbs, and other hardscape elements to be configured as necessary to accommodate the parking requirements.

Regarding the sitework please clarify which scopes are to be included for design and construction in this contract, and which scopes are to be performed (design and construction) in separate future contracts.

Government's Response: All design scopes required in this solicitation (and applicable attachments) are to be completed by the Awardee, as part of the 100% Design submittal and acceptance (CLIN 0001). The only construction work not included in this contract is the forming and pouring of curb and gutter, the final paving, and the striping.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that PPQ's are not required for the two

(2) Designer Project Experience examples.

Government's Response: Past Performance Questionnaires are required in Section L.9.2.5 FACTOR 4: CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE of the Solicitation; the content submitted for this factor are applicable to the Prime Contractor (or JV), additionally, the Offeror may review the information contained in Section L.9.2.5.1.1.5 for further guidance on Past Performance Information to be submitted.

Offeror's Question: Are Contractor PPQ's to be included in the submission or sent directly to NOAA by the PPQ evaluator?

Government's Response: Offerors shall refer to Section L.9.2.5.1.1.2 for a complete detail of how Past Performance Questionnaires are to be handled: Completed Past Performance Questionnaires (See Section J for the Google Form to be emailed to the respondent). Link may also be provided by emailing (https://forms.gle/Xt6b2wdcekTpfVPo9) directly to the respondent. The Government will not consider questionnaires submitted by the Offeror.

Offeror's Question: What is the sea level rise value?

Government's Response: Please refer to Section J.6 of the Solicitation, the Concept Narrative (2022) document page 29 of 81. Per the information contained Sea Level Rise - A 2.5 foot value shall be assumed for the 50-year design projection

Offeror's Question: Is design of the EV charging stations to be included?

Government's Response: Yes, the design is to be 100% completed per the Government's scope (15% Concept and Specs) and include all design work required for ALL OPTIONAL CLINs, including the EV charging stations.

Offeror's Question: Since both the sitework and floating pier options require utilities, under which CLIN option are utilities to be included?

Government's Response: All site work construction and utilities that are required to support the floating pier are to being including CLIN 0002 (Main Floating Pier Construction), all other sitework and utilities are to be including in CLIN 0003 (Main Site Civil & Utilities).

Offeror's Question: Under which CLIN option are utility connection fees to be included?

Government's Response: Utility connection fees are to be included under OPTIONAL CLIN 0003 - Main Site Civil & Utilities

Offeror's Question: Page 30, Paragraph F. Responsibility for Errors or Omissions states DBT warrants to the Government that drawings and specifications are in complete compliance with the Design Analysis and DBT is liable for all errors or omissions. The DOR Professional Liability insurance only covers compliance within the Standard of Care, please clarify.

Government's Response: The contractor shall comply with FAR 52.236-21 entitled "Specifications and Drawings for Construction", FAR 52.236-21 ALT I entitled "Specifications and Drawings for Construction Alternate I" and Section G.15 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE of the Solicitation.

Offeror's Question: Our team members have worked on numerous design build projects and procurements. Typically, the procurement process last 4 to 8 months depending on the complexity of the project and the Owner requirements. The scope of this project gives teams the opportunity to introduce innovative design and construction solutions.

In order to allow the design teams enough time to properly vet through all our options and the estimating teams to price the bid items required, our team respectfully requests a 45-day extension on the due date.

Government's Response: The Government has elected to extend the Solicitation Response date from March 2, 2023 to March 16, 2023. This change has also impacted the Questions submittal period and Oral Presentation period. Kindly review Amendment 0001 for the detailed changes.

Offeror's Question: Due to the unique scope of work for this type of marine project, the opportunities to show relevant construction experience is limited. Our team would like to request NOAA to allow reference projects within the last 15 years.

Government's Response: The Government has elected to extend the relevant experience of reference projects from ten (10) to fifteen years (15). Kindly review Amendment 0001 for the detailed changes.

Offeror's Question: When evaluating the price proposal will the evaluations be based upon the base bid price or will it include the base bid and bid option prices?

Government's Response: Kindly reference Section B.2 of the solicitation which states "The method for evaluation stated in the solicitation, will be utilized during the evaluation of Optional CLINs 0002-0006." The Government will evaluate the CLIN 0001 and ALL Optional CLINs (0002 - 0006) to determine the basis of award.

Offeror's Question: Please advise the primary reason and objective for selection of a floating concept for the new/replacement pier.

Government's Response: The Government is selecting a floating pier concept to support climate change, cost, and overall environmental impact.

Offeror's Question: Please clarify the basis for the design uniform live load of 500 lbs./ft2 for the floating pier.

Government's Response: The uniform live load for the floating pier must be a minimum of 500 lbs./ft2 to support NOAA operational requirements.

Offeror's Question: Please confirm that the design vessels need to be moored at the floating pier during a Category 4 hurricane.

Government's Response: Correct, NOAA's vessels will be tied up and endure the storm while docked on the pier.

Offeror's Question: Please provide the uniform live load requirements for the finish slab of the warehouse.

Government's Response: Provide a live load 250 PSF for the warehouse space as specified in UFC 3-301-01.

Offeror's Question: Please provide CAD files of the as-built conditions of the site.

Government's Response: Autocad files are not available and will not be provided for this requirement.

Offeror's Question: Pier is to be design for 500 psf live load and freeboard of 4’ above water. A uniform 500 psf live load across the entire pier is equivalent to 8’ of buoyancy, which would place the deck of the pier 4’ underwater. We assume that the deck of the pier will be designed for a 500 psf localize load only. What is the uniform live load capacity of the entire pier with a 4’ freeboard?

Government's Response: Please refer to the Concept Design Narrative document on page 41 of 81., Section N.1.a.i - For the floatation calculation, 500 pounds per square foot may be reduced to the localized area.

Offeror's Question: The 15% design calculations has the pier with one

(1) NOAA vessel docked during a Category 4 hurricane and mentions that the pier should consider two (2) NOAA vessels docked should be considered. We estimate a second docked vessel would increase the lateral load by 30 to 50 percent and the proposed 48� anchor piles would need to be significantly increased in capacity and size. NAVFAC requires that ships be put to sea with a pending hurricane to mitigate ship damage from waves and large haul pressures. Please clarify the design criteria for permanent ship docking during hurricanes events.

Government's Response: If possible, NOAA will always try to relocate our ship assets out of the path of a Hurricane. However, this is not always possible for many reasons. The dock must be able support the assigned vessels during a hurricane.

Offeror's Question: Section L.9.2.7.8 requires Evidence of Bonding Capability. The requirement does not appear to request a bid bond, is a letter from our surety sufficient evidence?

Government's Response: Please reference Amendment 0001, which includes FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the specific amounts required in Section L of the Solicitation.

Offeror's Question: On page 64 of the Solicitation Section H50, it says to Provide civil/mechanical utilities consisting of...high pressure compressed air and low pressure compressed air. There is no call out for air lines on drawing C-112 or anywhere else in Section C.

Are these air lines required and if so where?

Government's Response: Yes, the air lines are required. Please reference page 35 Section 8 of the Final Concept Narrative (2022).

Offeror's Question: The wage decision numbers specified in RFP on page 89 are obsolete. Please provide new reference numbers.

Government's Response: At the time the solicitation was published, the three (3) Davis Bacon Wage Determinations included in the solicitation (Sections H.4 ad J.1) were most recently modified as follows: Davis- Bacon Act WD # SC20220023 (Published July 22, 2022), Davis-Bacon Act WD # SC20220004 (Published October 7, 2022) and Davis-Bacon Act WD # SC20220041 (Published July 22, 2022). As of January 31, 2023, the modification publication date remains the same.

Offeror's Question: Is this project buy America?

Government's Response: Yes, the Offeror shall reference the following FAR Clauses: Section I.2 FAR 52.225-10 NOTICE OF BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT-CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (MAY 2014) and Section I.3 FAR

52.225-11 BUY AMERICAN-CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS UNDER TRADE AGREEMENTS

(OCT 2022) as it relates to Buy America for Construction Materials.

Offeror's Question: Project RFP documents indicate dredging to -25.

Project plan sheet C-114 shows dredging to depth -28.114. Which is correct?

Government's Response: The requirement for dredging is NOT part of the scope of work for this contract. All dredging activities will be accomplished via a separate contract vehicle.

Offeror's Question: In the bid schedule and Section B.2 Contract Price it is not clear whether the dredging price should go in base CLIN 0001, optional CLIN 0002, or optional CLIN 0003. Where do you want the dredging price in the bid?

Government's Response: The requirement for dredging is NOT part of the scope of work for this contract. All dredging activities will be accomplished via a separate contract vehicle. The Offeror is not required to propose a price for dredging.

Offeror's Question: Please confirm that a 3-pt turn by a fire truck satisfies the pier truck turnaround requirement noted in the RFP

Government's Response: Correct, a 3 point turn by a fire truck will satisfy the requirement.

Offeror's Question: Will the existing storm drain outfall locations need to be relocated due to the new sheet pile wall/revetment?

Government's Response: That is to be determined by the design-build contractor

Offeror's Question: As a DB Contract, may the # of submissions be reduced from CDW, 35%, 65%, 95% and IFC?

Government's Response: No, the number of submissions may not be reduced.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that design review meetings will only be bi-weekly or provide guidance on acceptable number of extra meetings to price.

Government's Response: Per Section C, 5.0, D.2 "The DOR’s Project Manager shall conduct Project Review Meetings bi-weekly at a minimum and at greater frequency when warranted. Refer to 7.0 Meetings/Conferences/Conference Calls for detailed requirements."

Offeror's Question: Confirm that DOR is required to attend either virtually or in-person the 2 construction progress meetings per month.

Government's Response: Correct, the DOR is required to attend bi-weekly progress meetings during the construction phase.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that DOR site visits shall be limited to 6 as indicated in RFP or provide guidance on acceptable number of extra visits to price.

Government's Response: Section C, 5.0, H, 3 indicates "The DBT’s DPs shall conduct at a minimum of six (6) periodic site visits or more as necessary to observe that the construction work being performed is in conformance with the approved design." Additional visits would be determined by the DBT.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that project will be registered with the USGBC LEED website for certification.

Government's Response: Confirmed, as this is the Government's current intention.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that a project rendering is required at each milestone submittal.

Government's Response: Per Section C, 5.0, H, 3 "Submit renderings for approval to the COR at each design phase in full color. A minimum of four different exterior views to be selected by the COR." IE four renderings per design phase. (35%, 65%, 95%, IFC).

Offeror's Question: Confirm that a Commissioning Authority (CxA) registered through AABC’s Commissioning Group (ACG) is acceptable in lieu of CCP or BCXP.

Government's Response: Confirmed, the Commissioning Authority (CxA) is acceptable.

Offeror's Question: Confirm who from the design team must attend weekly project design and construction coordination meetings throughout the duration of the project.

Government's Response: The Design Team Project Manager shall attend weekly project design and construction coordination meetings throughout the duration of the project.

Offeror's Question: Confirm whether the bi-weekly design review meetings are one and the same as the weekly project design and construction coordination meetings.

Government's Response: The bi-weekly project design review meetings are held during the design phase, once the design is complete and the project moves into the construction phase, the meetings will transition to weekly, from a bi-weekly project meeting.

Offeror's Question: Confirm whether the DOR is to provide the VE team for a VE charrette in addition to preparing for and leading the VE Conferences.

Government's Response: As noted in Section C .3 Value Engineering (VE) Conferences. It is the DOR’s responsibility to prepare for, lead, and follow-up for the VE Conferences. The VE Conferences must be attended by key members of the DOR’s Design Team involved in this project including: DOR’s Project Manager, Architect, Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect, Cost Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, and Interior Designer., This is not a separate team, but the VE team includes at minimum these individuals.

Offeror's Question: Confirm available pressure and flow for potable water and fire service at Pier and proposed building site, or if is to be obtained by the DOR, and if any potential fire pump and/or domestic booster pumps will be required in the contract.

Government's Response: Please reference C-112 on the 15% Bridging Plans and pages 10 and 11 of the 15% Final concept narrative.

Confirming existing utility conditions is the responsibility of the

DOR.

Offeror's Question: Confirm whether a registered FPE is required for the fire protection design.

Government's Response: Confirmed, a registered FPE is required for the fire protection design.

Offeror's Question: Confirm that an LCCA is required since there is a preliminary HVAC selection in the concept design documents.

Government's Response: Confirmed, a LCCA is required.

Offeror's Question: Confirm if there is a minimum % of connected, or demand, electrical load that must be powered by on-site solar photovoltaic generation facilities.

Government's Response: The minimum percentage is 20% per LEED for 5 points.

Offeror's Question: Within the RFP Section L.9.2.6. Factor 5:

Subcontracting/Small Business Participation - It states "Goal for Prime Contracting" Please define Prime Contracting? FAR Clause 52.219- 9 states: The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following: (1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. For individual subcontracting plans, and if required by the Contracting Officer, goals shall also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. The Offeror shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs. In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1626 The FAR Clause allows the contracting officer to express their goals in terms of contract dollars or subcontract dollars. Our question is the 36% shown on the chart (page 152 of the RFP) shown as a percentage of total contract dollars or is it a percentage of total subcontract dollars?

Government's Response: FAR 52.219-9 entitled Small Business Subcontracting Plan subsection (d)(1) states: (d) The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following: (1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, AND as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. For individual subcontracting plans, and if required by the Contracting Officer, goals shall also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. The Offeror shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs. In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1626:

Therefore the 36% for "Goal for Prime Contracting to SB" is the percentage of total contract dollars subcontracted.

Offeror's Question: Is it 36% of the primes total contract value, or is it 36% of the total subcontracted value? In other words, is it 36% of the total $60-ish million contract value = $21.6 million, or is it

36% of the total subcontracted dollars which could be say $10 million subcontracted x 36 = $3.6 million. What is the Governments intent?

Government's Response: FAR 52.219-9 entitled Small Business Subcontracting Plan subsection (d)(1) states: (d) The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following: (1) Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, AND as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. For individual subcontracting plans, and if required by the Contracting Officer, goals shall also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. The Offeror shall include all subcontracts that contribute to contract performance, and may include a proportionate share of products and services that are normally allocated as indirect costs. In accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1626:

Therefore the 36% for "Goal for Prime Contracting to SB" is the percentage of total contract dollars subcontracted.

Offeror's Question: Please advise if the warehouse slab on grade and the exterior pavement needs to be designed for the axle load of a 30 ton Fork Truck.

Government's Response: Confirmed, per the Concept Narrative (2022)

Offeror's Question: On page 18 of the Solicitation Section 3.2.1.d, and page 63 H10, the term "semi-truck" is used and states it must have the ability to turn around while on the pier. Is this referring to a semi-truck (tractor) or a semi-truck and trailer (18 wheeler)? A typical semi-truck and trailer (18 wheeler) is 8.5 feet wide, 72 feet long and 13.5 feet tall. Please clarify.

Government's Response: A 3 point turn by a fire truck will satisfy the requirement.

Offeror's Question: Reference Page 1 of the DBSOW. We respectfully request a four (4) week extension of the proposal due date to Thursday, March 2, 2023 @ 12:00 PM. Upon our initial review of the documents that were issued with the solicitation, the time currently allowed in the solicitation is not adequate for a project of this type, size, duration, and complexity. We fully understand the importance of this project and that time is of the essence with regard to this solicitation. But ultimately, we believe that a time extension is an important investment and would provide the most favorable benefit to the NOAA. A time extension will also facilitate additional participation from the subcontracting community, including SB contractors/vendors, as well as other project stakeholders.

Government's Response: The Government has elected to extend the Solicitation Response date from March 2, 2023 to March 16, 2023. This change has also impacted the Questions submittal period and Oral Presentation period. Kindly review Amendment 0001 for the detailed changes.

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.4.2 pg. 149.

Subfactor 2: Schedule is noted as both part of the oral presentation and written material; however, the oral presentation expectations are not explicitly stated. Can NOAA please clarify what portions of the Subfactor will be expected as part of the oral presentation only?

Government's Response: Section L.9.2.4.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Schedule (Oral Presentation and Written Material Required) is cites as such, to allow the Offeror to orally present the information provided in their electronic proposal, which includes but is not limited to their CPM Project Schedule (L.9.2.4.2.1.2), Schedule Narrative (L.9.2.4.2.1.5) and Delay Recovery Examples (L.9.2.4.2.1.6). The intent is not to regurgitate the information submitted in your offeror, but to allocate time to present the information. The requirements for your oral presentation is outlined in Section "L.9.2.4.3.8 Format for Oral Presentation: The Government intends for the virtual oral presentation to proceed as follows:" and Section "L.9.2.4.3.9 Rules of Engagement for Oral Presentations:"

Offeror's Question: "Please see RFP Section L9.2.4.2.1.1 pg. 149.

Subfactor 2: Schedule includes a one (1) page limit for the critical path method format schedule. Will NOAA allow for the Microsoft Project CPM schedule to be submitted on 11x17s as an appendix to this subfactor to allow for all activities to be shown for the project's design and construction activities without a page limit?"

Government's Response: Confirmed, Section L.9.2.4.2.1.2 Format:

Critical Path Method (CPM) format, is a 1 page limit, a maximum 11 x 17 size is acceptable for this submittal. Section L.9.2.4.2.1.4 Schedule Narrative is a two (2) Page limit: page size is a maximum of 8.5" x 11"

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.3.1.3 pg. 147. Will NOAA allow for the organizational chart on an 11x17 page?

Government's Response: Yes, the Offeror's table/chart submitted is not limited to an 8.5" X11" format and may be uploaded on a larger single sheet (i.e. an 11x17 sheet is acceptable).

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.5.1 pg. 151. Can NOAA please clarify that for Factor 4: Contractor Past Performance, the written material to be submitted within the Volume 1 response is to include a one page narrative for up to five (5) projects?

Government's Response: Confirmed, Section L.9.2.5.1 states "Quantity:

Page limit for each explanation: One (1). Offerors shall provide no more than five (5) past performances."

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.5.1.1.2 pg. 152. Can NOAA please clarify that Offerors do not need to submit a PPQ if there is already CPARS information available for all/any of the five (5) projects submitted?

Government's Response: Incorrect, the solicitation does NOT indicate your assumption in your question. Instead it states: "L.9.2.5.2 Other Sources: The Offeror is not required to submit anything for this element. In evaluating the Offeror’s past performance, the Government may consider the information in the Offeror’s submittal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases (e.g. CPARS), and other references.

L.9.2.5.3 As defined by FAR 2.1, past performance refers to the Offeror’s performance on active and physically completed contracts. An Offeror who has no record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating for this factor."

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.4.4.1 pg. 151. Can NOAA please clarify there is no page limit for the A/E firm cover letter?

Government's Response: Correct, however, the Government encourages the Offeror to limit their Cover Letter to no more than three (3) pages.

Offeror's Question: Please see RFP Section L9.2.4.3.2 pg. 149. Will the Offeror be required to submit the 25 slides before the oral presentation date/time? The L.9.2.1.4.1.2 is very prescriptive as to the information that is required for each project example as part of the oral presentation; as such, without NOAA collecting presentations ahead of time or evaluating after the presentation, how will compliance and scoring be determined?

Government's Response: The bi-weekly project design review meetings are held during the design phase, once the design is complete and the project moves into the construction phase. The meetings it will transition to a weekly from a bi-weekly project meeting.

Offeror's Question: Per FAR 52.228-14, please clarify if a bid bond or letter of credit is required, and if a letter of credit is required, please specify the required amount.

Government's Response: Please reference Amendment 0001, which includes FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the specific amounts required in Section L of the Solicitation. Additionally, the Offer shall comply with Section L.9.2.7.8 "Evidence of Bonding Capability. Provide evidence of bonding capability and availability to the value of the proposed price at Section B. Evidence submitted must be dated within no more than ninety (90) days before proposal submission date."

Offeror's Question: The document specifies a completion date for the services, which are broken up into six work packages, all to be complete on 1/16/26. LDs are specified at $7,617/day without limit.

The document states that LDs are not the sole remedy for delay; in order to properly assess and quantify risks, please provide additional remedies to include limits of liability, caps on LD, waivers of actual and consequential damages.

Government's Response: Liquidated Damages will be assessed in accordance with Section F.3 entitled "FAR 52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEPT 2000)" and Section H.17 entitled

"INITIATION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES."

Offeror's Question: Contractor is required to “confirm” the existing site conditions prior to award and to complete a follow up investigation 30 days after award, additionally – FAR 52.236-2 (Differing Site Conditions) is incorporated by reference. Please confirm that given the procurement timeline and limited site access, the contractor needs to be able to rely on the documents provided and any differing site conditions, if found in the 30 day investigation period, would be subject to the Differing Site Conditions clause and equitable adjustment.

Government's Response: The Respondent has determined this question is in reference to Section C, 5.0, #1 & 2 "Conduct a Site Investigation to confirm the existing site…