Sol_1305M424R0071_Amd_0002 (Published to SAM.gov 03-25-2025).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: is not is required 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. 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

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

PAGESOF

Contractor

The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers to sign this document and return

RONETTE MCBEAN-FELDER

See continuation page

CSAD-Facilities Support

1325 EAST WEST HWY

SSMC2, RM 11323

SILVER SPRING MD 20910

CSAD-FAC

1305M424R0071

02/18/2025

02/18/2025

1 9

Manchester Campus Addition Construction at the Manchester Research Station in Port Orchard, Washington Amendment 0002

The purpose of this Amendment is to accomplish the following:

(1) Update the Phase II Participants Pre-Proposal Conference

Date.

(2) Acknowledge potential Offeror’s Questions and provide the

Government’s Responses.

Update the Phase II Participants Pre-Proposal Conference Date

FROM:

Wednesday May 21, 2025 (10:00 AM Pacific Time)

TO:

Thursday May 22, 2025 (10:00 AM Pacific Time)

Potential Offerors Questions and the Government’s Responses:

Offeror’s Question: Can you please confirm that while CLIN information was provided, no pricing is required for the Phase 1 submission.

Government’s Response: Confirmed. As outlined in Section L.9.2.5, the Offeror’s Price Proposal is required during Phase II which currently reflects a response date of June 17, 2025. Additionally, as outlined in Amendment 0001 the Offeror’s acknowledgement of all amendments and confirmation that a duly authorized representative of the company, with binding authority, has signed the proposal submission for both Phases I and II; therefore, Section L.9.2.1 has been updated to include the following:

L.9.2.1.10 Phase I - Section A - "Standard Form 1442" Complete blocks 14 through 20C.

L.9.2.1.11 Phase I - Amendment(s) acknowledgement – Standard Form 30 (when applicable). If amendments are issued, the Offeror shall indicate receipt and inclusion of the amendment by completing block 19 of the form. Amendments shall also be acknowledged by signing and returning the SF-30, “Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract,” with the offer.

Offeror’s Question: The solicitation references using Microsoft Project of the scheduling. We would like to request that Primavera P6 software also be allowed as a scheduling format option. This software is widely used by many contractors that perform work for Government agencies such as USACE, BOR and NAVFAC. P6 is a more widely used and understood program in construction as it places more emphasis on the work breakdown structure during the development phase of the schedule creating much better accuracy. It offers practical features, like LOE activities, Longest Path, Multiple Float Paths, and Steps, which make it a compelling alternative to Microsoft Project while also offering a precise schedule of values better managing costs. Further, It offers a solid structured approach to progressing the schedule versus schedule progression in Microsoft Project. That is to say that P6 enforces a more structured approach to moving remaining work into the future – whereby Microsoft requires some extra steps to make remaining work move ahead of the status date.

Government’s Response: The Offeror shall submit their desired scheduling format, however, they (the Offeror) must ensure that the submitted information can be accessed and reviewed by the Government using Microsoft Project.

Offeror’s Question: Reference L.9.2.2.2. Many companies have decentralized structures with teams located across the country. This model allows them to leverage a nationwide network of resources and information-sharing to ensure that each team is well-equipped and knowledgeable for each project. Additionally, personnel focused on federal work routinely have to travel around the country based on which regions are seeing the most government funding. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to maintain a team of the same project personnel across multiple projects. We propose that section L.9.2.2.2 be 1) removed, or 2) modified to “the extent to which the proposed construction management team has worked together” and removed “previous project.”

Government’s Response: The requirements specified in Factor 1 - Staffing Approach and Key Personnel Section L.9.2.2.2 remain unchanged. While it is advantageous for an Offeror to effectively illustrate the performance dynamics within the proposed team, the previously detailed preference associated with Factor 1, as outlined in Section M.3.4, has been revised to discretionary status. Paragraph two (2) of Section M.3.4.1 has been revised to reflect:

“This factor is met when the proposal demonstrates each of the key team members has held at least one comparable position, to that proposed, for a similar project and has the appropriate education, training, experience and certification required to be assigned to this position and for this project. Preference may be given to those members having experience on multiple similar projects and/or successful performance in comparable positions.”

Offeror’s Question: Reference L.9.2.3.1.1.2. There is not enough time allotted in this solicitation to get CPARS and PPQ’s for Past Performance projects tailored specifically to this solicitation, particularly from federal contracting entities. Additionally, for federal contracting entities, there will be no difference between the CPARS/PPQ provided for this solicitation vs. those provided previously per contract requirements. CPARS can be looked up by federal entities within the government review system to backcheck validity. Please consider allowing previously completed CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reports) and PPQs (Past Performance Questionnaires) will suffice for this requirement.

Additionally, please confirm the completed CPARS / PPQ’s can be included in the contractor’s proposal package in lieu of being submitted via the google forms link in the solicitation.

Government’s Response: The Offeror is advised to reference Amendment 0001 which provided a response to this inquiry which stated:

“Due to recent developments and ongoing changes within the Federal Government, the submission of CPARS or previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires will be accepted as part of the projects submitted for consideration under Factor 2.”

Offeror’s Question: Is there a distinction between “past experience” and “past performance” as used in the project requirements?

Specifically, does past experience include similar projects completed, or is it limited to performance on prior projects?

Government’s Response: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines Past Performance as “Past performance means an offeror’s or contractor’s performance on active and physically completed contracts (see 4.804-4).” Although the FAR does not specifically define "Past Experience" in the context of this solicitation, the following clarification applies:

“Past performance" refers to how well a firm has performed on past contracts, while "past experience" refers to what work a firm has done, and the amount and relevance of that experience.

Offerors are advised to carefully review the criteria for "Relevancy of Past Performance" and "Relevant Projects" as outlined under Factor 2.

Offeror’s Question: Please reference L.9.2.2.9 and L.9.2.3. This project contains some specialized characteristics (i.e. aquaculture, hatchery, lab space), in addition to applying importance to showing projects performed for the federal government and with “local conditions”. Please consider changing the contract value for project relevancy to $15m.

Government’s Response: The Offeror is advised to reference Amendment 0001 which provided a response to this inquiry which stated:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-4#FAR_4_804_4

The Government is willing to accept project values of $15,000,000 substantially completed within ten (10) years of the submission deadline. Section L.9.2.2.9 has been revised to reflect:

All qualifying similar projects must meet the following minimum requirements: Construction was substantially completed within ten

(10) years of the submission deadline; the project exceeded $15,000,000 in construction costs. Should key personnel submission reflect subcontracted efforts by the Offeror, the substantially completed period and project exceeded values shall be maintained as stated.

Offeror’s Question: Is it acceptable to submit the list of previous years projects contract values converted to reflect today’s dollar value, considering inflation and other factors, as compared to when the initial budget was set?

Government’s Response: No, Offerors are reminded that they must submit the actual contract values as they were established, rather than figures that have been adjusted. While considerations such as inflation and other contextual factors may be valuable, it is imperative that the original contract values remain unaltered in the submission process.

Offeror’s Question: Reference L.9.2.3 regarding Could you please define what constitutes “local conditions” as mentioned in the project requirements.

Government’s Response: The term "local conditions" as outlined in this solicitation encompass the specific, site-related factors that influence the project's execution, including but not limited to geotechnical conditions, environmental factors (e.g. weather, marine environment), local regulations, remote location, limited/controlled site access and community dynamics (e.g. labor availability).

Offeror’s Question: Staffing: Reference L.9.2.2.4, L.9.2.2.5, L.9.2.2.6, L.9.2.2.7, L.9.2.2.8, L.9.2.2.9. All personnel are required to have at least 10 years’ experience in construction, and the QCM and SSHO are required to have 10 years’ experience. These are unreasonable expectations for a job in the $20-30m range. In particular, the EM-385 does not require SSHO to have 10 years’ experience, and most other federal projects within this dollar range require a maximum of 2 years QCM experience on similar sized jobs.

Government’s Response: Acknowledged, the following Sections have been updated accordingly to reflect:

L.9.2.2.6 Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) must demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years experience as an SSHO on similar projects.

Must have current OSHA 30 certification and meet USACE EM-385 qualifications.

L.9.2.2.7 Quality Control Manager (QCM) must demonstrate a minimum of eight (8) years experience in construction and five (5) years experience as a QCM on similar federal or state projects.

L.9.2.2.8 Environmental Manager (EM) must demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years experience as a EM on similar federal or state projects.

Offeror’s Question: Reference L.9.2.3, item 8. Statement regarding “projects demonstrating experience with construction delivery” is unclear. Please confirm this is supposed to mean experience with lump sum construction projects. Please confirm both design-build and design-bid-build projects will satisfy this requirement.

Government’s Response: The Government will accept Firm Fixed Price Design-Build and/or Design-Bid-Build (Construction) as examples of attributes that may demonstrate relevance to this solicitation.

Offeror’s Question: Reference M.3.5.2 and L.9.2.3.1. M3.5.2 references projects completed within the last 10 years to be acceptable, and L.9.2.3. indicates projects must be completed within the last 8 years. Please confirm projects completed within the last 10 years will be acceptable

Government’s Response: The Offeror is advised to reference Amendment 0001 which provided a response to this inquiry which stated:

While Section M.3.5.2 defines Relevance determination as “Only those projects deemed relevant will be considered in the evaluation of past performance and past experience. Relevant projects are those of similar size, scope and complexity to the work required in this solicitation. Note that only projects performed in the last ten (10) years will be deemed relevant. Projects found not to be similar in scope, size or complexity and projects older than ten (10) years are not relevant and will not be considered.” Recency is defined as “performance that involves work in process, or that reached substantial completion within eight (8) years of the solicitation release date, with a performance period of at least twelve (12) months…”

Therefore, it may be possible for a project achieving substantial completion 9.5 years ago may be deemed relevant but not recent as outlined in the solicitation. Please also note the term recency is specifically tied to the period for which substantial completion was achieved, whereas relevancy refers more specifically to projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

Offeror’s Question: Reference L.9.2.3.1.1.2, which indicates the contractor shall provide both interim and completed CPARS. Providing interim CPARS does not provide an accurate representation of the contractors’ performance on the project, as the final CPARS is a culmination of all of the interim CPARS. Please consider removing the requirement for submitting interim CPARS, as it does not add value to the government’s review of the contractors’ proposal.

Government’s Response: Thank you for your question, however, the Government will not consider the removal of this request, as interim CPARS evaluations play a critical role in our assessment process, especially for active projects. These evaluations offer a timely snapshot of performance, enabling the early identification of strengths and weaknesses, which helps demonstrate the implementation of corrective measures or reinforce successful practices.

Furthermore, interim CPARS ensure continuity of feedback between evaluation cycles, preserving documented communication. Should discrepancies emerge during the review process, the Contracting Officer may consult with the Assessing Official and/or the Contractor before finalizing an evaluation.

Offeror’s Question: Section L.9.2.3.1.1.2 of the RFP states, "Offeror shall ensure completed Past Performance Questionnaires have been previously submitted to the Government." However, we anticipate that obtaining timely responses from government representatives may be challenging due to their workload and availability. Given that Section L.9.2.3.2 of the solicitation states that past performance information may be obtained from other government sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), can you confirm whether CPARS evaluations may be submitted in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire to satisfy the past performance evaluation criteria?

Government’s Response: The Offeror is advised to reference Amendment 0001 which provided a response to this inquiry which stated:

Due to recent developments and ongoing changes within the Federal Government, the submission of CPARS or previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires will be accepted as part of the projects submitted for consideration under Factor 2.

Offeror’s Question: Section L.9.2.2.1 of the RFP states that offerors must provide "...a breakdown of all of the Offeror’s project management manpower resources." We believe that listing all project management manpower may be cumbersome and that it would better serve the government to provide a breakdown of manpower resources specifically relevant to the qualifications required for this RFP.

Can you confirm whether it is acceptable to provide a breakdown of only the project management manpower that is applicable and qualified for this RFP?

Government’s Response: Confirmed. The information contained in the first paragraph of Section L.9.2.2.1 has been updated to reflect:

L.9.2.2.1 Page limit: Three (3). Provide, in table format, a breakdown of all of the Offeror’s proposed project management manpower resources (e.g: which shall reflect at a minimum the Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Environmental Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer, Quality Control Manager etc.), the projects to which they are currently committed and when those commitments end.

In addition to the stated requirement above, offerors may also choose to identify their Project Management Manpower Resources that specifically meet the key personnel qualifications in this table format or simply reflect the total number of currently assigned personnel (e.g. Assigned - Jamie Smith, Site Superintendent (10 Total currently employed). As a reminder, when including the latter option in your proposal, the Offeror shall also indicate which of those personnel will be assigned to the Project.

Offeror’s Question: L.9.2.3 Factor 2 Past Performance & Past Experience indicates examples to be within 8 years of date of this solicitation but M.3.5.2 indicates that projects performed in the last 10 years are deemed relevant. Please confirm if relevant projects are to be within 8 years or 10 years.

Government’s Response: The Offeror is advised to reference Amendment 0001 which provided a response to this inquiry which stated:

While Section M.3.5.2 defines Relevance determination as “Only those projects deemed relevant will be considered in the evaluation of past performance and past experience. Relevant projects are those of similar size, scope and complexity to the work required in this solicitation. Note that only projects performed in the last ten (10) years will be deemed relevant. Projects found not to be similar in scope, size or complexity and projects older than ten (10) years are not relevant and will not be considered.” Recency is defined as “performance that involves work in process, or that reached substantial completion within eight (8) years of the solicitation release date, with a performance period of at least twelve (12) months…”

Therefore, it may be possible for a project achieving substantial completion 9.5 years ago may be deemed relevant but not recent as outlined in the solicitation. Please also note the term recency is specifically tied to the period for which substantial completion was achieved, whereas relevancy refers more specifically to projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

Offeror’s Question: L.9.2.3.4 indicates that project photos are not included in the 3 page limit of L.9.2.3.1.1.1 Project Examples Past Performance. Please confirm that the 3 allowable pages of Project Examples can have photos and well as additional pages per L.9.2.3.4 for 5 additional photos that can be up to 5 pages.

Government’s Response: Confirmed. The information contained in Section L.9.2.3.4 entitled "Project Photos” has been updated:

FROM: L.9.2.3.4 Project Photos: The Government requires photographs be included with this submission demonstrating interior and exterior of substantially or final completion of the submitted project(s).

Offerors will be reviewed more favorably if they can demonstrate successful experience dealing with new construction of a hospital, lab, hatchery, aquaculture, aquarium, water infrastructure or treatment space. Photos are not included in the page limit outlined in L.9.2.3.4, but shall be limited to no more than five (5) photos per project.

TO: L.9.2.3.4 Project Photos: The Government requires photographs be included with this submission demonstrating interior and exterior of substantially or final completion of the submitted project(s).

Offerors will be reviewed more favorably if they can demonstrate successful experience dealing with new construction of a hospital, lab, hatchery, aquaculture, aquarium, water infrastructure or treatment space. Photos are not included in the page limit outlined in L.9.2.3.1.1.1, but shall be limited to no more than five (5) photos per project.

Therefore, it is possible for an Offeror to comply with the requirement at “Photos are not included in the page limit outlined in L.9.2.3.1.1.1, but shall be limited to no more than five (5) photos per project.” and submit five (5) additional pages, each of which contain one (1) photo.