Kihei DB Campus Renovation Amendment 001 final.pdf

1305M425R0007 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS)

Building and Site Improvements Design-Build Project Amendment 001

The purpose of this Amendment is to accomplish the following:

(1) The due date for all Phase I responses is hereby extended to July 3, 2025 at 3:00 PM EST.

(2) Update Table 2 to the following:

Factor Subfactor Title Page Limitation

1 FUNDAMENTAL QUALIFICATIONS Up to 5 pages total

Cover Letter 1 page

Letter of Commitment from Surety 1 page

Procurement Strategy (Buy America) 1 page

Legal Structure Description 1 page

Evidence of Approved Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable

1 page

Safety Questionnaire Google Form Response

Financial Questionnaire Google Form Response

2 TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS Up to 41 pages total

1 Past Performance Up to 1 page

a. Project Profile Forms #1-3 Google Form Response

b. Most Relevant Project Narrative 1 page

c. Prior Experience Working Together Matrix Google Form Response

d. Project Relevancy Form Google Form Response

2 Design-Build Team Up to 33 pages

a. Team Introduction & Organizational Chart 2 pages

b. Resumes 20 pages

● Design-Build Project Executive 2 pages

● Design-Build Champion 2 pages

● Design-Build Project Manager 2 pages

● Design Integrator 2 pages

● Lead Conceptual Cost Estimator 2 pages

● Design Project Manager 2 pages

● Architect of Record 2 pages

● Sustainability Consultant 2 pages

● Civil Engineer of Record 2 pages

● Construction Project Manager 2 pages

c. Key Trade Partners Up to 3 pages

d. Resume Compliance Form 5 pages

e. Teaming Agreements Up to 3 pages

3 Design-Built Approach Up to 7 pages

(3) Update Paragraph II.D.1.c. Procurement Strategy to the following:

“Procurement Strategy: For this section, the Buy America policy applies to this Project. In accordance with the policy, provide a description of how you screened and selected designers, design-assist subcontractors, Key Trade Partners, Key Subconsultants, and subcontractors that will have a contractual relationship with the Design-Builder on this Project. Describe how you will invite, encourage, screen and competitively select subcontractors, construction trade contractors, labor, suppliers, manufacturers, or other entities not identified in your RFQ Response if you are selected to participate in the RFP process. “

(4) Update Section II.D.2.A. Definition of Project of Relevant

Scope, Size, and Complexity to read:

“Projects of similar size, scope and complexity should be major renovation and rehabilitation projects that have reached substantial completion in the past 10 years. A project is represented by a single contract. Similar Projects will be considered more relevant if they exhibit many or all of the following characteristics:…”

(5) Update Section II.D.1.d.1. To read:

“All offers submitted by joint ventures must include evidence of an approved joint venture agreement and disclose the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability of authority for each member.”

(6) Acknowledge Offerors’ Questions and provide the Government’s Responses.

Offerors Questions and the Government’s Responses:

Offeror’s Question: Do existing building drawings exist and will they be made available?

Government’s Response: Available building drawings in PDF format will be provided as part of Phase II and the RFP. The completeness and accuracy of the current condition of the drawings are not guaranteed, but provided for informational purposes only.

Offeror’s Question: Is there an existing property survey and will it be made available?

Government’s Response: Available survey data will be provided as part of Phase II and the RFP. Site survey was completed in 2023, using GNSS and static survey techniques. Utility locates were surveyed and marked by local companies, but no water and sewer locates were performed on site. No title search was prepared for the survey and the surveys provided are not stamped by a Hawaii state licensed professional land surveyor – so use of survey data for defining property line boundaries may not meet local and state requirements. The completeness and accuracy of the current condition of the drawings are not guaranteed, but provided for informational purposes only.

Offeror’s Question: Is the property federally owned? If so, is there an intention or agreement to pursue a Special Management Area (SMA) permit?

Government’s Response: The project site and buildings are federally owned. NOAA is in early consultation with the State of Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program to be in compliance with the CZM Act.

Coordination is ongoing at this time; however, the RFP Phase II portion will provide guidance on the requirements for the Design-Build to be in compliance with the state CZM program.

Offeror’s Question: If the property is federally owned, is there an intention or agreement to pursue a building permit?

Government’s Response: The project site and buildings are federally owned.

Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance on requirements on permits, approval, codes and standards, regulatory, or other requirements.

Currently, there are no requirements to obtain local building permits but designs to local codes and standards are to be considered and the more restrictive requirements must take precedence. And to improve public safety and efficiency of first responders, coordination of design and inspection with the local fire authority is required.

Offeror’s Question: It is understood the selected bidder shall include services to move new FFE into the newly renovated building. Is the new FFE NOAA supplied or is the selected bidder required to include an FFE budget in their bid?

Government’s Response: The requirements for the FFE will be more clearly identified during Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process. Additional clarification, if needed, will be provided to Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Is the selected bidder required to move the existing FFE out of the building for renovations and if so, is the selected bidder responsible for temporary, off-site storage? Please provide the details of the requirements of the off-site storage facility (bond required? Minimum insured amounts, etc.)

Government’s Response: The requirements for the FFE will be more clearly identified during Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process. Additional clarification, if needed, will be provided to Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Please confirm that if a Design Build Joint Venture will be submitting a proposal, that only one member of that Joint Venture must be a registered small business and not each member of the Joint Venture. Please also confirm and that it is acceptable the Design Build Joint Venture submit the bid and not the registered small business.

Government’s Response: This procurement is a 100% small business set-aside and offerors must meet applicable FAR and SBA requirements to qualify as a small business.

Offeror’s Question: Do we need furniture design/ layouts as CFCI or OFCI, or is it out of scope as OFOI?

Government’s Response: The requirements for the FFE will be more clearly identified during Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process. Additional clarification, if needed, will be provided to Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Subject: RFI #1 - Inclusion of Not-Yet-Completed Project in Past Performance (RFQ #1305M4-25-R-0007)

Solicitation Reference:

Section II.D.2.A - Subfactor 1: Past Performance (Page 12), specifically the requirement that projects "must have reached substantial completion in the past 10 years."

Question:

We are currently working on a design-build project for NOAA on the Mauna Loa campus in Hawaii, valued at approximately $15 million, which encompasses a broad range of disciplines (e.g., new construction, historic renovation, site improvements) and aligns closely with NOAA’s goals for the HIHWNMS project, including sustainability, resilience, Hawaiian cultural integration, and collaboration with NOAA stakeholders. While this project has not yet reached substantial completion, we can demonstrate its success through the design phase with documented NOAA feedback, showcasing alignment with the HIHWNMS project’s objectives. Can we include this project as one of our three projects in the Past Performance subfactor, highlighting its design phase achievements and ongoing progress?

Government’s Response: Only projects achieving substantial completion within the last ten (10) years will be considered.

Offeror’s Question: Subject: RFI #2 - Aggregation of Multiple Contracts into a Single Project (RFQ #1305M4-25-R-0007)

Solicitation Reference:

Section II.D.2.A - Subfactor 1: Past Performance (Page 12-13), specifically the requirement to submit up to three projects under Project Profiles, and the definition of a "Project of Relevant Scope, Size, and Complexity."

Question:

Our current work for NOAA on the Mauna Loa campus in Hawaii, valued at approximately $15 million, consists of seven interdependent contracts (e.g., new electrical distribution, communication tower, new building construction, historic building renovation, and site improvements).

These contracts are part of a single campus improvement initiative, with scopes that are interconnected and collectively address NOAA’s programmatic and sustainability goals, similar to the HIHWNMS project.

Can we aggregate these contracts into a single project for submission under the Past Performance subfactor, given their interdependence and unified objective of campus enhancement?

Government’s Response: No, multiple separate smaller contracts/projects cannot be aggregated and presented as one project.

Offeror’s Question: Subject: RFI #3 - Use of Not-Yet-Completed Project in Most Relevant Project Narrative (RFQ #1305M4-25-R-0007)

Solicitation Reference:

Section II.D.2.A.b - Most Relevant Project Narrative (Page 14), specifically the requirement to "highlight the most relevant project experience for this acquisition" from the submitted project profiles.

Question:

If our ongoing project for NOAA on the Mauna Loa campus (a $15 million campus improvement initiative in Hawaii) cannot be included as one of the three projects in the Past Performance subfactor due to not having reached substantial completion, can we instead highlight this project in the Most Relevant Project Narrative? This project closely aligns with the HIHWNMS project’s scope, including sustainability, resilience, Hawaiian cultural integration, and collaboration with NOAA, and we can provide client appreciations/recommendations from NOAA to demonstrate its relevance and success to date, despite not being fully completed.

Government’s Response: No, section II.D.2.A.b Most Relevant Project Narrative, states the intent is to highlight the most relevant project experience and describe how the selected project (1 of the 3 projects submitted through Attachment 4 Project Profile Form) is the most closely related to the project described in the RFQ.

Offeror’s Question: Is it acceptable to commence construction after the whale season following necessary entitlements and/or permits?

Government’s Response: Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance and requirements on construction activity and schedule restrictions to the three (3) Offerors selected to proceed. Consultations with stakeholders are ongoing at this time.

Offeror’s Question: Please describe required/desired security measures for site access and buildings.

Government’s Response: Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance and requirements security and access controls to the three (3) Offerors selected to proceed.

Offeror’s Question: Table 2 states resume page limitations are up to 20 pages, but then says one page for each of the ten resumes. Please confirm all resumes can be 20 pages total, but no page limit on each resume. If a person is performing two roles, we may want to provide a longer resume than someone performing one role to ensure they show the criteria requirements.

Government’s Response: Table 2 has been updated to allow for 2 pages per resume with a total of no more than 20 pages.

Offeror’s Question: Table 2 identifies Teaming Agreements are allowed up to 3 pages. Is this only for the description of the Teaming Agreements, or is this including the executed Teaming Agreements?

Government’s Response: This page limit is for responding to section II.D.2.B.e. Teaming Agreements, the executed teaming agreement is not required to be submitted.

Offeror’s Question: How should the offeror address each item submitted via google form in the proposal response? Should we include a print out of the answers or include a fly sheet specifying “Submitted via Google Form”?

Government’s Response: For any items required to be submitted via google form, the Offeror is only required to submit via google form, no additional print out or fly sheet is required.

Offeror’s Question: Can Design-Build Champion, Design-Build Project Manager, and Construction Project Manager be the same person, so long as they meet all requirements? (Page 15, paragraph b.2, b.3; page 17 paragraph b.10)

Government’s Response: Yes, this is the correct understanding of the

RFQ.

Section II.D.2.B.b.2 states “Design-Build Champion: The individual in this position may also be the Design-Build Project Manager”

Section II.D.2.B.b.3 states “The Design-Build Project Manager can also serve as the Construction Manager “

Section II.D.2.B.b.10 states “Construction Project Manager: If this role is not fulfilled by the Design-Build Project Manager, then the firm must provide another qualified individual (in addition to the DB

PM)”

Offeror’s Question: Page 11, Paragraph d.3 identifies Representations and Certifications are required for Joint Venture. Are there any Reps & Certs requirements for Prime contractors that are not JVs? And if so, where would they go in the response?

Government’s Response: No, this is a Phase I requirement for Joint Ventures, Reps and Certs will be required during Phase II responses.

Offeror’s Question: 2. Factor 2: Technical Qualifications: Please consider projects which are at 50% completion or higher as relevant projects.

Government’s Response: Only projects achieving substantial completion within the last ten (10) years will be considered.

Offeror’s Question: 2. Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, a. Project Profiles, 3. Key Trade Partner Experience. The a. Project Profiles instructions state "A total of up to three (3) projects will be considered in the Offeror’s response." Though, 2.a.3 states, "Key Trade Partners must demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects using the Project Profile Form." Its unclear what offerors are to submit for Factor 2. Should the Offeror submit 3 projects of it's own, highlighting Key Trade Partners within those 3, or should each Key Trade Partner also submit up to 3 projects each in addition to the 3 submitted by the Offeror?

Government’s Response: The submission allows for up to three (3) projects to be submitted from the Offeror as a whole, i.e. including Key Trade Partners. The Offerors should submit no more than three (3) projects that represent the Offeror as whole to clearly demonstrate the requirements in all categories.

Offeror’s Question: If the Design Build Prime Contractor is a General Contractor with a design consultant subcontracted and under a teaming agreement can one of the 3 projects be a design project? Or can the designer submit 3 projects along with the contractor for a total of 6 projects.

Government’s Response: Offerors can submit up to three (3) projects that are able to demonstrate meeting the requirements in each of the categories. Submitted projects shall not exceed the maximum number stated in the Request for Qualifications (Phase I).

Offeror’s Question: Can the Proposing contractor submit more than 3 projects? If the answer is yes can the google forms including the project relevancy form be modified to accommodate more than 3 projects. Can google form prior experience working together also be modified to accommodate more projects. Page 12 factor 2

Government’s Response: Only a maximum of 3 projects will be accepted and reviewed. Submitted projects shall not exceed the maximum number stated in the Request for Qualifications (Phase I).

The Offeror should identify the 3 projects which are most relevant to meeting the submission requirements, demonstrate the characteristics, and consider the evaluation criteria covered in Section II.D.2.A.

Subfactor 1 – Past Performance on pages 12-14.

Offeror’s Question: Are resumes required for key trade partners? This is in reference to Mechanical, plumbing, Electrical and Fire Protection per section C page 10.?

Government’s Response: No, resumes are not required for Key Trade Partners. Refer to II.D.2.B.c Key Trade Partners “Submission Requirements” on page 17 which states:

“Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative highlighting all Key Trade Partners on the Offeror’s team. List the Key Trade Partner organization, key contact, trade description, and paragraph describing their experience with design-build.”

Offeror’s Question: In factor 1 subfactor c. page 11 the RFP states:

“The design-build process must not interfere or inhibit the opportunity for subcontractors to compete for subcontracts openly and freely. “this is contradictory to the approach of getting key partners in the trades to collaborate to help develop a design to budget.

Further innovation that may be provided by a key subcontractor may be considered proprietary and they would not want their concept or approach to be shared with others in an open bidding market after design. Can this section be re worded it does not appear to be appropriate for this stage of down selection?

Government’s Response: The paragraph has been updated to specify that it is in reference to the Buy American requirements and the language “The design-build process must not interfere or inhibit the opportunity for subcontractors to compete for subcontracts openly and freely.” Has been removed. See updated paragraph II.D.1.c. Procurement Strategy annotated on page 2 of this amendment.

Offeror’s Question: In section c. page 17 key trade partners. The Design Builder is evaluated based on listing of key trade partners.

This seems to contradict the language on page 11 guiding the DB lead to not inhibit opportunities to compete for subcontracts. Please revise the language as not to conflict with other sections of the solicitation.

Government’s Response: The Procurement Strategy paragraph has been updated to specify that it is in reference to the Buy American requirements and the language “The design-build process must not interfere or inhibit the opportunity for subcontractors to compete for subcontracts openly and freely.” Has been removed. See updated paragraph II.D.1.c. Procurement Strategy annotated on page 2 of this amendment.

Offeror’s Question: Has a Special Management Area (SMA) use permit and Shoreline Setback Assessment been granted for this project? Will the scope of work described require the application and approval of an SMA permit?

Government’s Response: NOAA is in early consultation with the State of Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program to be in compliance with the

CZM Act. Coordination is ongoing at this time; however, the RFP Phase II portion will provide guidance on the requirements for the Design- Build to be in compliance with the state CZM program.

Offeror’s Question: Based on the age of some buildings on the current campus, will the work on the existing structures require State Historic Preservation Department (SHPD) approval?

Government’s Response: NOAA is currently in Section 106 consultation with the State and coordination is ongoing at this time. However, Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process will provide guidance on requirements for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with this requirement.

Offeror’s Question: Has a resilience certification or standard been considered for the design, which may yield a better return on investment and long-term beneficial results than LEED certification?

Government’s Response: The goal for the Project is to achieve as energy efficient facility as possible and a minimum of LEED Silver certification. Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide further guidance on additional goals, preferences and minimum requirements. Nothing would preclude Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II from proposing design and certifications beyond the minimum requirement, after meeting the minimum of LEED Silver certification; however, it will be up to the Offeror to demonstrate the benefits when considered against all RFP Evaluation Criteria and the project budget.

Offeror’s Question: What is the lab space used for? What requirements does it need to meet? What type of equipment is used? Does it need to be certified?

Government’s Response: In reference to Statement of Work Abstract, Section 1.1 General Project Background, the existing “lab space” in the Classroom Building is a wet lab space that would at most be classified as Biosafety Level-1 (BSL-1) used for marine biology research.

Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, provides a detailed set of functional and performance requirements, including room data sheets, desired adjacencies, and opportunities for flexible/multi-purpose functions.

Offeror’s Question: Will the government extend the due date 2 weeks to give offerors time to find compliant key personnel and fill out all required forms?

Government’s Response: The Government will extend the current due date for phase I responses to July 3, 2025 at 3:00 PM EST.

Offeror’s Question: Please clarify whether the boat shelter at the Kihei site is confirmed for inclusion or remains an optional betterment. If optional, when will NOAA determine its inclusion?

Government’s Response: This question is not relevant to the RFQ, Phase I solicitation.

Guidance and details on the scope of work with options identified will be provided during Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process to the no more than three (3) Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Is there a preferred sequencing for the three buildings (Learning Center, Classroom Building, Visitor Center), or may the Offeror propose the most efficient phasing plan?

Government’s Response: Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide the no more than three (3) selected Offerors the requirements and guidance on preferences for construction phasing, staging, which will be evaluated during Phase II RFP evaluation criteria.

Offeror’s Question: Will a geotechnical report be provided during Phase I or Phase II for use in foundation and stormwater planning?

Government’s Response: A 2002 Geotechnical Report utilized for the design of the Learning Center building will be provided as part of Phase II and the RFP. The completeness and suitability for the Design- Build contractors proposed technical is not warranted nor guaranteed;

the geotechnical report is provided for informational purposes only.

Offeror’s Question: Are there any FEMA flood zone designations for the project site that must be addressed in the design?

Government’s Response: Compliance with requirements for activities within the 100-year floodplain is in progress. The RFP Phase II portion will provide guidance, if applicable, for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with any additional floodplain requirements.

Offeror’s Question: Has a hazardous materials survey been performed for any or all buildings? If so, please provide the results.

Government’s Response: Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II, will be provided with additional details on the RFP and available technical documents. Available hazardous material survey will be provided to selected Offerors during Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Are there any preferred technologies, vendors, or standards NOAA would like considered for PV system replacement?

Government’s Response: Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance and requirements for solar and photovoltaic systems to the no more than three (3) Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

In identifying Key Trade Partners, the Offeror is to review the requirements in Section II.D.1.c. Factor 1: Fundamental Qualifications, Procurement Strategy (i.e., The Buy America policy) and characteristics described throughout the Phase I solicitation (e.g., resilience, high-performance, long-term durability, ease of maintenance, efficiency, etc.)

Offeror’s Question: Beyond LEED, does NOAA intend to pursue any additional certifications (e.g., WELL, SITES, Living Building Challenge)?

Government’s Response: The goal for the Project is to achieve as energy efficient facility as possible and a minimum of LEED Silver certification. Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide further guidance on additional goals, preferences and minimum requirements. Nothing would preclude Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II from proposing design and certifications beyond the minimum requirement, after meeting the minimum of LEED Silver certification; however, it will be up to the Offeror to demonstrate the benefits when considered against all RFP Evaluation Criteria and the project budget.

Offeror’s Question: Subfactor 1, b) Most Relevant Project Narrative, the RFP requests “project profile number.” Can the government please clarify?

Government’s Response: Section II.D.2.A.b. Most Relevant Project Narrative request for “project profile number” is in reference to Attachment 4 Project Profile Form (Google Form) which the Offeror is to utilize to submit three (3) past projects. A required field in this form asks the Offerors to “Please Provide the Project Number”. The intent is for the Offeror to provide a narrative to highlight 1 of 3 submitted projects and how this project is most closely related to the project described in this RFQ.

Offeror’s Question: How should Offerors address optional betterments in Phase I as additive alternates, separate narratives, or cost breakouts?

Government’s Response: This question is not relevant to the RFQ, Phase I solicitation.

Guidance and details on the scope of work, including options and vendor-proposed betterments will be provided during Phase II of the two-phase design-build solicitation process to the no more than three

(3) Offerors selected to proceed to Phase II.

Offeror’s Question: Several forms are Google forms that are filled out online. Are these to be printed out and submitted as part of the Phase I submission?

Government’s Response: No, google forms are only required to be submitted via the google form submission function. No additional copies are required to be submitted with the Offeror’s response.

Offeror’s Question: Will the government revisit the page limitations for Factor 2 of Phase I, including resumes? The page limitations provided don’t add up to 41 pages.

Government’s Response: Table 2 has been updated to allow for each individual resume to be up to 2 pages which correctly accounts for the 41 total page maximum.

Offeror’s Question: Will coordination with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) be required as part of the design or permitting process?

Government’s Response: NOAA is currently in Section 106 consultation with the State and coordination is ongoing at this time. However, Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance on requirements for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with this requirement.

Offeror’s Question: Does NOAA have operational energy use targets (e.g., EUI) or carbon reduction benchmarks for LEED Silver or higher compliance?

Government’s Response: Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide further guidance on additional goals, preferences and minimum requirements for energy performance beyond the minimum of LEED Silver Certification.

Offeror’s Question: Are archaeological services included in this contract?

Government’s Response: NOAA is currently in Section 106 consultation with the State and coordination is ongoing at this time. However, Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance on requirements for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with this requirement.

Whether or not the Phase II RFP explicitly states requirements for archaeological services. The technical solution and design proposed by the Offeror may drive the requirement for archaeological services which the Offeror will need to consider and provide in Phase II of the solicitation (e.g., Design-Builder proposed design and construction limits of disturbance extends into areas that would require archaeological monitoring).

Offeror’s Question: Has section 106 and/or 6E consultation with SHPD occurred yet?

Government’s Response: NOAA is currently in Section 106 consultation with the State and coordination is ongoing at this time. However, Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance on requirements for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with this requirement.

Offeror’s Question: Will the contractor handle the section 106/6E consultation, if it has not been initiated?

Government’s Response: NOAA is currently in Section 106 consultation with the State and coordination is ongoing at this time. However, Phase II, of the two-phase design-build solicitation process, will provide guidance on requirements for the Design-Build project to be in compliance with this requirement.

Offeror’s Question: The solicitation states the following on page 9:

It additionally states the following on page 11:

d. Legal Structure: Describe the Design-Build Team’s legal structure;

integrated Design-Builder, joint venture, limited liability company, corporation, prime-sub-contractor or others.

Joint Venture Additional Requirements:

1. All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability of authority for each member.

2. An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the submission accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

3. Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

4. Statement confirming the Joint Venture Agreement does not limit a party’s performance or financial

Our joint venture agreement will be several pages long as it is nearly impossible to provide a 1 page Joint Venture agreement. The three signatures alone takes up an entire page.

How should we submit our multi-page joint venture agreement so as to remain compliant with our phase 1 submittal?

Government’s Response: Table 2 is updated to show that the JV’s are only required to provide evidence of an approved JV Agreement see updated language at II.D.1.d.1.